Collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008 will in 40-50 years
probably lead to the collapse of USA-led global neoliberal empire
The deep analogy exists between collapse of neoliberalism and dissolution of the USSR. When ideology became discredited, the social
system based on it enters zombie state. Such a state can't last forever and eventually collapses. Neoliberalism which entered zombie state in 2008 now is more cruel and bloodthirsty then
before
The term “Neoliberalism” is not simply a catch-all term for pro-market policies, deregulation,
globalization and the rule of financial oligarchy. Important part of the term in Thatcher's TINA -- the idea if inevitability of
adoption of neoliberal ideology by failing social democratic parties, which now are almost everywhere are detached from trade unions
and are controlled by financial oligarchy. In the USA this transition was accomplished by Clinton, in GB by Blair. At this point
neoliberalism quietly hijected the state and started to dismantle the New Deal Capitalism
and introduce markets where they are were never used and never was successful, for example in education, healthcare, railroads, etc.
Which logically led to the global financial crisis of 2008 -- the crisis that completely discredited the neoliberal ideology (as
well as the idea of financial markets self-regulation), but after which neoliberalism as social system continued to exist and
prosper in "zombie", more bloodthirsty state (somewhat similar to the fact that Bolshevism existed in zombie state from 1945 to
1991, counterattacking in Hungary, Chechoslovakia, and Poland). For neoliberal politicians competition is the only legitimate
organizing principle for human activity. As Dani Rodrik explained The
Guardian
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.
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.
...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.
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.”
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. Disappointment would be an understatement: the complete
wreckage of economic, social, and political life would be more accurate. In each of these arenas, looking at the outcomes that
neoliberalism delivered increasingly called into question the worldview itself.
Start with the economy. Over the course of the neoliberal era, economies around the world have become more and more unequal. In
the United States, the wealthiest 1 percent took home about 8.5 percent of the national income in 1976. After a generation of
neoliberal policies, in 2014 they captured more than 20 percent of national income. In Britain, the top 1 percent captured more
than 14 percent of national income—more than double the amount they took home in the late 1970s. The story is the same in
Australia: The top 1 percent took about 5 percent of national income in the 1970s and doubled that to 10 percent by the late
2000s. As the rich get richer, wages have been stagnant for workers since the late 1970s. Between 1979 and 2008, 100 percent of
income growth in the U.S. went to the top 10 percent of Americans. The bottom 90 percent actually saw a decline in their income.
Derivatives speculation alone under the deregulated “too big to fail” banking system has resulted in over $1.5
quadrillion in nominal values which have ZERO connection to the real world (GDP globally barely accounts for $80
trillion). Over the past 5 months
$415 billion of QE bailouts have been released into the bankrupt banks to prevent a collapse. So, economically it’s
foundation of sand.
Militarily, the West in general and the USA specifically has followed the path of Roman empire by overextending itself
beyond capacity, relying too much of (expensive) mercenaries and brute military force which created situations of global turmoil, death and unbounded resentment at the dominant Anglo American
powers (including NATO) and the USA Military-industrial complex.
As the most recent transformation of capitalism, neoliberalism is a broad economic and political project of restoring class power
of financial oligarchy it enjoyed in 20th of XX century (financial revanchism). It involved consolidation, globalization and
rapid concentration of financial capital (Giroux 2008; 2014). Both neoliberal governments and authoritarian societies
share one important self-destructive trait: They care only about consolidating power in the hands of the financial elite, common
people be damned. As such it is not a sustainable social system, although this does not mean that the replacement will
be better. It well can be worse.
In any case financial oligarchy proved to be the most criminal and vile part of capitalism class. Probably more vile then limitary
industrial complex. The most close to the organized crime. So the fact that they will drive the societies which allowed them to rule
of the cliff is govern. Neoliberalism was a toxic ideology designed specifically to restore the power of financial oligarchy and as
such it has no staying power. It is unable to improve the standard of living of the majority of the population as it is
oriented on looting of this majority by the financial oligarchy without any interference from the state. The peak power of
neoliberal ideology was the decade of 1990-2000. during this decade the standard of living of working and middle class of the
USA was sustained by looting the xUSSR area as well as computer and telecommunication revolution, which partially compensated the
deindustrialization trend.
After that neoliberalism experienced series of shocks:
Dot com bubble
Bursting of the subprime mortgage bubble, devaluation of CDOs and the collapse of financial industry. Government bailout at a
huge cost instead of deep reforms of financial sector (Obama was really a traitor of his class and his race) . That was a
knockdown, but not a knockout. This crisis buried the neoliberal ideology, much like WWII buried Bolsheviks ideology. At
this point neoliberalism entered zombie stage, much like Bolshevism in late forties.
Election of Trump and rejection of candidate of neoliberal elite -- Hillary Clinton by the majority of the US electorate.
Color revolution against Trump by intelligence agencies and Clinton wing of the Democratic Party which further delegitimized
neoliberal elite. Epstein scandal.
Unleashing by Trump administration of the trade war with China and end of "classic neoliberalism" globalization period.
Defeat of the USA in Afghanistan and realization that the dominance of Atlantic nations (G7) is coming to the end
(Macron remarks to European diplomats immediately after the
Group of 7 summit in Biarritz is a nice illustration here)
As an ideology, neoliberalism consider profit-making to be the final arbiter and essence of democracy ("market fundamentalism").
Like Fascism and Bolshevism neoliberalism relies on the power of the state for pushing neoliberal "reforms" and the
relentless brainwashing of the population by neoliberal propaganda (including indoctrination of the university students via
neoclassical economy courses). So democracy
under neoliberalism is just a fig leaf covering dictatorship of financial oligarchy ("inverted
totalitarism'). Despite smoke screen of "free market" rhetoric neoliberal are statists par excellence. But this is
covered by thick smoke screen of propaganda, which in its intensity, penetration and the level of deception outdo Bolsheviks
propaganda by an order of magnitude approaching the level described in
Brave New World dystopia. In other words neoliberal population is a thoroughly brainwashed population.
There no surprise that the majority of the USA population
hate it which in this USA
resulted in the election of Trump and is GB in Brexit. Neoliberalism's sale of state assets, offshored jobs, stripped services,
poorly-invested infrastructure and armies of the forcibly unemployed have delivered, not promised "efficiency" and "flexibility" to
communities, but discomfort and misery. The wealth of a few has now swelled to a level of conspicuousness that must politely be
considered
vulgar,
yet the neoliberal ideology and perverted neoliberal rationality entrenched itself so deeply in how governments make decisions and allocate resources.
To the extent that one of propagandists of neoliberalism once declared its triumph "the end of history".
From the late 1980s to 2016, neoliberal ideas held hegemonic sway among both the Democratic elite and the Republican elite in the
USA. But election of Trump was a sign of the legitimization of the neoliberal elite and a really serious crack in the neoliberal facade.
Which neoliberal elite tried to patch with the campaign of virulent Russophobia (aka RussiaGate.) Moreover intelligence
agencies and Clinton wing of Democratic Party tried to reverse the results of the elections by unleashing the color revolution
against Trump.
Unlike fascism and bolshevism which both relied on population mobilization, neoliberalism tried to emasculate citizens
suppressing political activity by treating them as just a consumers. In other words it promote political passivity and replacement
of real political struggle by colorful spectacle like wrestling in WWE. Consumption is the only legitimate form of activity of
citizens under neoliberalism and exercising of their choice during this consumption is the only desirable political activity.
With the related religious belief that the market can both solve all problems and serve as a model for structuring all social
relations (the idea of "self-regulating market," to use
Karl Polanyi's phrase.)
The resulting grinding mass unemployment — with only tiny remnants of New Deal protection mechanisms to soften the blow — created political
instability that destroyed any chances of Clinton Wing of Dems for reelection in 2016.
As the mode of governance, neoliberalism produces the way of life driven by a survival-of-the fittest ethic, grounded in the
idea of the free, predatory individual in economic jungles. And it declared the moral the right of ruling groups and
institutions to exercise power ignoring issues of ethics and social costs (variant of "might is right" mentality).
Epstein scandal (or more correctly the fact that Epstein was not ostracized after his initial conviction and prison term) is
just extreme demonstration of this mentality.
In the area of
economic policies such mentality tend to produce an economy with highly unequal incomes, prevalence of monopolies and high business
concentration, unstable booms, and long, painful busts.
As the political project, it involves the privatization of public services, the dismantling of the connection of private issues
and public problems, the selling off of state functions, liberalization of trade in goods and capital investment, the eradication of
government regulation of financial institutions and corporations, the destruction of the welfare state and unions, and the complete
"marketization" and "commodification" of social relations.
Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural apparatus and public pedagogy in which
individuals can only view themselves as consumers, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and supplant
issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism and the belief that all social relation be judged
according to how they further one’s individual needs and self-interests.
Matters of mutual caring, respect, and compassion for the other have given way to the limiting orbits of privatization and
unrestrained self-interest, just as it has become increasingly difficult to translate private troubles into larger social,
economic, and political considerations. As the democratic public spheres of civil society have atrophied under the onslaught of
neoliberal regimes of austerity, the social contract has been either greatly weakened or replaced by savage forms of casino
capitalism, a culture of fear, and the increasing use of state violence.
One consequence is that it has become more difficult for people to debate and question neoliberal hegemony and the widespread
misery it produces for young people, the poor, middle class, workers, and other segments of society — now considered disposable
under neoliberal regimes which are governed by a survival-of-the fittest ethos, largely imposed by the ruling economic and
political elite.
That they are unable to make their voices heard and lack any viable representation in the process makes clear the degree to
which young people and others are suffering under a democratic deficit, producing what Chantal Mouffe calls “a profound
dissatisfaction with a number of existing societies” under the reign of neoliberal capitalism (Mouffe 2013:119). This is one
reason why so many youth, along with workers, the unemployed, and students, have been taking to the streets in Greece, Mexico,
Egypt, the United States, and England.
Neoliberalism is the second after Marxism social system that was "invented" by a group of intellectuals (although there was not a
single dominant individual among them) and implemented via
coup d'état. ( Installed from above by a "quite coup") Although is formally
only around 40 years old (if we count the age of neoliberalism from the election of Reagan, which means from 1981) neoliberalism as
ideology was born much earlier, around in 1947. And the first neoliberal US president was not Reagan, but Jimmy Carter.
In any case in 2008 it already reached the stage of discreditation of its ideology. When ideology became discredited, the social
system based on it enters zombie state. That happened with Bolshevism after its victory on the WWII when it became evident that
the working class does not represent the new dominant class and communist party is unable to secure neither higher productivity of
economics, nor higher standard of living for people then the advanced capitalist societies. Soviet soldiers in 1944-1945 saw
the standard of living in Poland (which was Russian province before the revolution, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Austria and started
to suspect the dream of building communist society was just another "opium for the people", the secular religion which hides the
rule of "nomenklatura".
Later the Soviet intelligencia realized that The Iron Law of Oligarchy
in applicable to the USSR no less that to any Western country. We probably can assume that Soviet ideology entered zombies
state in 1945, or may be later in 1963 (with
Khrushchev Thaw) when it became clear that the USSR will never match the standard of living of the USA population and most of
Western European countries (which paradoxically was the result of the existence of the USSR and which entered the decline after the
USSR dissolution) . Illusions of the possibility of global Communist hegemony had evaporated with the collapse of Sino-Soviet
relations (also the 1960s.) Around 1975, the Soviet Union entered a period of economic stagnation from which it never emerged.
Due to this the USSR looked to Europe, primarily West Germany, to provide hard currency financing through massive loans, while the
US became a major supplier of grain.
All in all the story of the USSR collapse suggests that after the ideology was discredited the society, which was based on it,
can last several decades, or even half a century (The USSR lasted another 28-46 years (depending on the point at which you
assume the ideology was completely discredited). The sad story of the USSR after 1963 does suggests that if the ideology is
"man made" like is both the case with Marxism and neoliberalism, the collapse of ideology is the prolog to the subsequent collapse
of the society (even if with a substantial lag). The collapse of such a society is inevitable. It is just a matter of time.
Neoliberal society probably has at least the same staying power as Bolshevism. Probably more. So we can expect that after
2008 -- when the ideology was discredited and neoliberalism entered zombie stage it will last around 50 years. If not more. The key
fact that might speed up the collapse of neoliberalism is the end of cheap oil. As soon as the price of one barrel of oil exceeds
some magic number (different researchers cite figures from $70 to $120; let's assume $100 per barrel) the USA like the USSR will
enter the period of stagnation from which it might never emerge without dismantling neoliberalism first.
So the crisis of neoliberalism as ideology doers not signify the death of neoliberal as a social system. It will continue to
exist in zombie state for some time. A development that some will indeed see as a curse, others as a blessing. Many people after
2008 declared that neoliberalism is dead or seen to be in its death throes. Many obituaries of finance capitalism and global free
trade were written in 2008-2012. Nevertheless, neoliberalism has shown itself to be resilient and remains the dominant social system
around the world( this resilience was called by Colin Crouch "the strange non-death of neoliberalism".)
The USSR managed to survive in a very hostile international environment more then 40 years (1945-1991) after Bolshevism was dead
as an ideology. Absence of hostile environment, as well as the lack of alternative social system might prolong the life of
neoliberalism. Also one advantage neoliberalism enjoyed is that collapse of the USSR was prompted by the ascendance of neoliberalism
and betrayal of Soviet nomenklatura (which correctly decided that they will be better off under neoliberalism, then under Brezhnev
socialism) is that socialism was discredited. Also unlike KGB brass, which was instrumental in transition of the xUSSR
space from Brezhnev socialism to neoliberalism (with the first stage of gangster capitalism) the USA and GB intelligence agencies
(actually all five eyes intelligence agencies) still is ready to defend neoliberalism, as color revolution against Trump had shown.
However, Brexit (and the election of Jeremy Corbyn as head of Labor) and the movements surrounding Bernie Sanders and Donald
Trump in the United States are each in their own way symptomatic of a turning of the political tide against neoliberalism,
especially such features as hyper-globalization and deregulation of financial markets. The benefits of free trade – of goods,
services and capital – and outsourcing of labor to low-cost destinations are now being challenged across the political spectrum.
That means that the crisis of neoliberalism turned from the stage of purely intellectual problems (collapse and
discreditation of the ideology) to the stage of rising political challenges. Under Trump the effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda
declined and start approaching the effectiveness of Soviet propaganda under Brezhnev. Neoliberal MSM are viewed by the majority of
population of "fake news" -- the label in popularization of which Trump played an important role. Even "leading neoliberal
economists" like Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs and Thomas Piketty started voicing concerns. Rising inequality
lessen the cohesion of neoliberal societies and created social tensions within them as we see in Marcon France. Even top
economist from the IMF have recently acknowledged that neoliberalism has been “oversold”.
But we still do not see social system that will replace neoliberalism yet. And that might prolog the life neoliberalism to
the upper limit of the suggested range Meantime the crisis of neoliberalism created preconditions for the rise of far right
movements and switch to "national neoliberalism" (or neoliberalism without globalization). Much like Stalinism was socialism within
one given country with Trotsky idea of permanent world revolution till final victory of socialism sent to the dustbin). It is an
interesting theoretical question if "national neoliberalism" promoted by Trump can be viewed as a flavor of neoliberalism or a
flavor of neofascism. If the latter then neoliberalism already died around 2016 and existed in its classic form just 30 years or so.
I doubt that we can do such equivalence.
At the current stage collapse of neoliberalism, if we can use this word, is still very slow and almost invisible. Brexit
and election of Trump in the USA are probably the first two most notable events after 2008 that can be interpreted as such. Both
undermined "neoliberal globalization" -- one of the key components of neoliberalism, because like Communism before it is about
building a global neoliberal empire (led by the USA financial oligarchy in close cooperation of other western oligarchies), without
state borders.
Still "Great recession" which started in 2008 is the fact of life. Nations took various roads out of the Great Depression
and that's probably will be true for the Great Recession. Some used deficit spending and the abandonment of the gold standard,
which had to overcome resistance from business. In Germany, fascism removed "capitalist objections to full employment,"
wrote economist Michal Kalecki, by routing all
deficit spending into rearmament and by keeping labor quiescent with political repression and permanent dictatorship.
We can envision the same process of the growing level of repression in the USA due to the growing gap between
ideology postulates and the real life conditions, especially falling standard of living for most of the people (let's say, lower 80%
in the USA. Top 20% including large part of "professional" class are doing just fine, much like nomenklatura in the USSR).
In the United States, the replacement ideology for unregulated capitalism on the early 20th was the New Deal. After some initial
failed experimentation with planning, New Dealers settled on a framework of stimulus, regulation, unionization, progressive
taxation, and anti-trust, heavily influenced by Louis Brandeis. To get people back to work and prime the economic pump, vast new
public works were built, and millions were directly employed by the state. Business — especially finance — was regulated, above all
to prevent concentration. Unions were protected under a new legal regime created by the National Labor Relations Act. Taxes on the
rich were sharply increased, both to raise revenue and to deliberately prevent the accumulation of vast fortunes. Finally, world
trade was managed under the Bretton-Woods system. New Deal ideology did not win at once and in 1937, FDR reversed the course and
went back to austerity, instantly throwing millions out of work, and forcing him to return to deficit spending. It took the WWII war
spending in 1941-1945 to entrench the New Deal and to eliminate mass unemployment. War also created the political space for
Roosevelt to raise the top tax bracket to 94%. Think about it. Less then a century ago the top tax bracket in the USA was 94%. The
erosion of the New Deal started almost immediately. For example, in 1847 trade union power was undercut by
Taft–Hartley Act.
The New Deal framework held for about three decades after the end of the war — during which time the country also had the
greatest economic boom in American history. Critically, this time the fruits of growth were also broadly shared. For all the many
faults in the New Deal, in this period America was reformed from a country which functioned mostly on behalf of a tiny elite into
one which functioned on behalf of a sizable chunk of population.
In this sense ascendance of neoliberalism was a counter-revolution against New Deal staged by financial elite: fundamental
economic bedrock is quite similar: deregulation, tax and spending cuts, union busting, and free trade. Its adherents resurrected the
idea of the self-regulating market, creating an elaborate mathematic model in which depressions were always the result of structural
problems, the economy is always at full employment, and nothing could be changed without making someone else worse off. Once again,
the political message was that regulations and taxation should be kept as low as possible.
A generation of economists centered around the Chicago School, including Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Robert Lucas,
provided the intellectual backbone, gaining strength in the 1950s and '60s. They argued that New Deal structures were a drag on
economic growth, and that taxes, regulation, and social insurance needed to be cut. America simply couldn't afford the strangling
red tape and high taxes of the New Deal. And this time, they assured everyone, things would be different — no 1929-style crash would
be in the cards. That was all a very clever deception, propaganda design at restoring the power of financial oligarchy
undermined by the New Deal capitalism and increasing the rate of profits via financialization of everything. Plus a dream of world
neoliberal revolution taken directly from Trotskyite books (Neoliberalism can be viewed as a
Trotskyism for the rich)
Neoliberals' opportunity came in the 1970s, when the world economy ran into difficulties and at the center of those difficulties
was the rising price of oil. War spending, the baby boom coming of age, and the oil shocks created serious inflation and pushed the
USA into a trade deficit, which broke the Bretton-Woods system. Profits declined and big business mobilized against labor and trade
unions. The first wave of de-industrialization in the USA and offshoring of factories to Asia hit manufacturing.
I wonder if oil can serve as the grave digger of neoliberalism this time.
Like all analogies it far from being perfect. Here are major objections:
When the USSR collapsed neoliberal ideology was a clear alternative and the collapse of the USSR coincided with "triumphal
march" of neoliberalism around the globe. In a sense the USSR simply fall on the rails of the neoliberal train.
Right now we do not see such a prominent alternative to the dominant neoliberal ideology, although it is clear that it is
wrong and that neoliberal promise that high inequality speeds up economic development and "rising tide lifts all bots" proved to
be a fake. But right now neoliberalism is still social system that is dominant globally (BTW this is true not only
for the USA and Western Europe, but also for Russia and China). Even after 2008 it managed to counterattack in Argentina
and Brazil.
Neoliberalism exists without major geopolitical threat, unlike Soviet Union which existed in the hostile surrounding
of major Western powers with their three letter agencies directly targeting this society. The "collective West" used huge money resources of
Western financial system against the USSR, limit access to technology and scientific exchange, and created constant threat of
the mere survival which justified huge military expenses (which in turn entrenched Soviet military-industrial complex which
starved the civil society) and the burning desire (especially by the US neoliberal elite, which came to power in 1980 ) to get rid
of competition by any means possible.
While Trump administration reminds in its incompetence Brezhnev administration, the gap is still tremendous. While
Trump is definitely a third rate politician, Gorbachov as a politician was simply a naive (and probably bought) idiot. In
comparison with him Trump looks like a shrewd statesman (or, at least, a staunch nationalist.) Unless we assume that "Gorby"
(cultivated by his handler Margaret Thatcher) was a traitor (the version that became increasingly popular in post Soviet space
after 1991). But the complete absence of political talent (Gorbachov came to power as a protégé of Andropov) is still the
primary suspect, because you should not assume sinister motives when incompetence is enough for the explanation of the events (
The Soviet collapse Contradictions
and neo-modernization ):
The main charge that may be laid against Gorbachev as leader is that he lacked an effective strategy of statecraft:
the mobilization of resources to make a country more self-confident, more powerful, more respected and more prosperous.
Instead, Gorbachev frittered away the governmental capital accumulated by the Soviet regime, and in the end was unable to
save the country which he had attempted to reform.
Despite all difficulties the USA remains the owner of world reserve currency and the center of technological innovation
(although in the later role it somewhat slipped). It military spending (which stimulate fundamental research) remains the
largest in the world. The country still remains the magnet for immigration from other countries.
Geographic location of the USA is such that it has no rivals that share common border.
There one, especially deep analogy between any neoliberal society and the USSR. Neoliberalism borrowed large part of its strategy
and tactic of acquiring and maintaining power directly from Marxism, specifically from the flavor of Marxism, which
partially originated (and remained popular until late 1940th) in the USA, and called Trotskyism (which Trotsky was a Russia émigré,
he spend his formative years in the USA). Actually analogies with Marxism are to numerous to list.
The first notable analogy is the slogan "Dictatorship of "free markets"" instead of "dictatorship of proletariat." With the
same idea that the driving force of this social transformation is the intellectual "vanguard" recruited mainly from "Intelligentsia"
(mainly right wing economists and philosophers of the
Mont Pelerin Society created in `947 with the
explicit goal to oppose socialism and Bolshevism) will drive steeple to the "bright future of all mankind" -- global neoliberal
empire led by the USA. And that the end justifies the means.
In short, neoliberalism is a kind of "Trotskyism for rich." And
it uses the same subversive tactics to get and stay in power, which were invented by Bolsheviks/Trotskyites. Including full scale
use of intelligence agencies (during WWII Soviet intelligence agency -- NKDV -- rivaled the primary intelligence agencies of Nazi
Germany -- Abwehr; CIA was by-and-large modeled on
Abwehr with Abwerh specialists directly participating in its creation ). It also process the ideal of World Revolution --
with the goal of creating the global neoliberal empire. The neoliberal USA elite is hell-bent on this vision.
Like Trotskyism neoliberalism generally needs a scapegoat. Currently this role is served by Islamic fundamentalist movements. But
recently Russia emerged like more convenient scapegoat, at least for "CIA democrats" like Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Also like Bolshevism before, neoliberalism created its own "nomenklatura" -- the privileged class which exists outside the domain
of capital owners. Which along with high level management and professionals include neoclassical academic economists. Who guarantee
the level of brainwashing at the universities necessary for maintaining the neoliberal system. This "creator class" fight for
its self-preservation and against any challenges. Often quite effectively.
Yet another strong analogy is that the deification of markets much like the idea of "dictatorship of proletariat" is "fools
gold". This fact was clearly established after the Great Recession, and one of the most succinct explanation of
the stupidity of the idea of self-regulating market remains Karl Polanyi's famous book
The Great Transformation. Polanyi argued that the development of the modern state went hand in hand with the development of
modern market economies and that these two changes were inextricably linked in history. And all talk about small state, state as
"night watchman" are pure hypocrisy. Like Marxism, neoliberalism really provides "the great transformation" because it both
changes the human institutions and human morality. The latter in a very destructive way. The book postulated that and "free
market society" (where the function of social regulation is outsourced to the market forces) is unsustainable because it
is fatally destructive to human nature and the natural social contexts humans need to survive and prosper.
Polanyi attempted to turn the tables on the orthodox liberal account of the rise of capitalism by arguing that “laissez-faire
was planned”, whereas social protectionism was a spontaneous reaction to the social dislocation imposed by an unrestrained free
market. He argues that the construction of a "self-regulating" market necessitates the separation of society into economic and
political realms. Polanyi does not deny that the self-regulating market has brought "unheard of material wealth", but he
suggests that this is too narrow a focus. The market, once it considers land, labor and money as "fictitious commodities"
(fictitious because each possesses qualities that are not expressed in the formal rationality of the market), and including them
"means to subordinate the substance of society itself to the laws of the market. This, he argues, results in massive social
dislocation, and spontaneous moves by society to protect itself. In effect, Polanyi argues that once the free market attempts to
separate itself from the fabric of society, social protectionism is society's natural response, which he calls the "double
movement." Polanyi did not see economics as a subject closed off from other fields of enquiry, indeed he saw economic and
social problems as inherently linked. He ended his work with a prediction of a
socialist society, noting, "after a century of blind 'improvement', man is restoring his 'habitation.
But when 50 years passed and generation changed they manage to shove it down throat. Because the generation which experienced
horrors of the Great Depression at this point was gone (and that include cadre of higher level management which still have some
level of solidarity with workers against capital owners).
Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason—the powerful elites within them
overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a
tight-knit—and, most of the time, genteel—oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are
the controlling shareholders. When a country like Indonesia or South Korea or Russia grows, so do the ambitions of its captains
of industry. As masters of their mini-universe, these people make some investments that clearly benefit the broader economy, but
they also start making bigger and riskier bets. They reckon—correctly, in most cases—that their political connections will
allow them to push onto the government any substantial problems that arise.
Neoliberalism in zombie state (which it entered after 2008) remains dangerous and is able to counterattack
Unlike Bolshevism after 1945, neoliberalism in zombie state (which it entered after 2008) remains dangerous and is able to
counterattack -- the US sponsored efforts of replacement of left regimes in LA with right wing neoliberal regimes were by-and-large
successful. I two key LA countries neoliberalism successfully counterattacked and won political power deposing more left regimes
(Brazil and Argentina ). That happened despite that this phase of neoliberal era has been marked by slower growth, greater trade
imbalances, and deteriorating social conditions. In Latin America the average growth rate was lower by 3 percent per annum in the
1990s than in the 1970s, while trade deficits as a proportion of GDP are much the same. Contrary to neoliberal propaganda the past
25 years (1980–2005) have also characterized by slower progress on social indicators for the vast majority of low- and middle-income
countries [compared with the prior two decades (
https://monthlyreview.org/2006/04/01/neoliberalism-myths-and-reality/ ) :
In an effort to keep growing trade and current account deficits manageable, third world states, often pressured by the IMF and
World Bank, used austerity measures (especially draconian cuts in social programs) to slow economic growth (and imports). They
also deregulated capital markets, privatized economic activity, and relaxed foreign investment regulatory regimes in an effort
to attract the financing needed to offset the existing deficits. While devastating to working people and national development
possibilities, these policies were, as intended, responsive to the interests of transnational capital in general and a small but
influential sector of third world capital. This is the reality of neoliberalism.
The Soviet Union collapsed partially due to the fact that collapse of oil prices (which might be engineered event) deprived it of
the ability to buy the necessary goods from the West (which at this point included grain, due to inefficiency of Soviet model of
large centralized state owned agricultural complexes).
In case of the USA an opposite situation might also serve as a trigger: as soon as oil cross, say, $80 dollar per barrel mark
most Western economies slide in "secular stagnation" and that means growing discontent of lower 80% of population. Also as
globalization is inherently dependent on cheap hydrocarbons and disappearance of cheap oil will male the current international
patterns of flow of goods across countries with China as world manufacture open to review.
This is the situation when the irresistible force of globalization hits the brick wall of high oil prices. Also high cost of
hydrocarbons means "end of growth" (aka permanent stagnation), and neoliberalism financial schemes based on cheap credit
automatically implode in the environment of slow of zero growth. So expect that the next financial crisis will shake neoliberalism
stronger then the crisis of 2008.
A lot of debt becomes unplayable, if growth stagnates. That makes manipulation of GDP numbers the issue of political and economic
survival because this is the method of "inspiring confidence". And the temptation to inspire confidence is too great to
resists. Exactly like it was in the USSR.
It might well be that the consistent price of oil, say, over $120 is a direct threat to neoliberal project in the USA. Even with
prices over $100 the major neoliberal economics tend to enter the stage of "secular stagnation". It also makes the US military
which is a large consumer of oil in the USA much more expensive to run and virtually doubles the costs of neoliberal "wars for
regime change", essentially curtailing neoliberal expansion.
Election of Trump is just testament that some part of the US elite is ready for "Hail Mary" pass just to survive. The same
is true about financiering of color revolutions, which as a new type of neoliberal conquests of other countries, also require a lot
of cash, although not at the scale of "boots on the ground".
The implosion of the entire global banking/mortgage industry in 2008 has essentially delegitimized neoliberalism as an economic
and social model which the U.S. has been pleased to espouse as the royal road to prosperity for decades. It signified the end of
Washington Consensus.
At this point ideology of neoliberalism was completely discredited in a sense that promise prosperity for all via "free market"
mechanisms. The whole concept of "free markets" is from now on is viewed as fake. Much like happened with bolshevism in the USSR.
It actually was viewed as fake after the Great Depression too, but the generation that remembered that died out and neoliberalism
managed to perform its major coup d'état in the USA in 1981. After trail balls in Chile and GB.
Also its fake nature became evident to large part of global elite (which probably never have any illusions from the very
beginning) as well, which is even more dangerous, a large part of upper middle class in many developing countries, the social strata
from which "fifth column of neoliberal globalization" is typically recruited.
Global neoliberal empire still is supported by pure military and financial power of the USA and its Western (and some Asian, such
as Japan) allies as well as technological superiority of the West in general. So right now mainly ideological postulates of
neoliberalism, especially as its "free market absolutism", started to be questioned. And partially revised (the trend which is
visible in increase financial regulation in most Western countries). So "self-regulation free market model proved to be neither
self-regulating, not really free -- it just transferred the cost of its blunders on the society at large. This form of
neoliberalism with the core ideology intact but with modified one of several postulates can be called post-neoliberalism or zombie
neoliberalism.
While indoctrination now reached almost all adult population, there are some instances of resistance, especially among
young people, who are insisting that casino capitalism is an act of violence against them and destruction of their future. And if it
does not come to an end, what we might experience a mass destruction of human life if not the planet itself.
Both Obama and Trump proved to be masters of the "bait and switch" maneuver, but the anger of population did not dissipated and
at some point still can explode.
Rule of financial oligarchy also gradually comes under some (although very limited) scrutiny in the USA. Some measures to
restrict appetites of financial oligarchy were recently undertaken in Europe (bank bonuses limitations).
HFT and derivatives still remain off-reach for regulators despite JP Morgan fiasco in May 2012 in London branch. Trade loss was
around two billions, decline of bank value was around $13bn (The
Guardian) At this stage most people around the world realized that as Warren Buffett's right-hand man Charlie Munger quipped in
his CNBC interview
Trusting banks to self-regulate is like trusting to
self-regulate heroin addicts. At the meeting of the Group of 20 (G20) heads of states in the spring of 2009, British Prime
Minister Gordon Brown announced the death of “the Washington Consensus” — the famous list of market-liberalizing policy
prescriptions that guided the previous 20 or 30 years of neoliberal expansion into third world countries (Painter 2009).
Prominent economists in the United States and elsewhere pointed out that after decades of reform, market-liberalizing policies
had not produced the promised benefits for either economic growth or social welfare of countries were those policies were applied (Stiglitz
2002, 2006; Rodrik 2006). These criticisms further undermined the legitimacy of neoliberal governance, exactly the same way as
similar criticism undermined socialist model of the USSR and Eastern Europe. the problem is that while socialist experiment could be
compared with the Western countries capitalism achievement, here there is no alternative model with which to compare.
Still a backlash directed at the USA is mounting even from the former loyal vassals. Even the UK elite starts to display the
behavior that contradict its role of the US poodle. The atmosphere is which the USA is considered "guilty" of pushing though the
throats of other countries a utopia that harmed them is a different atmosphere for the US oligarchy that the role of it accustomed
to.
Everybody is now aware of the substantial costs that the modern financial system has imposed on the real economy and no amount of
propaganda and brainwashing can hide this simple fact. It is questionable that the "financial innovations" of the last three-four
decades can compensate for those huge costs and that they warrants those costs. Shocks generated within the financial system and
transformation of economies imposed by international financial oligarchy as the core of neoliberal elite, implies that the rule of
financial oligarchy creates negative externalities for societies and that some types of financial activities and some financial
structures should be treated like an organized crime (as purely parasitic, extortionist type of players).
Still this stage preserves several attributes of previous stage and first of all push for globalization and aggressive foreign
policy. While economic crisis of 2008 destroyed legitimacy of ideology of neoliberalism, neoliberalism as an ideology continue to
exists as a cult, much like communism as an ideology continues to exist, despite the failure of the USSR. And being phony ideology
from the very beginning, a smokescreen for the revanchism of financial oligarchy, it still can be promoted by unrelenting
propaganda machine of the same forces which put it into mainstream albeit with les efficiency.
While no viable alternatives emerged, and inertia is still strong, and G7 block with the USA as the head is still the dominant
world power, the crash are now visible in the global neoliberalism façade. Like in 20th failure the globalization and
unrestrained financial markets (which produced the Great Depression) the financial crisis of 2008 led to the dramatic rise of
nationalism, especially in Europe (France, Hungary, Ukraine). In some countries, such as Ukraine, the net result of neoliberal
revolution was establishing far right regime which has uncanny similarities to the régimes which came to power in 30th such as
Franco regime in Spain. The global neoliberal dominance as a social system still continues, it is just the central idea of
neoliberalism, the fake idea of self-regulating market that was completely discredited by the crisis (it was discredited before
during Great Depression, but the generation the remembered the lesson is now extinct (it looks like it takes approximately 50 years
for humanity to completely forget the lessons of history ;-).
This rise of nationalism was also a feature of the USSR political space in 80th. Formally it was nationalist sentiments that
buried the USSR.
Around the world, economists and policymakers now come to consensus that excessive reliance on unregulated financial markets and
the unrestrained rule of financial oligarchy was the root cause of the current worldwide financial crisis. That created a more
difficult atmosphere for the USA financial institutions to operate abroad. Several countries are now trying to limit role of dollar
as the world currency (one of the sins Saddam Hussein paid the price).
Also internal contradictions became much deeper and the neoliberal regime became increasingly unstable even in the citadel of
neoliberalism -- the USA. Like any overstretched empire it became hollow within with stretches on potholes ridden roads and decaying
infrastructure visible to everyone. Politically, the Republican Party became a roadblock for any meaningful reform (and its radical
wing -- the tea party even sending its representatives to Congress), the Party that is determined to rather take the USA the road of
the USSR, then change its ideology. All this points to the fact that neoliberalism as an socio-economic doctrine is following the
path of Bolshevism.
Neoliberalism failed to fulfill its promises for the bottom 80% of population. They became more poorer, job security
deteriorated, good jobs disappear, and even McJobs are scare judging from the fact that Wall Mart and McDonalds are able to fully
staff their outlets. McJobs are jobs that does not provide a living wages. Opiod epidemics reminds me epidemics of
alcoholism in the USSR during Brezhnev period. Cannabis legalization belong to the same trend.
But its media dominance of neoliberalism paradoxically continues unabated. And this is despite the fact that after the crisis of
2008, the notion that finance mobilizes and allocates resources efficiently, drastically reduces systemic risks and brings
significant productivity gains for the economy as a whole became untenable. We can expect that like was the case with Catholicism in
middle ages and Bolshevism in the USSR, zombie phase of neoliberalism can last many decades (in the USSR, "zombie" state lasted two
decades, say from 1970 to 1991, and neoliberalism with its emphasis on low human traits such as greed and supported by military and
economic power of the USA, is considerably more resilient then Bolshevism). As of 2013 it is still supported by elites of several
major western states (such as the USA, GB, Germany, France), transnational capital (and financial capital in particular) and
respective elites out of the sense of self-preservation. That means that is it reasonable to expect that its rule in G7 will
continue (like Bolshevism rule in the USSR in 70th-80th) despite probably interrupted by bursts of social violence (Muslim
immigrants in Europe are once such force).
In the US, for example, income and wealth inequality continue to increase, with stagnating middle-class earnings, reduced social
mobility, and an allegedly meritocratic higher education system, generously supported by tax exemptions, has been turned into the
system whose main beneficiaries are the children of the rich and successful. Superimposed on this class divide is an increasingly
serious intergenerational divide, and increases level of unemployment of young people, which make social atmosphere somewhat similar
to the one in Egypt, although the pressure from Muslim fundamentalists is absent.
More and more neoliberalism came to be perceived as a ruse intended to safeguard the interests of a malignantly narcissistic
empire (the USA) and of rapacious multinationals. It is now more and more linked with low-brow cultural homogeneity, social
Darwinism, encroachment on privacy, mass production of junk, and suppression of national sentiments and aspiration in favor of
transnational monopolies. It even came to be associated with a bewildering variety of social ills: rising crime rates, unemployment,
poverty, drug addiction, prostitution, organ trafficking, and other antisocial forms of conduct.
While ideology of neoliberalism is by-and-large discredited, the global economic institutions associated with its rise are not
all equally moribund. For example, the global economic crisis of 2008 has unexpectedly improved the fortunes of the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization long famous for the neoliberal policy conditions attached to its loans that served to
incorporate countries into a global neoliberal economic system. In 2008, a cascade of financial crises in Eastern Europe and Iceland
fattened the IMF’s dwindling loan portfolio.
World Trade Organization (WTO), the key US-used and abused universal opener of markets to US corporations and investments is in
worse shape then IMF, but still is able to enforce Washington consensus rules. The Doha round of negotiations is stalled, mostly due
to irresolvable disputes between developed and developing countries. Consequently, the current crisis of neoliberalism raises many
important questions about the future path of the current international institutions promoting the neoliberal order. But still Russia
joined WTO in 2012 which means that this organization got a new lease of life.
When ideology collapses the elite often resorts to corporatism (and in extreme case to neo-fascism) That happened briefly in the
USSR under Andropov, but he did not last long enough to establish a trend.
Trumps "national neoliberalism" (neoliberalism without neoliberal globalization) mixed with economic nationalism can be called
"neoliberalism in name only". Trump foreign economic policies look more and more like an economic aggression, economic racket, then
a neoliberal economic policy (which presuppose treating financial oligarchy of other countries as equals). Looks like Trump's
"national neoliberalism" became "Hail Mary pass" with which the US financial oligarchy seeks to
maintain at all costs it global dominance (The
Great Crash, 2008: A Geopolitical Setback for the West , Foreign Affairs)
The financial and economic crash of 2008, the worst in over 75 years, is a major geopolitical setback for the United States
and Europe. Over the medium term, Washington and European governments will have neither the resources nor the economic
credibility to play the role in global affairs that they otherwise would have played. These weaknesses will eventually
be repaired, but in the interim, they will accelerate trends that are shifting the world's center of gravity away from the
United States.
A brutal recession is unfolding in the United States, Europe, and probably Japan -- a recession likely to be more harmful than
the slump of 1981-82. The current financial crisis has deeply frightened consumers and businesses, and in response they have
sharply retrenched. In addition, the usual recovery tools used by governments -- monetary and fiscal stimuli -- will be
relatively ineffective under the circumstances.
This damage has put the American model of free-market capitalism under a cloud. The financial system is seen as having
collapsed; and the regulatory framework, as having spectacularly failed to curb widespread abuses and corruption. Now,
searching for stability, the U.S. government and some European governments have nationalized their financial sectors to a degree
that contradicts the tenets of modern capitalism.
Much of the world is turning a historic corner and heading into a period in which the role of the state will be larger
and that of the private sector will be smaller. As it does, the United States' global power, as well as the appeal of
U.S.-style democracy, is eroding.
The USSR occupation of Afghanistan was actually a trap created by Carter administration in order to weaken and possibly destroy
the USSR. They wanted that the USSR experienced its own Vietnam-style defeat. As a side effect they created political Islam
and Islam fundamentalist movement (exemplified by former CIA asset Osama bin Laden) that later bite them in the back.
The US elite got into this trap voluntarily after 9/11: first via occupations of Afghanistan (the war continues to this
day), then occupation of Iraq, Libya and initiating "color revolution" (and train and supply Sunni Islam fundamentalists, along with
KSA and Turkey) to depose Assad government in Syria.
The USA still remains the most powerful country in the world with formidable military, and still can dictate it will military for
small countries in a classic sense -- in a sense that "might makes right". It still can afford to behave as a word hegemon and
the only source of justice ignoring the UN and other International organization, unless it is convenient to them.
But there are costs attacked and in case of Iraq war they are already substantial (to the tune of several trillion dollars).
While effects on the USA economy of those set of wars of managing and expanding its neoliberal empire (and repartitioning ME,
securing oil access and repartitioning the region in favor of Israel regional interests) are still in the future, military
adventurism was a gravestone on many previous empires, which tend to overstretch themselves and this fasten their final day.
As Napoleon noted "You can do anything with bayonets, but you can't sit on them". having first class military weakens is
not everything when you face guerilla resistance in occupied country. Running aggressive foreign policy on a discredited ideology
and relying on blunt propaganda and false flag operations is a difficult undertaking as resistance mounts and bubble out in
un-anticipated areas.
Ukraine is one recent example, when neoliberal color revolution, which was performed by few thousands trained by the West far
right militants, including openly neo-fascist squads, led to civil war in the country. Syria is another case of unanticipated
effects, as Russia did not want to repeat experience of Libya and intervened, interfering with the USA goal of establishing
Sunni-based Islamist regime, subservant to KSA and Turkey, and/or dismembering the country and creating several weak
Sunny dominated statelets with jihadists in power, the situation which greatly benefit Turkey and Israel. Israel
correctly consider secular Assad régime as a greater threat and major obstacle in annexation of Golan Heights and eliminating
Hezbollah in Lebanon. It would prefer weak islamist regimes, hopefully engaged in protracted civil war to Assad regime any
time.
Unfortunately, the recent troika of "neoliberalized" countries -- Libya, Syria and Ukraine -- were not probably a
swan song of muscular enforcement of neoliberal model on other countries. While sponsored by the USA and allies anti-Putin putsch in
Russia (aka "white revolution") failed, events in Libya and, especially,
Ukraine prove the neoliberalism still can launch and win
offensives at relatively low, acceptable cost (via
color revolutions mechanism ). The main cost carry the population of the
target country which is plunged into economic and political chaos, in most cases including the civil war.
But in the USA those wars also somewhat backfire with broken domestic infrastructure, decaying bridges and angered, restless, and
partially drugged by opioids population. As well as thousands of crippled young men healthcare for whom till end of
their lives will cost large amount of money.
In such circumstances chances of raising to power of an openly nationalistic leader substantially increase. Which was already
demonstrated quite convincingly by the election of Trump.
Analogy of current crisis of neoliberalism in the USA and the USSR collapse is demonstrably far from perfect. The USSR was always
in far less favorable conditions than the USA, operating is a hostile environment encircled by Western powers interested in
its demise; also the collapse of the USSR happened during "triumphal march of neoliberalism" which provided ready-made alternative
to Brezhnev's socialism and stimulated the betrayal of Soviet nomenklatura of their old ideology and "switching ideological camps").
But the key to collapse of the USSR was the collapse of Bolshevik's ideology, which has happened some time from 1945 to
1963. And this is a common element with the situation of the USA now.
Which does not bode well for the USA future, if the hypothesis
that the same fundamental forces are in play in both cases. In this sense the collapse of neoliberal ideology ("free market
fundamentalism"), which happened in 2008 is a bad omen indeed.
There is still a chance that the US elite proves to be flexible again and manage to escape this "ideological mousetrap" by switching to
some new ideology, but they are pretty weak, if we look at the quality of Trump administration and the personalities in the USA
Congress. The latter clearly resembles the level of degeneration of Soviet Politburo.
Some members of Congress and key figured in Trump administration way too closely correspond to the depiction of sociopaths to stay comfortable.
Some are perverts. The same was true about
certain parts of Soviet "nomenklatura", especially leaders of Komsomol (All-Union
Leninist Young Communist League ), from which such questionable post-communist figures such a
Khodorkovsky, in Russia (of
"pipes and corpses" film fame), and Turchinov in Ukraine later emerged.
Llorenti’s fourteen minute address to the UNSC was a tour de force – a critique of unilateral military action by the
U.S. (it violates the UN charter), an analysis of previous emotional appeals for urgent action (think Colin Powell
in 2003), as well as a reminder of the United States’ long history of interventionism in Latin America. Llorenti
also called the UNSC to task for its internal structure, which grants considerably more power upon its five
permanent members than it does its ten non-permanent members.
It was a remarkable anti-imperialist display. Read a
partial transcript and/or watch the full video below.
That closely corresponds to what had happened with Bolshevism ideology around 1980 -- when it became the source of jokes both
inside the USSR and abroad. Or a little bit later, if we remember "Tear down this wall!" -- a line from a speech made
by
US PresidentRonald Reagan in
West Berlin
on June 12, 1987. When Paul Craig Roberts claims that
It Has Become Embarrassing To Be An American that is a symptom of a problem, yet another symptom of the demise of
neoliberal propaganda, despite obvious exaggeration.
It would be too much stretch to state that neoliberal and especially globalist propaganda is now rejected both by
population within the USA (which resulted in defeat of Hillary Clinton -- an establishment candidates and election of the
"wild card" candidate -- Donald Trump -- with clearly nationalistic impulses) and outside the USA.
when the tax rates increase even more, it just encourages automation or DIY (bring your own sheets to avoid paying the cleaning
fee), which just grinds down growth rather than accelerates it.
Notable quotes:
"... Applebee's is now using tablets to allow customers to pay at their tables without summoning a waiter. ..."
Companies see automation and other labor-saving steps as a way to emerge from the health crisis with a permanently smaller
workforce
PHOTO:
JIM THOMPSON/ZUMA PRESS
... ... ...
Economic data show that companies have learned to do more with less over the last 16 months or so. Output nearly
recovered to pre-pandemic levels in the first quarter of 2021 -- down just 0.5% from the end of 2019 -- even though U.S.
workers put in 4.3% fewer hours than they did before the health crisis.
... ... ...
Raytheon Technologies
Corp.
RTX
0.08%
,
the biggest U.S. aerospace supplier by sales, laid off 21,000 employees and contractors in 2020 amid a drastic
decline in air travel. Raytheon said in January that efforts to modernize its factories and back-office operations
would boost profit margins and reduce the need to bring back all those jobs. The company said that most if not all
of the 4,500 contract workers who were let go in 2020 wouldn't be called back.
... ... ..
Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. HLT -0.78% said last week that most of its U.S. properties are adopting "a
flexible housekeeping policy," with daily service available upon request. "Full deep cleanings will be conducted
prior to check-in and on every fifth day for extended stays," it said.
Daily housekeeping will still be free for those who request it...
Unite Here, a union that represents hotel workers, published a report in June estimating that the end of daily
room cleaning could result in an industrywide loss of up to 180,000 jobs...
... ... ...
Restaurants have become rapid adopters of technology during the pandemic as two forces -- labor shortages that are
pushing wages higher and a desire to reduce close contact between customers and employees -- raise the return on such
investments.
...
Applebee's is now using tablets to allow customers to pay at their tables without summoning a
waiter.
The hand-held screens provide a hedge against labor inflation, said John Peyton, CEO of Applebee's
parent
Dine
Brands Global
Inc.
... ... ...
The U.S. tax code encourages investments in automation, particularly after the Trump administration's tax cuts,
said Daron Acemoglu, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies the impact of
automation on workers. Firms pay around 25 cents in taxes for every dollar they pay workers, compared with 5 cents
for every dollar spent on machines because companies can write off capital investments, he said.
A lot of employers were given Covid-aid to keep employees employed and paid in 2020. I
assume somebody has addressed that obligation since it wasn't mentioned.
But, what happens to the unskilled workers whose jobs have been eliminated? Do Raytheon
and Hilton just say "have a nice life on the streets"?
No, they will become our collective burdens.
I am all for technology and progress and better QA/QC and general performance. But the
employers that benefit from this should use part of their gains in stock valuation to keep
"our collective burdens" off our collective backs, rather than pay dividends and bonuses
first.
Maybe reinvest in updated training for those laid off.
No great outcome comes free. BUT, as the article implies, the luxury of having already
laid off the unskilled, likely leaves the employer holding all the cards.
And the wheel keeps turning...
Jeffery Allen
Question! Isn't this antithetical (reduction of employees) to the spirit and purpose of
both monetary and fiscal programs, e.g., PPP loans (fiscal), capital markets funding
facilities (monetary) established last year and current year? Employers are to retain
employees. Gee, what a farce. Does anyone really care?
Philip Hilmes
Some of this makes sense and some would happen anyway without the pandemic. I don't need my room
cleaned every day, but sometimes I want it. The wait staff in restaurants is another matter. Losing
wait staff makes for a pretty bad experience. I hate having to order on my phone. I feel like I might
as well be home ordering food through Grubhub or something. It's impersonal, more painful than telling
someone, doesn't allow for you to be checked on if you need anything, doesn't provide information you
don't get from a menu, etc. It really diminishes the value of going out to eat without wait staff.
al snow
OK I been reading all the comments I only have a WSJ access as the rate was a great deal.
Hotel/Motel started making the bed but not changing the sheets every day for many years I am fine as
long as they offer trash take out and towel/paper every day
and do not forget to tip .
clive boulton
Recruiters re-post hard to fill job listings onto multiple job boards. I don't believe the reported
job openings resemble are real. Divide by 3 at least.
Update (2130ET): Tucker Carlson responded to today's 'unmasking' - namely an Axios report
which accuses him of trying to set up an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"I'm an American citizen, I can interview whoever I want - and plan to," said the Fox News
host.
Presented without further comment, along with Carlson's sit-down with journalist Glenn
Greenwald, who broke the Edward Snowden revelations about domestic spying and other illicit
activities conducted by the US government.
Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson said in a bombshell broadcast that an NSA
whistleblower had approached him with evidence that the National Security Agency
has been spying on his communications , with the intent to leak his emails to the press and
'take this show off the air.'
Today, Carlson told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo that the emails have in fact been leaked
to journalists - at least one of whom has contacted him for what we presume is an upcoming
article on their contents.
"I was in Washington for a funeral last week and ran into someone I know well, who said '
I have a message for you ,' and then proceeded to repeat back to me details from emails and
texts that I sent, and had told no one else about. So it was verified. And the person said
'the NSA has this,' and that was proven by the person reading back the contents of the email,
'and they're going to use it against you.'
To be blunt with you, it was something I would have never said in public if it was wrong,
or illegal, or immoral. They don't actually have anything on me, but they do have my emails.
So I knew they were spying on me, and again, to be totally blunt with you - as a defensive
move, I thought 'I better say this out loud.'"
"Then, yesterday, I learned that - and this is going to come out soon - that the NSA
leaked the contents of my email to journalists in an effort to discredit me. I know, because
I got a call from one of them who said 'this is what your email was about.'
So, it is not in any way a figment of my imagination. It's confirmed. It's true. They
aren't allowed to spy on American citizens - they are. I think more ominously, they're using
the information they gather to put leverage and to threaten opposition journalists, people
who criticize the Biden administration. It's happening to me right now..."
" This is the stuff of banana republics and third-world countries ," replied Bartiromo.
As of July 2, 2021 out of 4456 total deaths attributed to vaccination (of them 1890 after
vaccination with Pfizer), it looks like there were at least 36 death of people aged less then 30
years after vaccination with Pfizer vaccine (out of 61 total). Around 136 millions were fully
vaccinated,.
Other sources list higher figure (6113)
CDC- 6,113 DEAD Following COVID-19 Injections ("Besides the 6,113 deaths reported, there are
5,172 permanent disabilities, 6,435 life threatening events, and 51,558 emergency room visits."
)so my method of extracting those data from VAERS database might be wrong or not all death are
reported to VAERS.
Another 5 young people were crippled but survived (67 total).
Each year, more than 165 million Americans get the flu shot. There were 85 reported
deaths following influenza vaccination in 2017; 119 deaths in 2018; and 203 deaths in
2019
Between mid-December 2020 and April 23, 2021, at which point between 95 million and 100
million Americans had received their COVID-19 shots, there were 3,544 reported deaths
following COVID vaccination, or about 30 per day
In just four months, the COVID-19 vaccines have killed more people than all available
vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 2013 -- a period of 15.5 years
As of April 23, 2021, VAERS had also received 12,618 reports of serious adverse events.
In total, 118,902 adverse event reports had been filed
In the European Union, the EudraVigilance system had as of April 17, 2021, received
330,218 injury reports after vaccination with one of the four available COVID vaccines,
including 7,766 deaths
In a May 5, 2021, Fox News report, Tucker Carlson asked the question no one is really
allowed to ask: "How many Americans have died after taking the COVID vaccine?"
1
Then there's not selling Syria the latest S#00 system to help keep Israel out of Syrian
skies. That tells me he's using Syria for personal / State gain and that is where he's wrong.
That's what makes him just another politician.
I totally get it, there are things that are puzzling to those of us in the audience,
watching the moves from afar.
An advanced S-300 or S-400 system could paint every F-16 as it took off from Israel. This
would be a red line for Israel and would bring in Uncle Shmuel.
Syria (and by extension Russia) has been allowing Israel to overfly her territory and bomb
Hezbollah installations.
It's puzzling – why would you allow a foreign power to bomb your territory, especially
if you have S-300's. The answer must be that Syria and Russia are holding back on purpose for
reasons only known to them. I can speculate, in that they don't want to give away military
capability unless the war goes hot.
Think about the situation now, as opposed to the 90's. Russia's military has been
modernized; Military physical fitness is up by 30% (better nutrition?); Foreign exchange is in
good shape; the economy is modernizing; food production is up – so Russia is no longer
food insecure; oil can be extracted at prices that Saudi cannot compete with; the Artic route
is opening up; national economy is more diversified thanks to the western sanctions; Yamal LNG
will be fueling Asia; Nordstream will be fueling Europe.
"... De Garay explained that after receiving the second coronavirus vaccine dose, her daughter started developing severe abdominal and chest pains. Maddie described the severity of the pain to her mother as "it feels like my heart is being ripped out through my neck." ..."
"... The Ohio mother added her daughter experienced additional symptoms that included gastroparesis, nausea, vomiting, erratic blood pressure, heart rate, and memory loss. "She still cannot digest food. She has a tube to get her nutrition," De Garay said to Carlson. "She also couldn't walk at one point, then she could I don't understand why and [physicians] are not looking into why...now she's back in a wheelchair and she can't hold her neck up. Her neck pulls back." ..."
"... De Garay said she had joined a Facebook support group to help people cope with the unexpected events happening from the coronavirus vaccine trial, and she said it was shut down. "It's just not right," she said. ..."
"... Sen. Ron Johnson , R-Wis., has sent letters to the CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna seeking answers about adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine following a June 28 press conference with affected individuals. The conference in Milwaukee included stories from five people, including De Garay ..."
"... The Wisconsin senator noted that some adverse reactions were detailed in Pfizer's and Moderna's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (EUA) memorandums following early clinical trials ..."
"... Those reactions included nervous system disorders and musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders for the Pfizer EUA memo. The Moderna EUA memo included reactions such as nervous system disorders, vascular disorders and musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, according to Johnson's letter. ..."
"... You missed the whole point! The issue is that the government is not acknowledging and and not reporting these side effects of the vaccine. Instead they are lying about the safety. If you are young, you are much more likely to get sick and injured by the vaccine than COVID. ..."
"... anyone under 25 should not get the vaccine because the percentages are about the same or worse having a negative impact from the vaccine versus the actual virus. ..."
"... With the Covid19 mortality rate among the children why even vaccinate? As a Chemist / Biochemist I learned that there is always unintended consequences. ..."
"... Vaccines may have long term effects that are not known today. ..."
"... The CDC's generic guidelines for getting a vaccine for any reason are very restrictive, first being, the disease you're getting vaccinated against has to pose a real, immediate danger. CV-19 poses virtually no danger whatsoever to kids under 14. Of all the deaths of children 14 and under in the last 18 months only .8% of them had a case of CV-19. That's 367 deaths out of over 46,000. (Data from CDC website) Forcing them to take an experimental vaccine that they absolutely don't need is criminal. As a parent, allowing your child to take the vaccine without spending a few hours doing some research is criminally negligent. This is like some terribly warped Kafka novel but it's real. ..."
Mother Stephanie De Garay joins 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' to discuss how her 12-year-old
daughter volunteered for the Pfizer vaccine trial and is now in a wheelchair.
An Ohio mother is speaking out
about her 12-year-old daughter suffering extreme reactions and nearly dying after volunteering
for the Pfizer coronavirus
vaccine trial.
Stephanie De Garay told "Tucker Carlson Tonight" Thursday
that after reaching out to multiple physicians they claimed her daughter, Maddie De Garay,
couldn't have become gravely ill from the vaccine.
"The only diagnosis we've gotten for her is that it's conversion disorder or functional
neurologic symptom disorder, and they are blaming it on anxiety," De Garay told Tucker Carlson.
"Ironically, she did not have anxiety before the vaccine."
De Garay explained that after receiving the second coronavirus vaccine dose, her daughter
started developing severe abdominal and chest pains. Maddie described the severity of the pain
to her mother as "it feels like my heart is being ripped out through my neck."
The Ohio mother added her daughter experienced additional symptoms that included
gastroparesis, nausea, vomiting, erratic blood pressure, heart rate, and memory loss. "She still cannot digest food. She has a tube to get her nutrition," De Garay said to
Carlson. "She also couldn't walk at one point, then she could I don't understand why and
[physicians] are not looking into why...now she's back in a wheelchair and she can't hold her
neck up. Her neck pulls back."
Carlson asked whether any officials from the Biden administration or representatives from
Pfizer company have reached out to the family. "No, they have not," she answered.
"The response with the person that's leading the vaccine trial has been atrocious," she
said. "We wanted to know what symptoms were reported and we couldn't even get an answer on
that. It was just that 'we report to Pfizer and they report to the FDA.' That's all we
got."
After her heartbreaking experience, the Ohio mother said she's still "pro-vaccine, but also
pro-informed consent." De Garay mentioned she's speaking out because she feels like everyone
should be fully aware of this tragic incident and added the situation is being "pushed down and
hidden."
De Garay said she had joined a Facebook support group to help people cope with the
unexpected events happening from the coronavirus vaccine trial, and she said it was shut
down. "It's just not right," she said.
"They need to do research and figure out why this happened, especially to people in the
trial. I thought that was the point of it," De Garay concluded. "They need to come up with
something that's going to treat these people early because all they're going to do is keep
getting worse."
Sen. Ron
Johnson , R-Wis., has sent letters to the CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna seeking answers
about adverse reactions to the COVID-19vaccine
following a June 28 press conference with affected individuals. The conference in Milwaukee
included stories from five people, including De Garay.
The Wisconsin senator noted that some adverse reactions were detailed in Pfizer's and
Moderna's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (EUA) memorandums
following early clinical trials.
Those reactions included nervous system disorders and musculoskeletal and connective tissue
disorders for the Pfizer EUA memo. The Moderna EUA memo included reactions such as nervous
system disorders, vascular disorders and musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders,
according to Johnson's letter.
Pfizer and Moderna did not immediately respond to inquiries from Fox News about Johnson's
letters.
J jeff5150357 6 hours ago
My daughter had the same thing happen to
her after getting a flu vaccine 9 years ago. Within days of getting it, she went from being as
healthy as an ox to years of awful, unexplained illness. The short version is they concluded
that she had a severe adverse reaction to the vaccine, but from the delivery chemicals, not the
flu content itself. Formaldehyde was the likely major cause. Now she is getting ready to begin
college and is being required to get the Covid vaccine by her university and the NCAA for
athletics. It is causing her, my wife and I horrible anxiety and we feel like we are being
railroaded into something that could be very dangerous for her. Any discussion or concern
expressed on social media is immediately blocked. I know from years of working in the research
grants office at Yale University that the big pharma industry is powerful and will go to great
lengths to control the narrative. What I don't understand is why mainstream media and social
media are so willing to help them these days!
jeff5150357 4 hours ago
While the college experience is great for a young adult. I would look at getting a degree
online. Her future earnings will be based on her merit, not where she went to school. If
someone was telling me what to do with my personal health, and I was uncomfortable with their
prescription, I would follow my instincts.
LoraJane92649 jeff5150357 5
hours ago
If her flu vax is well documented she should be able to get a waiver. Hopefully you
have an able bodied family physician or medical team to advocate on your behalf.
G gunvald 7 hours ago
You know when you take it that there can be adverse
reactions. So, in that sense, you are informed. Any one of us could be the odd person. That
said, I have a problem with any child getting these vaccines, especially when most people
recover from the disease. It's one thing for me as an elderly person to make the decision to
take it as covid affects the elderly person more and I wanted to avoid that ventilator. Most of
my life has been lived and that's how I evaluated it. This will always come down to putting it
in God's hands.
TheTruthAsItIs gunvald 6 hours ago
You missed the whole point! The
issue is that the government is not acknowledging and and not reporting these side effects of the
vaccine. Instead they are lying about the safety. If you are young, you are much more likely to
get sick and injured by the vaccine than COVID.
D DontDestoryUSA
gunvald 4 hours ago
It's not being informed when you are forced to take a vaccination that they
clearly had trouble with past vaccination sounds like a lawsuit for the university is on the
horizon. With a big pay day
Tony5SFG 7 hours ago
"Ohio
mother said she's still "pro-vaccine, but also pro-informed consent." " And as a pediatrician
for over 40 yrs (retired now) and a 10 year member of my medical school's Institutional Review
Board (which had to approve all human research), THAT is a problem I have been bringing up As
far as requiring all young people, such as entering or in college, to get the vaccine Children
are a protected class and the informed consent for research on them is much more strenuous than
for adults And, requiring young people to take these new vaccines is the equivalent of doing
research on them. The issue of myocarditis is quite troubling. And while it has been seen in
natural infections, I have not yet seen an adequate risk - benefit evaluation regarding risking
natural infection versus vaccination And people say that the myocarditis is not severe, no one
can be sure of the long term effects of a young person getting it. The vaccines that we give
children have been used for decades and the risks/benefits have been well established
D DallasAmEmail Tony5SFG 6 hours ago
A friends daughter who just went through internship as
Physicians assistant based on the percentages in age groups believes anyone under 25 should not
get the vaccine because the percentages are about the same or worse having a negative impact
from the vaccine versus the actual virus. Yes, older age groups the percent having negative
impact from the virus is much greater than the vaccine, so yes older age groups should get the
vaccine. What really is bothersome is when Youtube removes Dr. Robert Malone video who helped
create the mrna vaccine express concern that normal testing has not happened and be cautious
about taking it, especially for the young.
marinesfather601 Tony5SFG 5
hours ago
With the Covid19 mortality rate among the children why even vaccinate? As a Chemist /
Biochemist I learned that there is always unintended consequences.
Hilltopper9 7 hours ago
Vaccines may have long term effects that are not known
today. The same could be said of all the chemicals we apply to our body daily through shampoos,
hair dyes, body lotions, and suntan lotions. Life's a gamble. It's up to each individual to
make the best decisions possible given the facts available.
A akbushrat
Hilltopper9 6 hours ago
The CDC's generic guidelines for getting a vaccine for any reason are
very restrictive, first being, the disease you're getting vaccinated against has to pose a
real, immediate danger. CV-19 poses virtually no danger whatsoever to kids under 14. Of all the
deaths of children 14 and under in the last 18 months only .8% of them had a case of CV-19.
That's 367 deaths out of over 46,000. (Data from CDC website) Forcing them to take an
experimental vaccine that they absolutely don't need is criminal. As a parent, allowing your
child to take the vaccine without spending a few hours doing some research is criminally
negligent. This is like some terribly warped Kafka novel but it's real.
F
Fauxguy930 Hilltopper9 5 hours ago
☢️ N-butyl-N-(4-hydroxybutyl)nitrosamine is a
nitrosamine that has butyl and 4-hydroxybutyl substituents. In mice, it causes high-grade,
invasive cancers in the urinary bladder, but not in any other tissues. It has a role as a
carcinogenic agent. Ingredient in all shots. How did a carcinogen get FDA approved, oh it was
an emergency.
R RussellRika 6 hours ago
I have a
twelve year old, and not a chance I'd allow her to volunteer for any vaccine trial, and
especially not this one. She very much wanted to get a vaccine, until she started reading about
some of the adverse reactions. Sorry, but I'm a child, the benefit does not outweigh the risk.
MrEd50 6 hours ago
I took the vaccine because I'm 60 years old and work with special ed kids. My 18 year old child
refuses to take it and I support him on this. COVID shouldn't be an issue for most of us.
"Objective judgement is our jugement about the people we do not like ;-)"
In view of the fact that Delta (Indian) variant can infect vaccinated with the first
generation of vaccines people Fauci statement "when you get vaccinated, you not only protect your
own health, that of the family, but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the
spread of the virus throughout the community." i obviously wrong.
Delta Covid-19 Variant Can Infect Vaccinated People
Those who don't get their news from mainstream media have been aware of Anthony Fauci's
connection to "gain of function" research for months. Now, mainstream media is picking it up so
the White House is scrambling.
For months, there wasn't a day that went by when Dr. Anthony Fauci wasn't doing multiple
interviews spreading fear of Covid-19, demanding people take the various "vaccines," and
changing his talking points from moment to moment on a slew of healthcare-related issues. We
saw a clear change last week when the White House's chief doc seemed to fly under the radar for
the first time since Joe Biden took office.
It all comes down to "gain of function" research that is almost certainly the cause of the
Wuhan Flu. Developed in the Wuhan Virology Lab, Covid-19 either escaped or was intentionally
released. While many in academia still hold onto the notion that the pandemic was started by
bats, they do so simply because it hasn't -- and likely cannot -- be completely ruled out as
long as the Chinese Communist Party has a say in the matter. But many are now accepting the
likelihood that it came from the Wuhan Virology Lab as a result of "gain of function"
research.
We also now know that Fauci has been a
huge proponent of this research and he participated
in funding it at the Wuhan Virology Lab.
More evidence is emerging every day despite the bad doctor's protestations. And when I say
"we also now know," that's to say more mainstream media watchers know. Those who turn to
alternative media have known about Fauci's involvement with the Wuhan Virology Lab for a
while.
They've been trying to cover their tracks. A bombshell revelation from The
National Pulse yesterday showed they realized this was going to be a problem long before
Rand Paul
or Tucker Carlson started
calling Fauci out.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology scrubbed the U.S. National Institutes of Health as one
of its research partners from its website in early 2021. The revelation comes despite Dr.
Anthony Fauci insisting no relationship existed between the institutions.
Archived versions of the Wuhan lab's site also reveal a research update – "
Will SARS Come Back? " – appearing to describe gain-of-function research being
conducted at the institute by entities funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci's National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
On March 21st, 2021, the lab's website listed six U.S.-based research partners:
University of Alabama, University of North Texas, EcoHealth Alliance, Harvard University, The
National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States, and the National Wildlife
Federation.
One day later, the page was revised to contain just two research
partners – EcoHealth Alliance and the University of Alabama. By March 23rd,
EcoHealth Alliance was the sole partner
remaining .
The Wuhan Institute of Virology's decision to wipe the NIH from its website came amidst
heightened
scrutiny that the lab was the source of COVID-19 – and that U.S. taxpayer dollars
from the NIH may have funded the research. The unearthing of the lab's attempted coverup also
follows a heated
exchange between Senator Rand Paul and Fauci, who attempted to distance his organization
from the Wuhan lab.
Beyond establishing a working relationship between the NIH and the Wuhan Institue of
Virology, now-deleted posts
from the site also detail studies bearing the hallmarks of gain-of-function research
conducted with the Wuhan-based lab. Fauci, however, asserted to Senator Paul that "the NIH
has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of
Virology."
There is still a tremendous gap between those who know the truth about Fauci and those who
still think he's just a smart little guy who tells Joe Biden what to do when it comes to Covid.
As we've documented multiple times in the past, there seems to be a cult of personality
surrounding Fauci, or as many have called it, Faucism. He is practically worshipped as a savior
by millions who believe everything he says even if he contradicts something he had said in the
past.
Today, he was interviewed on CBS News during "Face the Nation." It was a softball interview,
as always, and at no point was "gain of function" research discussed. Instead, John Dickerson
tried to sound smart and Fauci gave him kudos in an odd back-and-forth promoting vaccines.
JOHN DICKERSON : So, if- if a person is deciding whether or not to get vaccinated, they
have to keep in mind whether it's going to keep them healthy. But based on these new
findings, it would suggest they also have an opportunity, if vaccinated, to knock off or
block their ability to transmit it to other people. So, does it increase the public health
good of getting the vaccination or make that clearer based on these new findings?
DR. FAUCI : And you know, JOHN, you said it very well. I could have said it better.
It's absolutely the case. And that's the reason why we say when you get vaccinated, you not
only protect your own health, that of the family, but also you contribute to the community
health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community. And in other words,
you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus
is not going to go anywhere. And that's when you get a point that you have a markedly
diminished rate of infection in the community. And that's exactly the reason, and you said it
very well, of why we encourage people and want people to get vaccinated. The more people you
get vaccinated, the safer the entire community is.
JOHN DICKERSON : And do you think now that this guidance has come out on relaxing the
mass mandates if you've been vaccinated, that people who might have been hesitant before will
start to get vaccinated in greater numbers?
DR. FAUCI : You know, I hope so, JOHN. The underlying reason for the CDC doing this was
just based on the evolution of the science that I mentioned a moment ago. But if, in fact,
this serves as an incentive for people to get vaccinated, all the better. I hope it does,
actually.
Don't let the presence of this interview fool you. It was almost certainly scheduled before
the "gain of function" research discussion hit the mainstream. But as Revolver News reported
today, we should start seeing less and less of Fauci going forward.
What happened to the almighty Dr. Fauci? Last week he was on TV telling all of us that life
wouldn't get back to normal for at least another year or so, and this week he's pretty much
gone. So what happened?
Well, a lot, actually. The biggest turn for Fauci involves 3 little words: Gain of Function.
It was this past week when the "gain of function" dots were publicly connected to the good
doctor. This is nothing new for those of us on the right. Here on Revolver, we've covered
Fauci's gain of function research extensively and the evidence against him is very damning.
A couple of months ago Fox News Host Steve Hilton blew the lid off of Fauci's macabre
obsession (and funding) of research involving the manipulation of highly contagious viruses.
Hilton laid the groundwork, but it was Senator Rand Paul who called out Fauci and his ghoulish
research face to face during a Senate hearing.
But even more notable, is that the CDC just updated their guidelines on mask-wearing and
essentially ended the pandemic -- a pandemic that Fauci has been the proud face of for over a
year now -- and when that announcement hit, he was nowhere to be found. And his absence didn't
go unnoticed.
Yes indeed, you'd think that Fauci would have been front and center to discuss the CDC's new
guidelines the moment the news hit. The "Golden Boy" taking yet another victory lap. After all,
Fauci never misses a moment in the spotlight. But he was not hitting the airwaves with the
typical fanfare.
It is still very possible that Fauci can make a resurgence. His fan-base is up there with
Meghan Markle and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, though even more devoted than the divas'. Unlike
other useful idiots, the White House will not be able to detach easily from Fauci, nor do they
want to. At this point, they're telling him to lay low and avoid any interviews in which they
do not have complete control over the "journalist" involved. John Dickerson has been a Democrat
Party pawn for decades.
Behind the scenes, they're already planning on ditching him. It will be done with all the
pomp one would expect for one of their heroes and will be used to mark the end of the
"emergency" in the United States. He'll still be promoting vaccines and will try to stay in his
precious limelight, but Democrats are ready to move on and open up the country. It has just
been too politically suicidal to persist with their lockdown mentality.
The key to seeing Fauci's narcissistic reign end is for patriots to continue to hammer him
on his involvement with developing Covid-19. His beloved "gain of function research" needs to
be explained to any who will listen. Then, maybe, Fauci will go away.
Sounds like a great book for Tucker to recommend to that Army Chief of Staff!
Notable quotes:
"... I call it ROLE -- The Racism Of Low Expectations. This phenomenon has done ten times more to damage Black lives than can be attributed to CRT or institutionalized racism. ..."
"... A subset of ROLE is MVT. This is Manufactured Victimhood Theory. This comes about from influential Black "leaders" who, instead of teaching Blacks the truth about how to live good lives (work hard, develop skills, etc.), they told them to apply as their life strategy "say you are a victim." ..."
Recently the Joint Chiefs of Staff remarked that the US military should teach CTR to our
military essentially because they shoild teach all theories.
That doesn't make sense to me but I would like to put another theory into the public
sphere. I call it ROLE -- The Racism Of Low Expectations. This phenomenon has done ten times
more to damage Black lives than can be attributed to CRT or institutionalized racism.
A subset of ROLE is MVT. This is Manufactured Victimhood Theory. This comes about from
influential Black "leaders" who, instead of teaching Blacks the truth about how to live good
lives (work hard, develop skills, etc.), they told them to apply as their life strategy "say
you are a victim."
I am hoping that ROLE and MVT will become part of all aspects of American life -- all
levels of education, the military, businesses, the media, etc.
If the goal really is to improve Black lives, ROLE and MVT should be the rage over the
next few years.
Tom F
John Callahan 4 hours ago
Corporate America 'makes money critiquing itself.' The rest of us pay the price in
diminished freedom.
Wokeism is fascism dressed up in new clothes- the censorship, demonization of
groups and individuals and the physical violence against people and property remain the same.
Corporate America has one overriding interest- making money. Paying the left (and yes,
fascism is of the left) through critiquing itself and token monetary donations is a get out
of jail free card for Corporate America.
"Capitalism knows only one color: that color is green; all else is necessarily
subservient to it, hence, race, gender and ethnicity cannot be considered within it."
- Thomas Sowell
Dom Fried 4 hours ago
It will end the same. Almost, because there will be nobody to stop it.
Ed Baron 3 hours ago
Very well said, John. Fascism is a fundamental element or subset of Leftist or Marxist
thought. It demands conformity of the individual to the new "woke" state and it punishes any
who dissent. It's not incidental that American Leftists, including FDR, loved Mussolini prior
to WWII. That bromance has been washed clean, and attributed instead to the Right. Such a
typical transference technique used by Marxist.
Alex Guiness
I interpret your supposition 'White male global warming', as meaning White Males are
particularly flatulent hence are producing Green House Gases with their diets of greasy meats
(some on sticks), carnival funnel cakes, corn dogs, Philly cheese-steaks, Popeyes fried
chicken, all washed down with Bud Light. Would it kill them to have a salad now and then? How
can their spouses stand to be around them unless they are also consuming the same foods.
Imagine what it must be like at a sermon in a Lutheran Church, the whitest church of all.
They leave the doors open else a spark could set the whole place ablaze.
carol Perry
Thanks for today's chuckle Alex.
Alex Guiness
read my smurfs comment. i just posted it
Lynn Silton
Mr. Ramaswamy is right in every way! I don't belong to the Woke Church. I'll never join.
America is an inspirational country as is all it's written declarations. We, the people rule.
No religion can overrule it. We will not allow religious 'honor killings.' They are murder
here. We will not allow Wokism here it is the murder of our hopes and dreams which belong to
everybody regardless of appearance. I don't even know how appearance (of all things) became a
religion. The whole thing is so sick, people of all shades are speaking out and we will put
this crazy idea down. Here, we marry across all appearances. New people are often different
in appearance than parents. Woke will die of that alone. That's why we have an immigration
'problem' . People love our constitution and Declaration of Independence. People love that
they rule here, not the government. That's our creed and promise. Help protect it!!
VAERS data: "5,888 deaths", "19,597 hospitalizations", "43,891 urgent care", "58,800
office visits", "1,459 anaphylaxis", "1,737 Bell's palsy", "2,190 heart attacks" and "652
miscarriages". CDC says data is "unreliable". You choose who to believe.
WarrenLiz 16 hours ago
Over 15,472 dead from Jab in 27 EU countries, about half of Europe's 50 countries.
The EudraVigilance database reports that through June 19, 2021 there are 15,472 deaths
and 1,509,266 injuries reported following injections of four experimental COVID-19
shots:
The answer to Carlson's question is because.. it's a money grabbing death cult!.
Natural immun system is destroyed... just wait till next flu season or the next virus
they relase and see what death numbers we see!
racing_flowers 17 hours ago
Isn't it curious that the 3 big pharma Corps (think Vacc pushers) and the big 2 MSM
Corps are BOTH controlled by Blackrock Partners Hedge Fund...
Nona Yobiznes 18 hours ago remove link
Them going after the children makes me deeply suspicious. Nobody under 50, unless
they're made of blubber, dies from this. In 2020, there was practically zero excess death
for people younger than 70 years old in Sweden. These are their official statistics. For
the vast majority of people it's basically a flu you get for a couple days and you're over
it. What the **** is all this about? If the vaccine is only really good for preventing
hospitalizations, and doesn't stop you from spreading or from catching variants, what in
the hell are we giving kids vaccines when they are more likely to die from the regular flu?
It's freaky, and it stinks.
In the later years of an abusive relationship I was in, my abuser had become so confident in
how mentally caged he had me that he'd start overtly telling me what he is and what he was
doing. He flat-out told me he was a sociopath and a manipulator, trusting that I was so
submitted to his will by that point that I'd gaslight myself into reframing those statements in
a sympathetic light. Toward the end one time he told me "I am going to rape you," and then he
did, and then he talked about it to some friends trusting that I'd run perception management on
it for him.
The better he got at psychologically twisting me up in knots and the more submitted I
became, the more open he'd be about it. He seemed to enjoy doing this, taking a kind of
exhibitionistic delight in showing off his accomplishments at crushing me as a person, both to
others and to me. Like it was his art, and he wanted it to have an audience to appreciate
it.
I was reminded of this while watching a recent Fox News appearance by Glenn Greenwald where he
made an observation we've discussed here
previously about the way the CIA used to have to infiltrate the media, but now just openly
has US intelligence veterans in mainstream media punditry positions managing public
perception.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/jU58mrEpPvU
"If you go and Google, and I hope your viewers do, Operation Mockingbird, what you will
find is that during the Cold War these agencies used to plot how to clandestinely manipulate
the news media to disseminate propaganda to the American population," Greenwald
said .
"They used to try to do it secretly. They don't even do it secretly anymore. They don't
need Operation Mockingbird. They literally put John Brennan who works for NBC and James
Clapper who works for CNN and tons of FBI agents right on the payroll of these news
organizations. They now shape the news openly to manipulate and to deceive the American
population."
In 1977 Carl Bernstein published an article titled " The CIA and the Media " reporting
that the CIA had
covertly infiltrated America's most influential news outlets and had over 400 reporters who
it considered assets in a program known as
Operation Mockingbird . It was a major scandal, and rightly so. The news media are meant to
report truthfully about what happens in the world, not manipulate public perception to suit the
agendas of spooks and warmongers.
Nowadays the CIA collaboration happens right out in the open, and the public is too
brainwashed and gaslit to even recognize this as scandalous. Immensely influential outlets like
The New York Times uncritically pass on CIA disinfo which is then spun as fact by cable news
pundits . The sole owner of The Washington Post is a CIA contractor ,
and WaPo has never once disclosed this conflict of interest when reporting on US intelligence
agencies per standard journalistic protocol. Mass media outlets
now openly employ intelligence agency veterans like John Brennan, James Clapper,
Chuck Rosenberg, Michael Hayden, Frank Figliuzzi, Fran Townsend, Stephen Hall, Samantha
Vinograd, Andrew McCabe, Josh Campbell, Asha Rangappa, Phil Mudd, James Gagliano, Jeremy Bash,
Susan Hennessey, Ned Price and Rick Francona, as are known
CIA assets like NBC's Ken Dilanian, as are
CIA interns like Anderson Cooper and CIA applicants like
Tucker Carlson.
They're just rubbing it in our faces now. Like they're showing off.
And that's just the media. We also see this flaunting behavior exhibited in the US
government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a propaganda operation geared at
sabotaging foreign governments not aligned with the US which according to its own founding
officials was set up to do overtly what the CIA used to do covertly. The late author and
commentator William Blum
makes this clear :
[I]n 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy was set up to "support democratic
institutions throughout the world through private, nongovernmental efforts". Notice the
"nongovernmental"" part of the image, part of the myth. In actuality, virtually every penny
of its funding comes from the federal government, as is clearly indicated in the financial
statement in each issue of its annual report. NED likes to refer to itself as an NGO
(Non-governmental organization) because this helps to maintain a certain credibility abroad
that an official US government agency might not have. But NGO is the wrong category. NED is a
GO.
"We should not have to do this kind of work covertly," said Carl Gershman in 1986, while
he was president of the Endowment. "It would be terrible for democratic groups around the
world to be seen as subsidized by the C.I.A. We saw that in the 60's, and that's why it has
been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that's why the endowment
was created."
And Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, declared in 1991:
"A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA."
In effect, the CIA has been laundering money through NED.
We see NED's fingerprints all over pretty much any situation where the western power
alliance needs to manage public perception about a CIA-targeted government, from Russia to
Hong
Kong to Xinjiang to the
imperial propaganda operation known as Bellingcat.
Hell, intelligence insiders are just openly running for office now. In an article titled "
The CIA
Democrats in the 2020 elections ", World Socialist Website documented the many veterans of
the US intelligence cartel who ran in elections across America in 2018 and 2020:
"In the course of the 2018 elections, a large group of former military-intelligence
operatives entered capitalist politics as candidates seeking the Democratic Party nomination
in 50 congressional seats" nearly half the seats where the Democrats were targeting
Republican incumbents or open seats created by Republican retirements. Some 30 of these
candidates won primary contests and became the Democratic candidates in the November 2018
election, and 11 of them won the general election, more than one quarter of the 40 previously
Republican-held seats captured by the Democrats as they took control of the House of
Representatives. In 2020, the intervention of the CIA Democrats continues on what is arguably
an equally significant scale."
So they're just getting more and more brazen the more confident they feel about how
propaganda-addled and submissive the population has become. They're laying more and more of
their cards on the table. Soon the CIA will just be openly selling narcotics door to door like
Girl Scout cookies.
Or maybe not. I said my ex got more and more overt about his abuses in the later years of
our relationship because those were the later years. I did eventually expand my own
consciousness of my own inner workings enough to clear the fears and unexamined beliefs I had
that he was using as hooks to manipulate me. Maybe, as humanity's consciousness continues to
expand , the same will happen for the people and their abusive relationship with the
CIA.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is
to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely
reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
following me on Facebook , Twitter , Soundcloud or YouTube , or throwing some money into
my tip jar on Ko-fi ,
Patreon or Paypal . If you want to read more you
can buy my books .
Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else
I've written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand,
and what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click here .
Comments for this article are pretty instructive about the particular strata of US population
mindset right now. Reminds the mood of dissidents in the USSR.
Tucker Carlson dropped several bombshells on his show Tuesday night, chief among them was
from a Revolver News report that the FBI was likely involved in organizing the Jan. 6 Capitol
'insurrection,' and were similarly involved in the kidnapping plot against Michigan Governor
Gretchin Whitmer .
" Why are there so many factual matters that we don't understand about that day? " asked
Carlson.
" Why is the Biden administration preventing us from knowing? Why is the administration
still hiding more than 10,000 hours of surveillance tape from the US capitol on January 6th?
What could possibly be the reason for that - even as they call for more openness... they could
release those tapes today, but they're not. Why?"
Carlson notes that
Revolver News has dissected court filings surrounding the Capitol riot, suggests that
unindicted co-conspirators in the case are likely to have been federal operatives.
We at Revolver News have noticed a pattern from our now months-long investigation into 1/6
-- and in particular from our meticulous study of the charging documents related to those
indicted. In many cases the unindicted co-conspirators appear to be much more aggressive and
egregious participants in the very so-called "conspiracy" serving as the basis for charging
those indicted.
The question immediately arises as to why this is the case, and forces us to consider
whether certain individuals are being protected from indictment because they were involved in
1/6 as undercover operatives or confidential informants for a federal agency.
Key segment from Tucker:
"We know that the government is hiding the identity of many law enforcement officers that
were present at the Capitol on January 6th, not just the one that killed Ashli Babbitt.
According to the government's own court filing, those law enforcement officers participated
in the riot - sometimes in violent ways . We know that because without fail, the government
has thrown the book at most people who were present at the Capitol on Jan. 6. There was a
nationwide dragnet to find them - and many are still in solitary confinement tonight. But s
trangely, some of the key people who participated on Jan. 6 have not been charged ."
Look at the documents , the government calls those people 'unindicted co-conspirators.'
What does that mean? Well it means that in potentially every case they were FBI operatives
... in the Capitol, on January 6th."
"For example, one of those unindicted co-conspirators is someone government documents
identify only as "person two." According to those documents, person two stayed in the same
hotel room as a man called Thomas Caldwell - an 'insurrectionist.' A man alleged to be a
member of the group "The Oathkeepers." Person two also "stormed the barricades" at the
Capitol on January 6th alongside Thomas Caldwell. The government's indictments further
indicate that Caldwell - who by the way is a 65-year-old man... was led to believe there
would be a "quick reaction force" also participating on January 6th. That quick reaction
force Caldwell was told, would be led by someone called "Person 3," who had a hotel room and
an accomplice with them . But wait. Here's the interesting thing. Person 2 and person 3 were
organizers of the riot . The government knows who they are, but the government has not
charged them. Why is that? You know why. They were almost certainly working for the FBI. So
FBI operatives were organizing the attack on the Capitol on January 6th according to
government documents. And those two are not alone. In all, Revolver news reported there are
"upwards of 20 unindicted co-conspirators in the Oath Keeper indictments, all playing various
roles in the conspiracy, who have not been charged for virtually the exact same activities
and in some cases much, much more severe activities - as those named alongside them in the
indictments."
Revolver , meanwhile, has important questions about January 6th
In the year leading up to 1/6 and during 1/6 itself, to what extent were the three primary militia groups (the Oath Keepers,
the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters) that the FBI , DOJ , Pentagon and
network news have labeled most
responsible for planning and executing a Capitol attack on 1/6 infiltrated by agencies of the
federal government, or informants of said agencies?
Exactly how many federal undercover agents or confidential informants were present at the
Capitol or in the Capitol during the infamous "siege" and what roles did they play (merely
passive informants or active instigators)?
Finally, of all of the unindicted co-conspirators referenced in the charging documents of
those indicted for crimes on 1/6, how many worked as a confidential informant or as an
undercover operative for the federal government (FBI, Army Counterintelligence, etc.)?
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) has demanded an explanation from FBI Director Christopher Wray:
We recommend you read the entire
Revolver piece, which includes the fact that at least five individuals involved int he
"Whitmer Kidnapping Plot" were undercover agents and federal informants .
_Rorschach 7 hours ago
Just remember folks
a Klan meeting is always 33 FBI agents
and 2 ACTUAL white supremacists
Dragonlord 7 hours ago
No CIA? I am disappointed.
_Rorschach 7 hours ago (Edited)
Glowies are never at the meetings
theyre busy planting bombs for the false flag afterwards
Misesmissesme 6 hours ago
90% of "terrorists" would never commit acts of terror if the US Guv wasn't coercing them
to commit said acts. The wrong people are in jail.
Wonder who in government started the ball rolling on 9/11 before it got away from
them?
Sedaeng PREMIUM 6 hours ago
it never got away from them! They directed through and afterwards... Patriot act just
'happened' to be on standby just in case? ha!
Not Your Father's ZH 6 hours ago (Edited)
Amid this chronic Machiavellian conniving, here are creatures who know how to act
right:
"Civilization is a stream with banks. The stream is sometimes filled with blood from
people killing, stealing, shouting and doing things historians usually record; while on the
banks, unnoticed, people build homes, make love, raise children, sing songs, write poetry
and even whittle statues. The story of civilization is the story of what happened on the
banks. Historians are pessimists because they ignore the banks of the river." ~ Will
Durant, "The Story of Civilization"
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a
monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss , the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich
Nietzsche
"Everything human is pathetic. The secret source of humor itself is not joy, but sorrow.
There is no humor in Heaven." ― Mark Twain
thomas sewell 6 hours ago
everything in the USA is bull sheet. its all polluted with mind fook.
the last 1+ year has gone beyond any psycho drama i could ever imagine.
krda 5 hours ago
Didn't Brennan issue the 9/11 hijackers' visas?
zedwork 1 hour ago
Yes, but no planes. That would have been way too risky when you can just add them into
the live feed later using CGI.
Bob Lidd 1 hour ago
You mean like what happen in the 1993 WTC bombing.....??
How there hasn't been a day of reckoning yet is beyond me.
SexyJulian 6 hours ago
And stacks of bricks.
E5 5 hours ago
The FBI does not have the right to commit a crime. They chose to run an operation they
should disavow all agents involved and they know it. Arrest them.
With Wray out there spreading fear about the Great White Supremacy Threat, you can bet
the FBI is working overtime to make something newsworthy happen. Remember folks: 3
"militia" = 2 FBI informants + 1 patsy
Until the JFK murder/coup is brought to light, you can bet it's all hoax, including
Trump being an 'outsider'. He's not. He did everything Israel told him to do.
GhostOLaz 3 hours ago
America's perception of the FBI comes from TV "programs", not history or reality.
Joiningupthedots 1 hour ago
"Why is the administration still hiding more than 10,000 hours of surveillance tape from
the US capitol on January 6th?"
For the same reason the UK government wont release the Skripal Tapes from Salisbury,
UK.......LMAO.
Its an inside job........OBVIOUSLY!
Faeriedust 2 hours ago
So. Incidents are being staged and then used as excuses for more draconian State
security powers. How is this different from the behavior of known historical groups such as
the SS and the KGB? How can this be interpreted except as the actions of a totalitarian
State?
Sizzurp PREMIUM 6 hours ago
Scary stuff. They manufacture their own crimes to suit their political narrative and
agenda. This is straight out of the Nazi playbook.
Garciathinksso 6 hours ago
this is SOP for FBI, long rich history of manufacturing crimes and low, mid and high
level corruption . Prior to that the BOI was even worse.
JaxPavan 7 hours ago remove link
The chickens coming home to roost.
This was a "color revolution" by us, against us. And, it was designed to fail. Like a
freakish side show.
Why? Let off political steam. Keep all the people in their respective aisle of the
democan and republicrat uniparty bus. Distract political attention away from the full
****** plandemic lockdowns. Keep the rest of the world agape for a few more years thinking
things will fall apart on their own, while their resources are extracted. . .
Jam 47 minutes ago
This scam getting some press now is better late than never, but not by much. Some of
these media types being all surprised by this must have lived pretty sheltered lives and
are lacking any street smarts. This set up was obvious since day one, this is the same
bunch that won't call out these crooks for rigged elections.
Oxygen Likes Carbon 48 minutes ago
It should be painfully clear that with the level of surveillance in 2021, nobody can
walk into high security governmental building, without being arrested. Let alone organize a
mass demonstration then go into Capitol Building during the day, while the politicians
being there, to take ... selfies.
... without some help, or coordination from some governmental services.
anti-bolshevik 7 hours ago (Edited)
Replace 'unindicted co-conspirators.' with Agent Provocateurs.
The entire chain-of-command that authorized / planned / executed / gave material support
to this Operation should be indicted and prosecuted.
In this course of its investigation, researchers at Fordham discovered that EVERY
SINGLE ONE of the 138 terrorist incidents recorded in the USA between 2001-2012 involved
FBI informants who played leading roles in planning out, supplying weapons, instructions
and even recruiting Islamic terrorists to carry out terrorist acts on U.S. soil.
Enraged 56 minutes ago
With FBI Director Comey, Assistant Director McCabe, and FBI agent/covert CIA agent
Strzok acting against President Trump, this should be considered treasonous, and hopefully
they will be prosecuted.
The question is who authorized the latest actions on January 6 since Comey, McCabe, and
Strzok were fired.
Conductor "Corn Pop" Angelo 38 minutes ago
I can think of two to start with. Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi. Both refused
additional security even after being told that the latest intel suggested there was going
to be a protest at the capital building on Jan 6th. The two were offered National Guard
troops, in addition to Capital Police, to help out, but refused. IIRC, both the Senate and
House Sgt at Arms lost their jobs over this, too
Make it three, Mayor Bowser had the same intel and did nothing
Andro1345 7 hours ago
These are old tricks by the FBI. They have been just as bad as the CIA for years.
So many instances going back so far. They plan things, set it up, help to encourage and
supply sheep to do these things. If I had someone trying to encourage me to get on board
something similar my first guess would be a government operative, seriously.
WeNamedTheDogIndiana 1 hour ago
I attended protests after the election, and it was obvious to be that the rallies at our
state capitol were infiltrated by FBI/deep state stooges. A number of them were talking
civil war, and said it too boldly in my opinion, and then many of them were carrying AKs,
when that was not necessary.
The only rally that I attended that seemed uncorrupted was the first protest in DC a few
weeks after the election.
taketheredpill 7 hours ago
Don't be shocked if the FBI funded some of the trips, hotels etc.
And for sure the FBI operatives "wound up" the participants...
But you won't find out for 10 years.
Alfred 7 hours ago
Not just infiltrated.
The FBI actually creates the organizations they then infiltrate.
Someone goes on a good rant here or there, can expect to be befriended by someone of
like mind. Thereafter that someone undergoes radicalization and then organization via FBI
sting ops. They get funding, they get resources, they get ready, they get busted.
Ha! It's all shake-n-bake, baby!
ProudZion 6 hours ago
...The proud boys was led by a FBI agent....
Mad Muppet PREMIUM 1 hour ago
They're called Agents Provacateurs and it's nothing new. The Government always initiates
the violence they say they want to prevent.
Ms No PREMIUM 1 hour ago remove link
"Informants" is a very misleading title. They aren't out there ferretting info of people
up to no good. It's more an infiltration and steering game and always has been.
They are basically agents without the boundaries of law. Good front guys too. They will
keep them out of trouble and protect them if they can but if it gets too hot they are
expendable and even easily patsied. It's all actually actually technically illegal because
even when they do real informant work it's actually entrapment.
We used to be protected from these things and now you see the reason behind that.
Nothing is new it just has different names and since it's always avoided by media, some of
it doesn't even have proper names, at least for the public.
It's basically false flag color revolution operations.
QuiteShocking 6 hours ago (Edited) remove link
The USA's standing in the world is vastly diminished by the continue lies and
mischaracterizations of what happened on Jan 6th by the democrats. The police officer died
from a stroke and not from the rioters. The unarmed white woman was executed by capital
police and no one was held responsible. The democrats have continued to blatantly lie and
mislead on what really happened on Jan 6th for political gain...
Max21c 7 hours ago
We recommend you read the entire
Revolver piece, which includes the fact that at least five individuals involved int
he "Whitmer Kidnapping Plot" were undercover agents and federal informants .
People were already aware that the FBI kidnapping plot against Michigan Governor
Gretchen Whitmer was an FBI thing from the start and all throughout. Just as many if not
most of these things are as they involve the secret police creating the plots and then
unraveling the plots they've created and managed and orchestrated all along the way.
Angular Momentum 7 hours ago
The states need to outlaw entrapment in cases like that. The FBI moles need to be
punished as severely as the dupes.
junction 7 hours ago
The FBI and the CIA apparently fund the so-call White Supremacist organizations. Your
tax dollars at work. Meanwhile, total silence for a decade from the FBI as Jeffrey Epstein
ran a transnational white slavery operation out of his Manhattan mansion, aided by the
Israeli Mossad.
Max21c 7 hours ago
The intelligence community and secret police community were well aware of what was going
on with the Epstein operation. It's not just the US side either as the UK and Israelis were
aware of it also.
Uncle Sugar PREMIUM 7 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Trump is better than Xiden, but
He left Chris Wray running the FIB
He didn't prosecute Comey, Brennan, anyone
He pushed the "Vax"
He spent worse than a drunken sailor
Conclusion - He's not the answer
OldNewB 6 hours ago
He should have pardoned Snowden.
otschelnik 7 hours ago
Well looks like the DOJ is bringing back the Obummer spygate team. John P. Carlin who
was head of DOJ/National Security Division is now deputy AG. He let the FBI give 4 civilian
contractors access to the NSA database for 702 inquiries, which Admiral Rogers stopped.
Also back is Lisa Monoco who oversaw the FISA warrants for Carter Page, and now she's going
to be heading up Garland's domestic terror task force.
That's all very ominous.
Farmer Tink 4 hours ago
I didn't realize that Carlin was back. He tried to defend his actions in the annual
report to the FISA court but Adm. Mike Rogers, on whose watch the NSA found out what the
DOJ was doing, carried the day. I also didn't realize that Lisa Monaco was the one in
charge of those illegal Page warrants. It's just sickening that they are being rewarded.
Thanks for the info.
glenlloyd 2 hours ago (Edited)
With such a high percentage of those 'involved' in the "insurrection" (said loosely
here) and the so called Whitmer kidnapping being from FBI / CIA / other intelligence
agencies AND those same people end up apparently being in leadership roles in these groups
that are supposedly going to be doing the kidnapping and insurrecting, then it's really
hard not to come to the conclusion that the fault was with the FBI et al.
It just seems like the FBI et al were way more involved in this than they should have
been, if you're going to suggest that it was the others that are to blame. The tough pill
to swallow is the claim that it was the people the FBI et al infiltrated and coerced into
do these things, that are to blame.
Things really do stink with this.
newworldorder 5 hours ago
How are these actions are not "entrapment."
InfiniteIntellRules 5 hours ago
I will stop, just too many tales of FBI corruption. Last 1
Under COINTELPRO, FBI agents infiltrated political groups and spread rumors that loyal
members were the real infiltrators. They tried to get targets fired from their jobs, and
they tried to break up the targets' marriages. They published deliberately inflammatory
literature in the names of the organizations they wanted to discredit, and they drove
wedges between groups that might otherwise be allied. In Baltimore, the FBI's operatives in
the Black Panther Party were instructed to denounce Students for a Democratic Society as "a
cowardly, honky group" who wanted to exploit the Panthers by giving them all the violent,
dangerous "dirty work." The operation was apparently successful: In August 1969, just five
months after the initial instructions went out, the Baltimore FBI reported that the local
Panther branch had ordered its members not to associate with SDS members or attend any SDS
events.
EVERY MAJOR EVENT. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
heehaw2 6 hours ago
All happened under Trumps watch. He said he was going to lead the March to Capital
building, then totally disappeared.
MrNoItAll 7 hours ago
Got to hand it to them. Those Fed guys sure know how to stage a riot to get media
attention and shape public opinion. How else could they explain why all the guard troops
were needed in D C. When getting them there could have been the primary goal of this staged
event.
lightwork 7 hours ago
In the early 70's it seemed that a government informant/ mole was instrumental in the
activities of virtually every left wing group in the country. It became common knowledge
that whomever was most vocal and advocated the most activist positions was usually "that
guy". It was effective since paranoia caused most groups to disintegrate.
otschelnik 8 hours ago remove link
Probably more snitches than that.
Oath Keeper Thomas Caldwell who is one of the lucky few released but still charged is a
former FBI contractor who had top secret security clearance according to his lawyer.
Proud Boy Enrique Tarrio who was arrested 2 days before the riot for vandalism (burning
a BLM banner), had been an informer to the FBI and law inforcement in Florida, according to
his lawyer.
They forgot Antifa and BLM in their list of groups.
State sponsored terrorist groups favored by Liberal Elites and their secret police are
generally omitted and immune.
heehaw2 6 hours ago
George Bush Senior, then head of CIA was in Dallas when JFK was assinated. Ol George
announced as President the New World order
QE49er 6 hours ago
Reichstag Fire style false flag.
Ruff_Roll 6 hours ago
It makes perfect sense that FBI or government supported operatives were acting as agents
provocateurs on 1/6, organizing and instigating the riot, and subsequently let off as
"unindicted co-conspirators." Pelosi was probably in on it, too.
TheySayIAmOkay 7 hours ago
This is the biggest "duh" ever. Of course the government is involved. Just like they
were in 9/11. Just like they were stealing the election. Just like they are in at least
some of these mass shootings (the FBI was warned about the Parkland shooter multiple
times). Just like they will be in the next big incident that massively strips rights from
the people.
The Deep State is real. And it is the upper echelons of the FBI, DHS, CIA, ATF, etc.
They are the shadow government that wags the tail. They can do whatever they want and
nobody can do anything about it. Do you think if Ted Cruz or Nancy Pelosi killed someone
they'd get away with it? No. They are figures. The limits of their power can be stripped
with a single, stupid, scandal. How about John Brennan? I have absolutely no doubt in my
mind he could. Because who will hold him accountable? Nobody in the CIA or FBI went down
for not listening to the FBI agent about the 20th hijacker. Mueller got PROMOTED! He's deep
state. Brennan was regional chief of the CIA in Riyadh leading up to 9/11. He got...
PROMOTED! Deep state.
3-fingered_chemist 7 hours ago
The fact the Capitol had essentially zero security the day all members were present to
tally the EC votes and people still think this wasn't faked?
Jim in MN 7 hours ago
Speaking as someone who actually attended the earlier 'Stop the Steal' rally in DC, I
said at the time that the Jan. 6th event didn't smell right and felt like a setup.
Recommended that folks stay away, expect trouble and stay frosty at that time.
Note that the FBI was/is also deeply involved in the BLM riots. AKA a criminal
conspiracy to destabilize US civil order. Of course a lot of mayors and police chiefs are
also involved in that criminal conspiracy.
The more you know.....
jammyjo 7 hours ago
FBI is making contact with unstable people, and do nothing but keep them on a list of
"assets" to be activated when needed.
Patmos 7 hours ago
Gives new meaning to false narrative. More than just spin, they actually create the
events themselves. Not quite a false flag, because nothing really happened.
Is anyone involved going to stand up and say no? Or have they all just decided to
reserve themselves to being corrupt little b!tches?
Feck Weed 7 hours ago
FBI is the US domestic secret police force for the Globalist Empire. Nationalism is the
enemy of the globalists...
Early in the pandemic, I had been furiously writing articles about lockdowns. My phone rang
with a call from a man named Dr. Rajeev Venkayya. He is the head of a vaccine company but
introduced himself as former head of pandemic policy for the Gates Foundation.
Replay Unmute Duration 0:22 / Current Time 0:22
Loaded : 100.00% Fullscreen Up Next Replay the list
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.464.0_en.html#goog_652049397 The World Now
Officially Has Five Oceans UP NEXT Kevin Connolly and girlfriend welcome daughter Edge Of The
World: Going Up River Political leaders arrive in Cornwall for G7 summit French president
Emmanuel Macron slapped in face during visit to town The G7 summit: What you need to know
Awake: Gina Rodriguez On What Drew Her To The Film Awake: Lucius Hoya On How He Prepared For
His Role NOW PLAYING
I did not know it then, but I've since learned from Michael Lewis's (mostly terrible) book
The Premonition that Venkayya was, in fact, the founding father of lockdowns. While working for
George W. Bush's White House in 2005, he headed a bioterrorism study group. From his perch of
influence "" serving an apocalyptic president" he was the driving force for a dramatic change
in U.S. policy during pandemics.
He literally unleashed hell.
That was 15 years ago. At the time, I wrote about the changes I was witnessing, worrying
that new White House guidelines (never voted on by Congress) allowed the government to put
Americans in quarantine while closing their schools, businesses, and churches shuttered, all in
the name of disease containment.
I never believed it would happen in real life; surely there would be public revolt. Little
did I know, we were in for a wild ride"¦
The Man Who Lit the Match
Last year, Venkayya and I had a 30-minute conversation; actually, it was mostly an argument.
He was convinced that lockdown was the only way to deal with a virus. I countered that it was
wrecking rights, destroying businesses, and disturbing public health. He said it was our only
choice because we had to wait for a vaccine. I spoke about natural immunity, which he called
brutal. So on it went.
The more interesting question I had at the time was why this certified Big Shot was wasting
his time trying to convince a poor scribbler like me. What possible reason could there be?
The answer, I now realized, is that from February to April 2020, I was one of the few people
(along with a team of researchers) who openly and aggressively opposed what was happening.
There was a hint of insecurity and even fear in Venkayya's voice. He saw the awesome thing
he had unleashed all over the world and was anxious to tamp down any hint of opposition. He was
trying to silence me. He and others were determined to crush all dissent.
This is how it has been for the better part of the last 15 months, with social media and
YouTube deleting videos that dissent from lockdowns. It's been censorship from the
beginning.
For all the problems with Lewis's book, and there are plenty, he gets this whole backstory
right. Bush came to his bioterrorism people and demanded some huge plan to deal with some
imagined calamity. When Bush saw the conventional plan" make a threat assessment, distribute
therapeutics, work toward a vaccine" he was furious.
"This is bulls**t," the president yelled.
"We need a whole-of-society plan. What are you going to do about foreign borders? And
travel? And commerce?"
Hey, if the president wants a plan, he'll get a plan.
"We want to use all instruments of national power to confront this threat," Venkayya
reports having told colleagues.
"We were going to invent pandemic planning."
This was October 2005, the birth of the lockdown idea.
Dr. Venkayya began to fish around for people who could come up with the domestic equivalent
of Operation Desert Storm to deal with a new virus. He found no serious epidemiologists to
help. They were too smart to buy into it. He eventually bumped into the real lockdown innovator
working at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico.
Cranks, Computers, and Cooties
His name was Robert Glass, a computer scientist with no medical training, much less
knowledge, about viruses. Glass, in turn, was inspired by a science fair project that his
14-year-old daughter was working on.
She theorized (like the cooties game from grade school) that if school kids could space
themselves out more or even not be at school at all, they would stop making each other sick.
Glass ran with the idea and banged out a model of disease control based on stay-at-home orders,
travel restrictions, business closures, and forced human separation.
Crazy right? No one in public health agreed with him but like any classic crank, this
convinced Glass even more. I asked myself, "Why didn't these epidemiologists figure it out?"
They didn't figure it out because they didn't have tools that were focused on the problem. They
had tools to understand the movement of infectious diseases without the purpose of trying to
stop them.
Genius, right? Glass imagined himself to be smarter than 100 years of experience in public
health. One guy with a fancy computer would solve everything! Well, he managed to convince some
people, including another person hanging around the White House named Carter Mecher, who became
Glass's apostle.
Please consider the following quotation from Dr. Mecher in Lewis's book: "If you got
everyone and locked each of them in their own room and didn't let them talk to anyone, you
would not have any disease."
At last, an intellectual has a plan to abolish disease" and human life as we know it too! As
preposterous and terrifying as this is "" a whole society not only in jail but solitary
confinement" it sums up the whole of Mecher's view of disease. It's also completely wrong.
Pathogens are part of our world; they are generated by human contact. We pass them onto each
other as the price for civilization, but we also evolved immune systems to deal with them.
That's 9th-grade biology, but Mecher didn't have a clue.
Fanatics Win the Day
Jump forward to March 12, 2020. Who exercised the major influence over the decision to close
schools, even though it was known at that time that SARS-CoV-2 posed almost risk to people
under the age of 20? There was even evidence that they did not spread COVID-19 to adults in any
serious way.
Didn't matter. Mecher's models" developed with Glass and others" kept spitting out a
conclusion that shutting down schools would drop virus transmission by 80%. I've read his memos
from this period" some of them still not public" and what you observe is not science but
ideological fanaticism in play.
Based on the timestamp and length of the emails, he was clearly not sleeping much.
Essentially he was Lenin on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution. How did he get his way?
There were three key elements: public fear, media and expert acquiescence, and the baked-in
reality that school closures had been part of "pandemic planning" for the better part of 15
years. Essentially, the lockdowners, over the course of 15 years, had worn out the opposition.
Lavish funding, attrition of wisdom within public health, and ideological fanaticism
prevailed.
Figuring out how our expectations for normal life were so violently foiled, how our happy
lives were brutally crushed, will consume serious intellectuals for many years. But at least we
now have a first draft of history.
As with almost every revolution in history, a small minority of crazy people with a cause
prevailed over the humane rationality of multitudes. When people catch on, the fires of
vengeance will burn very hot.
The task now is to rebuild a civilized life that is no longer so fragile as to allow insane
people to lay waste to all that humanity has worked so hard to build.
China's Foreign Ministry blasted the resurgent interest in the Covid-19 lab-origin theory,
noting that the journalist behind a report about Wuhan scientists falling ill is the same one
who peddled lies that led to the Iraq War.
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin took aim at Michael R. Gordon, a national
security correspondent for the Wall Street Journal and one of the authors of the report that
added fuel to speculation about Covid-19's lab origin.
"Not long ago, Michael R. Gordon, an American journalist, by quoting a so-called
"˜previously undisclosed US intelligence report,' hinted [at] a far-fetched connection
between the "˜three sick staff' at the Wuhan lab and the Covid-19 outbreak," Wang said
at a briefing on Friday.
"Nineteen years ago, it was this very reporter who concocted false information by citing
unsubstantiated sources about Iraq's "˜attempt to acquire nuclear weapons,' which
directly led to the Iraq War," he charged, referring to the 2003 US invasion.
The WSJ
piece , published on May 23, cites "a previously undisclosed US intelligence report" as
saying that three researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology fell seriously ill in
November 2019 with symptoms "consistent" with Covid-19 as well as a seasonal flu.
The report got picked up by other mainstream media, which recently began shifting their
coverage on Covid-19's origins from outright dismissing theories that the virus was man-made
to admitting that a lab leak remains a possibility.
Furthermore, I wouldn't personally point to Gordon as the source for the "Wuhan Lab Leak
Hypothesis" "" I would point to the Jewish neocon Josh Rogin.
Rogin, like Gordon, spent years promoting various atrocity hoaxes in the Middle East and
pushing wars for Israel, and is the original source for the version of the "Wuhan Lab theory,"
that is currently circulating, writing a
Washington Post column promoting the hoax on April 14, 2020.
The point of course is that everywhere you look, there are neocons "" most of them Jewish ""
promoting this Wuhan Lab stuff. They are the absolute source of the claim "" they and a Falun
Gong Hong Kong CIA feminist woman, Li-Meng Yan.
She is claiming to be a "whistleblower," despite the fact that she in no way meets the
definition of that term. The term necessarily implies insider knowledge "" usually, a
whistleblower is an employee or former employee of the organization they are blowing the
whistle on.
Though none of the media promoting her says it outright, there is an implication that she
worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. She did not. She worked at a university in Hong Kong
when she was funded by Steve Bannon to write a paper making the claim that the supposed
coronavirus is a Chinese bioweapon.
Bannon has recently been associated with Guo Wengui, a billionaire who was exiled from China
for fraud and various crimes. In June of last year, Bannon declared that Guo is now the real
ruler of China in a bizarre video on a boat.
While they were on the boat in front of the Statue of Liberty saying they were going to
"overthrow the government of China," they flew planes around with signs announcing their new
government.
No one understood what was going on, and even Fox News
reported on "confusion" regarding the banners and the livestream on the boat. The
livestream has since been deleted, and there is no news from the Federal State of New China.
But there is a Wikipedia page documenting this
incredibly strange event.
Guo also runs a fake news website (I use that term in the most literal sense) where he
published the Hunter Biden footjob videos.
The point is: this is a very weird operation, and it is absurd to take a person funded by
these people seriously, as Tucker Carlson shamefully has.
(I'm not attacking Tucker over this, he's overall great and is sometimes just really slow on
the uptake, unfortunately "" but it is shameful to get involved with a Hong Kong woman who was
literally given money by Steve Bannon and his "Federation of New China" group to write a fake
science paper.)
To pretend that she is a whistleblower, to pretend that political organizations funding
papers with a predetermined outcome is serious science, is non-serious behavior.
The first time I heard the Wuhan lab leak theory it was being promoted by neocon extremist
Tom Cotton. It was then promoted by neocon extremist Mike Pompeo, who was then in the process
of trying to start a war with China. Now, it is being promoted by the Jews of CNN.
There is no one involved in claiming that the supposed coronavirus came from a Chinese lab
who doesn't have vested interests in starting a war with the Chinese. This goes for all of
these Jews, as well as Steve Bannon, who has actually declared "overthrowing the government of
China" (his words) to be his goal.
It's very obvious to see how people who want a war with China would use this hoax, and it is
great that China is making the link to the Iraqi WMD hoax. It truly is the same thing.
The United States is a country with a lot of problems. None of those problems are the fault
of China. China is not promoting gay sex to children, they are not flooding us with millions of
brown people, they did not steal our election, they did not take all of our freedoms and
collapse the economy.
Our enemies are domestic and they are Jewish. Any attempt to fear-monger and attack China is
intended as a distraction from what is going on in this country, and intended to stoke a
war.
Furthermore, this "lab leak" nonsense is designed to get people to continue to believe in
this coronavirus hoax.
Though none of the media promoting her says it outright, there is an implication that
she worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. She did not. She worked at a university in
Hong Kong when she was funded by Steve Bannon to write a paper making the claim that the
supposed coronavirus is a Chinese bioweapon.
Bannon has recently been associated with Guo Wengui, a billionaire who was exiled from
China for fraud and various crimes. In June of last year, Bannon declared that Guo is now
the real ruler of China in a bizarre video on a boat.
This style of presentation is updated "internet culture" gonzo that stands on the
shoulders of Hunter Thompson, Tom Wolfe, and in a sense Mark Twain.
That fact that today's Anglospheric system no longer has a place within itself for this
type of "dominant narrative-jamming" creativity, and to write like this means one has chosen
to become a hunted outcast, means this culture is in a death spiral. It's no longer a
self-renewing organism, but simply a collection of isolated biomass units used and thrown
away by the masters.
"Nineteen years ago, it was this very reporter who concocted false information by citing
unsubstantiated sources about Iraq's "˜attempt to acquire nuclear weapons,' which
directly led to the Iraq War," he charged, referring to the 2003 US invasion.
Either the neo-cons thought no one would notice or the noe-cons didn't notice
themselves.
I'm leaning towards the latter, especially with sloppy drunk Steve Bannon and a "Falun
Gong Hong Kong CIA feminist woman" in the mix. Is this really the best they can do?
These times we're living in are absolutely surreal. Not surprised though, we've been doing
this for a long time now. Alas, a great many of my fellow White Americans will fall for it
completely & be all in for a war with China. None of them ever even contemplating what
that would mean for us & the world. But, these are the same people who boast "we're
number one" when we rank at or near the bottom in positive stats for all developed nations,
beset with crippling societal ills. The same people who think we can vote ourselves out of
this mess & Trump will win in "˜24 & somehow save the day. The same people who
think our best days are ahead when our productivity base has been utterly gutted, our
infrastructure is collapsing & our ability to maintain it & the skill set needed to
sustain that productivity/infrastructure is slipping away. The same people who boast of "muh
freedoms" when their freedoms & their children's future is being pulled from right under
their feet. The same people who think we'll always be on top even when every example of
history shows that every empire in history has collapsed. We're racing toward a cliff but
they still think "god" is on their side & won't let it happen or we'll stay on top
because, well, "we're America"..
Utter denial & abject delusion seem to be a central aspect of our people..
" There is no one involved in claiming that the supposed coronavirus came from a Chinese
lab who doesn't have vested interests in starting a war with the Chinese. This goes for all
of these Jews, as well as Steve Bannon, who has actually declared "overthrowing the
government of China" (his words) to be his goal."
" History often repeats itself, first as a tragedy and second as a farce"
Karl Marx.
The tragedy of the WMD of Iraq follows many other tragedies that got young Americans to
spill their blood for the sake of special interests making a killing as war profiteers. The
farce of " China spread the Corona virus will the biggest tragedy to hit America if the
waning bald eagle tries to poke the rising dragon.
Andrew Anglin, is one of the few American journalists who stand boldly for the truth. Not
bad for someone labelled a Neo Nazi by Wikipedia.
"The problem of empires is that they think they are so powerful that they can afford
small inaccuracies and mistakes. "But problems keep piling up. And, at some point, they are
no longer able to cope with them. And the United States is now walking the Soviet Union's
path, and its gait is confident and steady."
The current consensus that Covid was likely a Wuhan lab leak was triggered by an article
by Nicholas Wade, a former science writer for the NY Times and an impeccably
establishmentarian journalist. Previous attempts by right wingers or maverick scientists to
advance this hypothesis were ignored or scorned by the establishment press. Wade could not be
so easily dismissed. His article, plus the release of emails by Fauci acknowledging the
possibility of a lab-created virus (which he publicly ridiculed) and the revelation that
Fauci had funded bat research at Wuhan, have changed the game entirely. My own suspicion is
that the Biden administration is preparing to throw Fauci under the bus and has signaled the
press that he is now fair game. He has served his purpose and can now be used as a scapegoat.
It is unlikely that the Wuhan release will ever be definitively proven. It is more important
to realize that this research is not restricted to Wuhan or China and that steps should be
taken to shut down all such research world-wide, including the USA, lest we have a succession
of these disasters.
The USA has been using bio-warfare for 200 years plus and can NEVER be trusted not to
carry on such research. It controls c.200 labs, worldwide, where research into pathogens and
vectors, particularly arthropods, and the collection of pathogens, is carried out. It used
biological agents in Korea in the early 50s, and against Cuba (African Swine Fever and
dengue) in the 70s, and God knows where else, and against its own people, most infamously the
Tuskegee syphilis abomination. And it is responsible for SARS CoV2, you can be sure.
The West has been trying to bring down China since they tried to turn them all into opium
addicts. Americans were complicit with the British in this and many of the so-called deep
state players made their money from the opium trade. Apparently the same families control the
present day drugs trade and the laundering of the profits from it; the so-called drug cartels
are mostly minor actors well below those who run the operation at the top. Members of the
cartels are often sacrificed but those at the top remain the same.
@Ber t we have is the Josh Hawley demand to declassify everything related to Covid from
day-1, and since he made that proposal, it has been crickets from everyone else, which is
again indicative that no one in the power elite has any incentive or goal to do more than
batter their usual targets.
All that said "" the best practices at this stage of overwhelming deception is to start
with what we can in fact establish and prove as actual plain fact, and proceed from there. If
you start from what you suspect or theorize, you will soon be enmeshed in fevered
propositions ("missiles hit the pentagon on 9/11") that crap all over the genuine facts and
do nothing but hand-craft a made-to-order, wild goose chase. This is very welcome by those
who want to control the entire denouement, to serve their own agenda.
"¦ many other tragedies that got young Americans to spill their blood for the
sake of special interests making a killing as war profiteers.
Agree the main thrust of your post, Joe.
It is also worth remembering that very many innocent souls in countries across the world
have been going about their daily lives when they were attacked, maimed and killed, their
houses destroyed, infrastructure wrecked etc by those same young Americans. Some countries at
this very hour are occupied and are being looted by the same.
Perhaps not a comfortable thought for Americans to add in as they see their country now
descending into certifiable lunacy.
But what goes around does have a habit of coming around, sooner or later.
@Anon t Ron Unz has been saying from the beginning. If you look at it geostrategically,
this is most plausible conclusion. They released the virus in China but those who created it
suffered a massive blowback and even worse China came out of it even stronger than ever
before. They were hoping China would crumble but instead got stronger while they weakened.
That's why they are fanning out a major Anti-China propaganda campaign to contain her now
openly with an overwhelming support of western citizens. This frenziness displayed by western
politicians is the reflection that China is on the verge an unstoppable economic powerhouse
within a few years and they need to put the brakes right now. It is an implicit admission of
desperation. The tussle between China and the US is going to dramatically intensify.
A country can't bring another country down by giving it "Most Favored Nation Trading
Status".
Then sending all it's major corporations there to make big deals.
And how has it served the United States where practically every item, pill in the US is
"Made in China"?
The American people were sold out decades ago in order for the 1% and their Congressional
lackeys to make major bucks. We were even working with them to create a deadly virus!
If we take ZH commentariat opinions as a representative sample of the US conservatives
opinion, Fauci days are now numbered. And not only because he over 80.
Speaking to Laura Ingraham, Paul asserted that "The emails paint a disturbing picture, a
disturbing picture of Dr. Fauci, from the very beginning, worrying that he had been funding
gain-of-function research. He knows it to this day, but hasn't admitted it."
The Senator also urged that Fauci's involvement has not been adequately investigated because
in the eyes of Democrats "he could do no wrong".
Paul pointed out that Fauci was denying that there was even any funding for gain of function
research at the Wuhan lab just a few weeks back, a claim which is totally contradicted by his
own emails in which he discusses it.
"In his e-mail, within the topic line, he says "˜acquire of perform research.' He was
admitting it to his non-public underlings seven to eight months in the past," Paul
emphasised.
The Senator also pointed to
the email from Dr. Peter Daszak , President of the EcoHealth Alliance, a group that
directly funded the Wuhan lab gain of function research, thanking Fauci for not giving credence
to the lab leak theory.
Ingraham asked Paul if Fauci could face felony culpability, to which the Senator replied "At
the very least, there is ethical culpability," and Fauci should be fired from his government
roles.
Earlier Paul had reacted to Amazon pulling Fauci's upcoming book from pre-sale:
In softball interviews with MSNBC and CNN Thursday, Fauci dismissed the notion that his
emails show any conflicts of interest, and claimed that it is in China's "best interest" to be
honest about the pandemic origins, adding that the US should not act "accusatory" toward the
communist state.
Roger Stone was given 9 years for lying to Congress. Fauci should be on the same
hook.
truth or go home 2 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Looks like Fauci is going the way of Gates, but he won't be arrested, because he is
doing the bidding of the overlords.
What could he be arrested for? Let's see: Misappropriation of government funds, lying to
a senator under oath, covering up a criminal operation, operating a conspiracy to deceive
the people of the United States.
Seems like Rand is willing to nail Fauci to the wall, but he is not willing to go after
the big kahuna - the entire hoax - the fake vaxxes, the fake lockdowns, the fake "cases",
the fake death count, the elimination of flu...
Lucky Guesst 10 hours ago
Fauci is owned by big pharma. All the major news channels have at least one big pharma
rat on the board. MSM continues to push the vaccines. They are all in bed together and need
busted up if not taken out.
SummerSausage PREMIUM 15 hours ago
2012- Fauci says weaponized virus research may produce a pandemic but it would be worth
it.
Jan 9, 2017 NIAD memo recommends lifting ban on funding weaponized virus research. Fauci
controls the funds.
Jan 4, 2017 - CIA/FBI/DNC - under Obama's direction are told, essentially, to get
Trump.
Obama is behind release of this virus, creating pandemic panic and lockdown to
facilitate stealing the 2020 election.
OBAMA must be investigated.
play_arrow
CheapBastard 10 hours ago
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak
it."
~ Anonymous
serotonindumptruck 17 hours ago remove link
Call me a pessimist, but I predict no accountability, no malfeasance, no criminal
charges will be filed against Fauci.
We've all witnessed similar criminal behavior being perpetrated by the wealthy elite
which result in no consequences.
Why should this be any different?
(((They))) now know that (((they))) can lie to us with impunity, and get away with
it.
alexcojones 16 hours ago
New Nuremberg Needed Now.
Fauci in the witness chair.
"So, Dr. Fauci, your decisions, your outright lies, led to thousands, perhaps millions
of unnecessary deaths."
Baric & Batwoman published their chimeric coronavirus with ACE2 receptor access in
2015. Funded by Fauci, of course.
Kevin 3 hours ago (Edited)
That document only shows that Gain Of Function research exists - not that the deaths,
falsely attributed to covid are due to the product of that research.
What self-respecting, lab-created, killer virus, supposedly so deadly that it warrants
the shutting down of the entire planet, is incapable of doing any more damage than the flu
does every year?
In the case of the UK, and according to its own official figures, it hasn't even been
able to do that compared to its history of seasonal flu.
So, 2020 was just a blip compared to the past and most of that blip in increased deaths
was due to the insane policies imposed rather than any lab-created Fluzilla. If you
subtract the deaths that occurred due to:
1. Kicking seniors out of hospital and dumping them into nursing homes where they died
because they no longer got the treatment they needed but where they could infect the other,
previously healthy residents.
2. The many tens of thousands of people who had life-saving surgeries and procedures
cancelled.
3. The huge increase in suicides.
..... I doubt there would even be that blip.
If those historically, insignificant 2020 death figures are due to a lab-created,
chimeric coronavirus then that's an epic fail of the scientists and an enormous waste of
money for their education and the G.o.F. research.
However, it has conned enough idiots into believing that there was a Fluzilla in 2020
and got them to beg for jabs that might be how a lab created, chimeric coronavirus with
ACE2 receptor access gets into their bodies and kills them.
The new con that it was a leaked GoF bio-weapon that caused the 2020 'pandemic' is just
a lie upon a lie.
But it will persuade many of the gullible and fence-sitters to get jabbed because they
will have accepted (subconsciously), that the Fluzilla must have existed last year and that
the only way to combat such a bio-weapon is to jab themselves with poison. Ironically, that
will create in their bodies what they fear most.
Befits 9 hours ago remove link
No, you are not thinking clearly. The Covid death numbers were clearly and horrifically
inflated
1) The CDC changed how death certificates were recorded. Co-morbidities ( cancer,
congestive heart failure, COPD for example) that co- morbidity was listed as cause of death
in part one of the death certificate for 2 decades until the CDC changed death
certificates. If that person had for example a flu At that time ( cough, stuffy nose etc)
it might be listed as a contributing factor ( part 2 of death certificate) person died of
co- morbidity but flu was a contributing factor. The CDC reversed these to make sure Covid
was the cause of death- but truth was people died with Covid not from Covid.
2) 95% of Covid listed deaths actually died of co- morbidities- with Covid not from
Covid. The CDC published that only 5% of " Covid " deaths had only Covid- the other 95% had
on average 4 co- morbidities. In other words their cause of death was co- morbidity not
Covid.
3) personal experience. I was a nurse. A close friend's brother had cancer for 7 years-
in and out of remission. He was " diagnosed with Covid via PCR, almost no symptoms but for
a slight cough and runny nose in March 2020. In April his cancer came back his liver shut
down and he was dead by May 2020. He died from liver cancer but his death was recorded as
Covid 19 simply because he had tested positive 60 days before on a Covid PCR test. This is
the fraud the CDC perpetrated.
4) Hospitals received greatly enhanced financial renumeration if a patient was "
diagnosed" with Covid. Compare hospital reimbursement ( Medicare) for a hospitalized Covid
patient v influenza patient - similar symptoms- on or off respirator. Bottom line the
medical system was financially rewarded for diagnosing " Covid" v influenza. Indeed the
hospital did not even have to confirm a " Covid diagnosis with the fraudulent PCR test to
diagnose Covid- just " symptom" based.
5) The PCR test can not diagnose any viral illness- simply by amplification cycles (30
plus) you can " find" Covid from a dead, partial RNA fragment. As Kary Mullis, Nobel prize
inventor of PCR testing said PCR testing is NOT a diagnostic tool. Hospitals and docs,
universities and public health departments, corporations, the CDC, FDA, used false PCR
testing to financially enrich themselves while destroying the lives and livelihoods of
millions inc careers of medical truth- tellers.
Fauci, the CDC, and the FDA knows all of this. Crimes v humanity trials must be
undertaken v every medical person- from Big Pharma, CDC, FDA, Doctor, nurse, hospital
administrator, public health official, corporate leader etc who used this Covid plandemic
for personal benefit or whom through their actions harmed another.
SoDamnMad 17 hours ago
Watch Tucker Carlson's expose on "Why they lied for so long" At 3:29 he goes into Peter
Danzak getting 27 "scientists" to write in the Lancet that the Covid virus didn't come from
the Wuhan Lab but rather from nature (with the HIV spliced into the genome). But he also
tells individuals at UNC NOT to sign the letter so that their gain-of-function research
isn't tied into this. His e-mail goes to Ralph Baric, Antoinette Baric, as well as Andre
Alison and Alexsei Chmura at EcoHealthAlliance who Fauci got the money to for funding GOF
Chinese research.
Fauci is 80. Why was he allowed to stay on so long?
He controls $32 billion in annual grants that all US scientists and researchers depend
on.
There's a whole lot more corruption to explore.
CatInTheHat 8 hours ago remove link
This whole thing feels CONTRIVED
Why does this even matter anymore?
China is NOT the problem here and focusing on CHINA DISTRACTS from a few things
here.
1 FORT DETRIK. A nefarious US BIOWEAPONS lab that Fraudci worked at for 20 years. FD
also works in conjunction with DARPA
2. Whenever it's WAPO or Buzzfeed (FFS!) who breaks a story related to the Rona, I am
convinced that the elite have called them up to DISTRACT the public from something more
important. Maybe that Fort Detrik was the source of the virus transferred to China via the
US MIC/CIA and the Wuhan military games in China in Nov of 2019. 2 weeks later the first
cases showed up at Wuhan.
3. This VACCINE has now killed over 5000 people and since the rollout for children
between 12-16, several hundred have now been hospitalized with MYOCARDITIS OR
PERICARDITIS.. In Israel a study conducted as the vax rolled out in YOUNG MEN, it was
revealed that one in 3,000 was suffering from MYOCARDITIS within 4 days of the jab.
MSM is now reporting on adolescents in several states hospitalized with INFLAMMATION.
... Which they blame on RONA. FUNNY how every one of those states have rolled out the jab
for CHILDREN
WE are being massively LIED too.
Also, Biden's press secretary PSAKI LIED when she said, today, that 63% of the
population has had the jab.
Wrong. Only 41% of the US population has had BOTH jabs. Anti gun Biden is now offering
guns in exchange for a vax in Virginia. And anti marijuana Biden offering MJ in AZ for
those who take the jab. Why the desperation?
For more perspective on the massive deaths piling up due to this jab, in 1976, when 50
people were killed after the Swine flu jab IT WAS PULLED FROM THE MARKET.
Many thousands who have not had the jab are reporting illness after being in close
contact with those who are vaxxed.
Lots and lots to DISTRACT from
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
ableman28 10 hours ago
True story....one of my VC firms investments was approached by the defense department to
create a wearable lapel style detector for chemical and biological weapons that would work
in very low concentrations giving people time to put on their CBW gear. Our investee said
sure, we'll take a crack at it, but where are we going to get all the biological and
chemical agents to test it with. The DOD response was don't worry, we have everything
you'll need. And they did.
The US bio weapons program was supposedly terminated by Nixon in 1969. And our official
policy is that we don't research or stockpile such things. ********.
Armed Resistance 15 hours ago (Edited) remove link
This virus was engineered at Ft. Detrick. It's the same place that made the
military-grade Anthrax the deep state sent to Tom Daschle and others in government post
9/11 to gin up more fear.
This was a Fauci-coordinated deep state bio weapon they released in Wuhan to kick off
the scamdemic and the "great reset". Releasing it China gave some cover to the deep state
and the people there are under total control of the state. The rest is just filler. Always
about more control.....
BeePee 15 hours ago
The virus was not engineered at Ft. Detrick.
You are a CCP troll.
Sorry you have such a low pay grade job.
Armed Resistance 15 hours ago (Edited)
Anybody who Questions the deep state is a CCP troll? Look in the mirror. You're the one
running cover for these satanists! You rack up downvotes like Jordan did points! ZH'ers can
spot a troll a mile away son.
louie1 PREMIUM 14 hours ago (Edited)
The US way is to put the perpetrators in charge of the inuiry to control the outcome.
Dulles, Zellick, Fauci
Mighty Turban of Gooch 11 hours ago
Our government is corrupt. As long as the Democrats and the MSM have Fauci's back, he
has nothing to worry about no matter what he's done.
He's just a typical lying bureaucrat and lying to the public thru the media outlets, as
we have seen countless times now by countless government 'officials', is not a crime. Lying
under oath however is. But now days we see these guys get away with that too without
consequence.
So don't hold your breath. There is absolutely nothing that can take these guys out.
Even if they throw one of their own under the bus, the best you can ever hope for is a
resignation as criminal charges would never happen.
dustinthewind 16 hours ago (Edited)
"The CDC Foundation operates independently from CDC as a private , nonprofit 501(c)(3)
organization incorporated in the State of Georgia."
"Because CDC is a federal agency , all scientific findings resulting from CDC research
are available to the public and open to the broader scientific community for review."
"The Board of Directors of the CDC Foundation today named Judith A. Monroe, MD, FAAFP,
as the new president and CEO of the CDC Foundation . Monroe joins the CDC Foundation from
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ), where she leads the agency's Office
for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support."
Gates is the largest private donor of the CDC and WHO. Gates is part of the World
Economic Forum who controls Fauci which using US taxpayers funds did gain of function
studies first in the US and caught moved to China where it was intentionally leaked to
blame the Chinese. John Kerry is also part of the WEF and is their man in Washington
calling the war mongering narrative against both China and Russia. Gates funded Imperial
College and Ferguson to write the code that was fake and used by many countries to justify
lockdowns. Gates is the largest ag landowner and wants to ban meat. Who just got hacked and
now it is blamed on Russia? Boris is destroying the UK and after a call from Gates gave 500
million pounds to vaccinate third world countries and lockdowns. Both fathers were tied to
Rockefeller Institute. Rand, connect the dots!
Fauci is under attack globally and has shown himself to be unreliable and should be
fired "" PERIOD! All the emails that have come out from an
FOIA request are interesting, and it shows he has information that was credible
concerning a leak from the lab in Wuhan. Let me make this PERFECTLY clear! This was NOT a
DELIBERATE leak by the Chinese government. If China wanted to really hurt the West, the
technology is there where a virus can be used as a delivery system, and as such, it can be
designed to attack specific genetic sequences meaning that it could target just Italian,
Greeks, English, Germans, or whoever.
COVID-19, based upon everything I see from our model and reliable sources, was created
in a lab and was DELIBERATELY unleashed to further this Great Reset. I BELIEVE someone from
this agenda bribed a lab technician to release it in the local community. China did NOT
benefit from this pandemic. The only ones who benefitted were the World Economic Forum
(WEF) consortium, which I know sold stocks and bonds ahead of the crash. They are also in
league with the World Health Organization (WHO), and the head of the WHO is a politician
and not even a doctor. That is like putting me in charge of surgery at a hospital. How can
Tedros Adhanom be in such a position with no background in the subject matter? Tedros appears at the World
Economic Forum and has participated in its agenda. The WHO should be compelled to turn over
ALL emails and communication ASAP. My bet is they pull a Hillary"¦Oh sorry. They
were hacked by Russians who destroyed everything.
The World Economic Forum is at the center of everything. When will someone investigate all
of these connections right down to creating the slogan, Build Back Better? Of course, they
will call this a conspiracy theory so they can avoid having to actually investigate
anything. My point is simple: produce the evidence and prove this is just a conspiracy
theory.
'John Kerry's Think Tank Calls for War With Russia Over Climate Change'
" America will soon have a government that treats the climate crisis as the urgent
national security threat it is."" John Kerry
Recently-appointed Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry has announced his
intention of dealing with the pressing issue of global warming as a national security
concern. "America will soon have a government that treats the climate crisis as the urgent
national security threat it is," the 76-year-old former Secretary of State wrote. "I am
proud to partner with the President-elect, our allies, and the young leaders of the climate
movement to take on this crisis." Kerry is a founding member of the Washington think tank,
the American Security Project (ASP) , whose board is a who's who of retired generals,
admirals and senators.
For the ASP, the primary objectives were:
A huge rebuilding of the United States' military bases,
Countering China in the Pacific,
Preparing for a war with Russia in the newly-melted Arctic.
The ASP recommends "prioritizing the measures that can protect readiness" of the
military to strike at any time, also warning that rising sea levels will hurt the combat
readiness of the Marine Expeditionary Force. Thus, a rebuilding of the U.S.' worldwide
network of military bases is in order.
Fort Detrik a US BIOWEAPONS lab working in tandem with the Wuhan lab. The US is the
leader in BIOWEAPONS research and has 100's of labs across the US and in other
countries.
FRAUDCI having worked at FD for 20 years.
MommickedDingbatter 12 hours ago
Without Nuremberg trials 2.0, this is all meaningless.
Nycmia37 16 hours ago remove link
Follow the science, lol. Just ask yourself who controls the science?? Big drug pharmas,
people is so stupid they believe in everything doctors tell them. The vast majority are on
the field to get rich and enjoy from the big bonuses and trips they get paid in order to
promote a drug. If they speak out they get called a conspiracy person. Nobody cant go
against this mafia because they have the total control, media, politicians, government. We
the people have to self educate about health and finance otherwise we will become zombies
like the majority of people.
SoDamnMad 7 hours ago remove link
Here are the 27 starting with Peter Daszak who signed THE LANCET letter saying ," We
stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not
have a natural origin. "
Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance, New York
Charles Calisher, Colorado State University
Dennis Carroll, Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs, Texas
Fauci is protected at the very highest levels of the oligarchy. So regardless of these
revelations nothing serious will ever happen to him. At worst, he will step down and retire
to his villa in the south of France. Then the controlled MSM will refuse to mention him
again.
Clearing 17 hours ago
Gee, while you're at it, sue Fauci in his individual capacity. He doesn't get immunity
for lying. See below:
In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government
officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from civil suits unless
the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". It is a form of
sovereign immunity less strict than absolute immunity that is intended to protect officials
who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions" extending to "all
[officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law " Qualified
immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the
government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.
DemandSider 3 hours ago (Edited)
"PCR is separate from that, it's just a process that's used to make a whole lot of
something out of something. That's what it is. It doesn't tell you that you're sick and it
doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything
like that," Mullis said.
-Nobel Prize winning inventor of PCR being used as a "test" to perpetuate the scamdemic.
Mr. "small government" Rand Paul is only making it worse.
Almachius 2 hours ago
Never mind Fauci. White Supremacists are the greatest threat to America.
Obiden said so.
And Obiden is an honourable man.
Fiscal Reality 14 hours ago
Fauci doesn't give a crap what happens. He got his book deal payoff. He's praying to get
fired so he can cash in on his taxpayer funded pension and get a $10 million contract with
CNN.
2types PREMIUM 13 hours ago
Amazon pulled his book from presale so says the article. Probably in his best interest
to keep his mouth shut right now. Anything he says can and will be used against him. On
second thought.... maybe that's why water carrier Bezos suspended sales?
Abridged version. See the original for full version.
Notable quotes:
"... In October 2014, the Obama administration imposed a moratorium on new funding for gain-of-function research projects that could make influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses more virulent or transmissible. But a footnote to the statement announcing the moratorium carved out an exception for cases deemed "urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security." ..."
"... the review process shrouded in secrecy. "The names of reviewers are not released, and the details of the experiments to be considered are largely secret," said the Harvard epidemiologist Dr. Marc Lipsitch, whose advocacy against gain-of-function research helped prompt the moratorium. ..."
"... In May 2014, five months before the moratorium on gain-of-function research was announced, EcoHealth secured a NIAID grant of roughly $3.7 million, which it allocated in part to various entities engaged in collecting bat samples, building models, and performing gain-of-function experiments to see which animal viruses were able to jump to humans. The grant was not halted under the moratorium or the P3CO framework. ..."
"... Shi Zhengli herself listed U.S. government grant support of more than $1.2 million on her curriculum vitae: $665,000 from the NIH between 2014 and 2019; and $559,500 over the same period from USAID. At least some of those funds were routed through EcoHealth Alliance. ..."
"... EcoHealth Alliance's practice of divvying up large government grants into smaller sub-grants for individual labs and institutions gave it enormous sway within the field of virology. The sums at stake allow it to "purchase a lot of omertà" from the labs it supports, said Richard Ebright of Rutgers. ..."
"... now the spin doctors come around pointing the finger at china. Sure, china may have done the experimentation and research, but where did the funding, research resources, training, and direction come from? ..."
"... The US banned bioweapon development (in the US) and moved it to China with Fraudci in charge so that they could do human experiments and make lots of money on GMO "vaccines" And now the US is trying to spin the story and put the blame on China ..."
As the NSC tracked these disparate clues, U.S. government virologists advising them flagged
one study first submitted in April 2020. Eleven of its 23 coauthors worked for the Academy of
Military Medical Sciences, the Chinese army's medical research institute. Using the
gene-editing technology known as CRISPR, the researchers had engineered mice with humanized
lungs, then studied their susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2. As the NSC officials worked backward
from the date of publication to establish a timeline for the study, it became clear that the
mice had been engineered sometime in the summer of 2019, before the pandemic even started. The
NSC officials were left wondering: Had the Chinese military been running viruses through
humanized mouse models, to see which might be infectious to humans?
In October 2014, the Obama administration imposed a moratorium on new funding for
gain-of-function research projects that could make influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses more
virulent or transmissible. But a footnote to the statement announcing the moratorium carved out
an exception for cases deemed "urgently necessary to protect the public health or national
security."
In the first year of the Trump administration, the moratorium was lifted and replaced with a
review system called the HHS P3CO Framework (for Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and
Oversight). It put the onus for ensuring the safety of any such research on the federal
department or agency funding it. This left the review process shrouded in secrecy. "The names
of reviewers are not released, and the details of the experiments to be considered are largely
secret," said the Harvard epidemiologist Dr. Marc Lipsitch, whose advocacy against
gain-of-function research helped prompt the moratorium. (An NIH spokesperson told Vanity
Fair that "information about individual unfunded applications is not public to preserve
confidentiality and protect sensitive information, preliminary data, and intellectual
property.")
Inside the NIH, which funded such research, the P3CO framework was largely met with shrugs
and eye rolls, said a longtime agency official: "If you ban gain-of-function research, you ban
all of virology." He added, "Ever since the moratorium, everyone's gone wink-wink and just done
gain-of-function research anyway."
British-born Peter Daszak, 55, is the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a New York
City–based nonprofit with the laudable goal of preventing the outbreak of emerging
diseases by safeguarding ecosystems. In May 2014, five months before the moratorium on
gain-of-function research was announced, EcoHealth secured a NIAID grant of roughly $3.7
million, which it allocated in part to various entities engaged in collecting bat samples,
building models, and performing gain-of-function experiments to see which animal viruses were
able to jump to humans. The grant was not halted under the moratorium or the P3CO
framework.
By 2018, EcoHealth Alliance was pulling in up to $15 million a year in grant money from an
array of federal agencies, including the Defense Department, the Department of Homeland
Security, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, according to 990 tax exemption
forms it filed with the New York State Attorney General's Charities Bureau. Shi Zhengli herself
listed U.S. government grant support of more than $1.2 million on her curriculum vitae:
$665,000 from the NIH between 2014 and 2019; and $559,500 over the same period from USAID. At
least some of those funds were routed through EcoHealth Alliance.
EcoHealth Alliance's practice of divvying up large government grants into smaller sub-grants
for individual labs and institutions gave it enormous sway within the field of virology. The
sums at stake allow it to "purchase a lot of omertà" from the labs it supports, said
Richard Ebright of Rutgers. (In response to detailed questions, an EcoHealth Alliance
spokesperson said on behalf of the organization and Daszak, "We have no comment.")
In July, the NIH attempted to backtrack. It reinstated the grant but suspended its research
activities until EcoHealth Alliance fulfilled seven conditions, some of which went beyond the
nonprofit's purview and seemed to stray into tinfoil-hat territory. They included: providing
information on the "apparent disappearance" of a Wuhan Institute of Virology researcher, who
was rumored on social media to be patient zero, and explaining diminished cell phone traffic
and roadblocks around the WIV in October 2019.
Ebright likened Daszak's model of research -- bringing samples from a remote area to an
urban one, then sequencing and growing viruses and attempting to genetically modify them to
make them more virulent -- to "looking for a gas leak with a lighted match." Moreover, Ebright
believed that Daszak's research had failed in its stated purpose of predicting and preventing
pandemics through its global collaborations.
It soon emerged, based on emails obtained by a Freedom of Information group called U.S.
Right to Know, that Daszak had not only signed but organized the influential Lancet
statement, with the intention of concealing his role and creating the impression of scientific
unanimity.
Under the subject line, "No need for you to sign the "Statement" Ralph!!," he wrote to two
scientists, including UNC's Dr. Ralph Baric, who had collaborated with Shi Zhengli on the
gain-of-function study that created a coronavirus capable of infecting human cells: "you, me
and him should not sign this statement, so it has some distance from us and therefore doesn't
work in a counterproductive way." Daszak added, "We'll then put it out in a way that doesn't
link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice."
Baric agreed, writing back, "Otherwise it looks self-serving and we lose impact."
Baric did not sign the statement. In the end, Daszak did. At least six other signers had
either worked at, or had been funded by, EcoHealth Alliance. The statement ended with a
declaration of objectivity: "We declare no competing interests."
Daszak mobilized so quickly for a reason, said Jamie Metzl: "If zoonosis was the origin,
it was a validation of his life work . But if the pandemic started as part of a lab leak, it
had the potential to do to virology what Three Mile Island and Chernobyl did to nuclear
science." It could mire the field indefinitely in moratoriums and funding restrictions.
In a CNN interview on March 26, Dr. Redfield, the former CDC director under Trump, made a
candid admission: "I am of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of
this pathogen in Wuhan was from a laboratory, you know, escaped." Redfield added that he
believed the release was an accident, not an intentional act. In his view, nothing that
happened since his first calls with Dr. Gao changed a simple fact: The WIV needed to be ruled
out as a source, and it hadn't been.
After the interview aired, death threats flooded his inbox. The vitriol came not just from
strangers who thought he was being racially insensitive but also from prominent scientists,
some of whom used to be his friends. One said he should just "wither and die."
Peter Daszak was getting death threats too, some from QAnon conspirators.
Inside the U.S. government, meanwhile, the lab-leak hypothesis had survived the transition
from Trump to Biden. On April 15, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines told the House
Intelligence Committee that two "plausible theories" were being weighed: a lab accident or
natural emergence.
Even so, lab-leak talk was mostly confined to right-wing news outlets through April,
gleefully flogged by Tucker Carlson and studiously avoided by most of the mainstream media. In
Congress, the Energy and Commerce Committee's Republican minority had launched its own inquiry,
but there was little buy-in from Democrats and the NIH didn't provide responses to its lengthy
list of demands for information.
The ground began to shift on May 2, when Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times
science writer known in part for writing a controversial book about how genes shape the social
behavior of different races, published a lengthy
essay on Medium. In it, he analyzed the scientific clues both for and against a lab leak,
and excoriated the media for its failure to report on the dueling hypotheses. Wade devoted a
full section to the "furin cleavage site," a distinctive segment of SARS-CoV-2's genetic code
that makes the virus more infectious by allowing it to efficiently enter human cells.
Within the scientific community, one thing leapt off the page. Wade quoted one of the
world's most famous microbiologists, Dr. David Baltimore, saying that he believed the furin
cleavage site "was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus." Baltimore, a Nobel Laureate
and pioneer in molecular biology, was about as far from Steve Bannon and the conspiracy
theorists as it was possible to get. His judgment, that the furin cleavage site raised the
prospect of gene manipulation, had to be taken seriously.
Weedlord Bonerhitler, 1 hour ago
Gain of function research is weaponization. We are under attack by a biological weapon
designed in a laboratory to kill people. We are, in effect, at war.
KickIce, 1 hour ago, (Edited)
With who, Washington DC? FWIW, that would be my pick.
ted41776, 1 hour ago
Yes, except "we" moved this "research" to china many years ago to speed up the weaponization
of bioweapons. the original researchers came to the us from nazi Germany after WW2 (Project
Paperclip). it wasn't moving fast enough here because of that whole experimenting on humans
thing was looked down upon here in the US (at least in the past). so "we" hired china what "we"
couldn't do domestically on "our" own.
And now the spin doctors come around pointing the finger
at china. Sure, china may have done the experimentation and research, but where did the
funding, research resources, training, and direction come from?
gregga777, 1 hour ago
Gain of function research is weaponization
It's also insane. Hey, look at what we did! We made smallpox* in our gene sequencing
laboratory. Oops! It's release into the 'wild' was an unfortunate accident.
Anyone engaged in the research & development of making viruses or bacteria more lethal
or the resurrection of presumably extinct pathogens (e.g., smallpox*) are International War
Criminals. They should be arrested and placed on trial in a suitable jurisdiction. At the very
least they should be barred forever from working in any kind of even remotely related
laboratory research.
*The complete gene sequence of smallpox is apparently freely available over the
Internet.
is an example of GOF engineering that bat lady Shi Zhengli participated in, engineering
chimeras of SARS and SARS like coronaviruses and splicing with HIV to make it more
transmissible to humans.
Pax Romana, 1 hour ago
10 page article could have been condensed into one sentence: Fort Detrick -> Canadian Lab
-> Wuhan -> Spooks -> Election Fraud -> Vax -> State Control
ted41776, 1 hour ago
The US banned bioweapon development (in the US) and moved it to China with Fraudci in charge
so that they could do human experiments and make lots of money on GMO "vaccines" And now the US is trying to spin the story and put the blame on China
no, this covaids was MADE IN THE USA even if it was produced and manufactured in China under
US funding, direction, and supervision
brian91145, 1 hour ago
100% right that is the truth that everyone will know very soon
ted41776, 1 hour ago, (Edited)
not sure if it will make any difference
911: US training and funding bin laden for over a decade? WMDs, they got WMDs! pools of
molten metal caused by... kerosene (jet fuel)? building 7...
we gotta get that f||cker bin laden though
bammy arming cartels (fast and furious) and guns they got from him used to kill americans
(including cops and border patrol)? crickets
there is no election fraud, after seeing them spend 4 years trying to overthrow a president
who allegedly used fraud and russian collusion to get elected?
and on and on and on, the neverending 24/7 stream of lies and distortion
unfortunately, truth has become pretty worthless in this sick reality most people live
in
konputa, 1 hour ago
Designed in the US, manufactured in China. We've known this since early 2020.
CheapBastard, 1 hour ago
(((Vanity Fair))) has the same editorial weight that Teen Vogue has.
The article is meant to obfuscate the truth, not clarify it.
CheapBastard, 51 minutes ago, (Edited)
The author carefully avoids inconvenient but important truths including::
Fauci funded the Wuhan bioweapons lab thru NIH (proven by emails) Fauci lied repeatedly from
day#1 about the characteristics and origin of the deadly virus (also proven by emails) the
WHO lied repeatedly about the origin the involvement of Gates in this entire fiasco
S.Parker, · 1 hour ago
Fort Detrick, USA
Handful of Dust, · 4 minutes ago
· Bumbler-in-Chief Biden in the White House Backs 'Incredible' Dr. Anthony Fauci;
Refuses Comment on Explosive Emails Exposing the Lies & Deceit
Its a book! Damn Tylers it will take me days to read. · The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 states:
"Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires,
retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or
knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both."
Weedlord Bonerhitler, 1 hour ago
Don't need a next leak. Just need time for the leaky vaccines to do their work. A
vaccine that doesn't stop transmission and merely reduces symptoms, is not a vaccine, but an
evolutionary pressure upon the virus.
This is Marek's disease, found in chickens. A few decades ago, it was fairly
benign, but then it was treated with a vaccine that merely reduced symptoms to a minimum
without stopping the virus. Now, after evolving over a few decades while butting heads with
that leaky vaccine, it's so deadly to chickens that any unvaccinated flocks tend to be wiped
out by it, making vaccinating every chicken on Earth a necessity.
This is our future. They want people completely dependent on their vaccines to
survive.
Tesla completely transformed the automotive landscape when it introduced the Roadster, pioneering the mass-market electric car and
reinventing
the car as we know
. It sold the first widely-available EV, and it did it with a product that you could easily live with every
day. The company has done more to further the electric game than anyone else and deserves total credit for making EVs a part of the
discussion when it comes to the future of the automobile.
Tesla
has
changed the world. It's also doomed.
The last mainstream automaker to be launched from scratch in the United States was Saturn, a heavily subsidized child of the GM
family. Even with those deep pockets, it failed. History is littered with dead automotive brands. The list of deceased automakers is
also replete with visionary leaders who pioneered new tech and aimed to dominate the luxury market.
The automobile game is tough. The dirty secret is
that the big brands only make around 6% margin on every car they sell
This is all to say: we've been here before. Hudson, Tucker, DeLorean (
twice!
),
Packard, and more. The stories here are all different in their specifics, with some succumbing to shady government dealing, others
losing to price wars. While the immediate causes of their failures might be unique, the fact that they failed certainly is not.
The consumer automobile game is devilishly tough. The dirty secret of the car making world is that the big brands only make around
6% margin on every car they sell. That's a pathetic amount of profit when compared to other well-known brands like Nike, Apple, or
Disney. Shoes, upscale electronics, and entertainment (as well as scores of other industries) all offer double the profit margins,
faster production times, less regulation, and fewer unionized workforces. Building cars is dumb. Car companies make billions of
dollars in profits because they sell so many cars, not because each car is so profitable. And therein lies the rub for Tesla.
Why Tesla is doomed
The only way to be successful at car manufacturing is to do it at a very large scale. You have to sell hundreds of thousands, if not
millions of cars per year to be stable. In 2018,
Tesla
shifted a total of 245,240 cars
. The
Tesla
Model 3
also became the best-selling luxury automobile in United States; last year was fantastic for Tesla. It also took the
company to the very brink of imploding.
Scaling up production lines and capacity is the activity that is killing Tesla, but scaling up further is the only thing that can
save it. The company is at the low point of a "production valley" where becoming capable of building 300,000 cars has made them
wildly unprofitable, but the only way to get to profit is to build even more capacity to enable it to make 700,000 – 1,000,000 cars.
Tesla could potentially have, or raise, the billions needed to do this. It could, that is, if the company could concentrate on doing
one thing at a time.
Tesla's worst enemy is Elon Musk. The serial entrepreneur has an affliction that many serial entrepreneurs have: Shiny Thing
Syndrome. Mr. Musk loves to chase after new challenges and novel projects. Tesla is currently producing 3 different cars, wall
chargers, charging stations, electric semi-trucks, photovoltaic roofs, and spearheading autonomous technology. Throw in the odd
flamethrower
,
underground
tunnels
, and a new
insurance
product
(not to mention
Space
X
), and you see a leader not focused on doing the hard work of pushing his company through a crisis of scale, but a man obsessed
with moon-shots and new projects.
Scaling up production is the activity that is
killing Tesla, but scaling up further is the only thing that can save it
It should be noted that Musk has never operated any business at this scale before. Running a nimble online service such as Paypal is
a very different thing than running a multinational car manufacturer -- especially one that is exclusively pursuing new technologies.
Quite frankly, Musk is not qualified to be CEO of Tesla any longer, and the mismatch of his skills to the company's needs could not
be worse timed for Tesla.
In the next 12 months, practically all other major global auto manufacturers have plans to release their own electric cars. Tesla
ate their lunch last year when it became the best-selling luxury car, but at that time, it was the only EV game in town. More
worryingly, the most common Tesla owner complaints happen to be the areas that traditional car companies excel at:
Fit
and finish
,
service
infrastructure
, and execution on timelines. When Porsche announced its
Taycan
electric sedan
, its #1 source of reservations was from current Tesla owners. This is a surefire sign that the Tesla customer
base is eager to upgrade to something better.
China, the world's largest car market, and the savior of many global brands, cannot save Tesla. Indeed, the current trade war
between the U.S. and China is
hurting
Tesla more
than any other car company. The current price for a Tesla Model 3 in China is approximately $73,000, with roughly
$30,000 of that price being the result of China's import tariffs. In January, Elon Musk broke ground on a Gigafactory in China, and
the total investment in the project is expected to exceed $4 billion,
according
to Goldman Sachs
. That is an amount of money Tesla, quite frankly, doesn't have to spend. After a disastrous first quarter 2019,
the company quickly raised $2.35 billion in stock and debt. Even with this recent cash infusion, Musk told employees the company
would be
out
of cash in 10 months
if spending continued at current levels.
The end of Tesla
Tesla will not go bankrupt. It cannot go bankrupt. At the moment, the company is still well-placed to raise another funding round
and could likely even do as many as three more funding events before investors stop lining up. Failure for Tesla won't happen
tomorrow, but it is coming. More and more evangelists are changing their tunes as competition in EVs gets fiercer. Wall street is
losing patience with broken promises and erratic CEO behavior. And the everyday consumer is finding more electric car options that
tempt their dollar now that Tesla is not the only game in town. No, Tesla's end will not happen tomorrow, nor will it be a dramatic
collapse.
Telsa is too valuable a brand to disappear in a cloud of Chapter 11 smoke. Again, history bears this out. The vast majority of
automotive brands from years past were acquired or absorbed into larger brands, where some succeeded brilliantly (Dodge) and others
slowly morphed into something unrecognizable (Hudson). Arguably, the Tesla brand is the most valuable piece of Tesla's balance sheet
as other manufacturers have caught up with their hard technology (batteries, chargers), and are rapidly chasing down their soft
technology (
Autopilot
).
The Tesla brand is global in reach, and still viewed favorably overall by the public.
The endgame for Tesla is an acquisition. It is the way of the automotive jungle -- the circle of corporate life, as it were. The
unknowable part at the moment is exactly who will acquire Tesla, as the list is quite long. Another car company is the reflexive
bet, but Silicon Valley and Chinese auto manufacturers are all likely bidders as well. Apple
already
offered to buy Tesla
back in 2013 for more than the company is worth at the time of this story. The field of suitors is wide
open, and the eventual winner could well come as a surprise to the everyday public.
Regardless of who steps up to the plate, it will be very surprising if the transaction is labelled as an acquisition. No -- this will
be a "merger" or "partnership" to protect egos and that all-important Tesla brand (again, the most valuable asset on their books).
Any upcoming news of a partnership with a Toyota or a Mercedes should not be seen as a life preserver thrown out in good faith, but
a wholesale pirate sacking of the company. Musk will quietly slip away to chase his shiny things, popping in for product launches
and tweetstorms, but the adults will be put in charge and set a profitable course. What happens after that, no one can know.
Before the pitchforks come out, make no mistake: The world is a better place for Tesla having existed. Electric cars are no longer
made out of old Porsche 914s by a guy in a shed. We are moving toward an electric future, all thanks to underdog Tesla. The world,
and Americans especially, are enamored with an underdog story. But more often than not, the underdog loses. That's why they are
underdogs. In the best of worlds, Tesla can influence Mercedes or a Chinese company from the inside to really nail electric cars and
make them the most affordable option for consumers. I hope that comes to pass for all our sakes.
"She's done as a member of leadership. I don't understand what she's doing," one former
House GOP lawmaker told The Hill of Cheney's ongoing attacks on former President Trump. " It's
like political self-immolation. You can't cancel Trump from the Republican Party; all she's
done is cancel herself. "
Cheney has repeatedly attacked Trump for 'inciting' the Jan. 6 'insurrection' despite
telling supporters to protest peacefully and then go home following the breach of the
Capitol.
GOP leaders hope that purging Cheney from the leadership ranks will move Republicans
beyond their civil war over Trump" one that's raged publicly since the Jan. 6 attack on the
Capitol" and allow the party to unite behind a midterm campaign message that President Biden
and the Democrats are too liberal for the country. - The
Hill
"There are still a few members that are talking about things that happened in the past, not
really focused on what we need to do to move forward and win the majority back next year,"
according to Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), the minority whip. "We're going to have to be unified
if we defeat the socialist agenda you're seeing in Washington."
A victory by Stefanik would mark a symbolic shift back towards Trump by leading Republicans
- as the former president remains highly engaged this election cycle and has threatened to
politically obliterate any remaining GOP opposition.
"By ousting her, what we're saying is: We are repudiating your repudiation of the Trump
policies and the Trump agenda and her attacks on the president," according to Rep. Andy Biggs
(R-AZ), adding " President Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. And when she's out
there attacking him, she's attacking the leader of the Republican Party ."
Cheney has already survived one challenge to her leadership post, in February, after she
infuriated conservatives by voting to impeach Trump for inciting the Capitol rampage on Jan.
6. With the backing of Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), she easily kept
her seat as conference chair, 145 to 61 by secret ballot.
With McCarthy and Scalise fed up with Cheney and now backing Stefanik, the 36-year-old New
Yorker is expected to prevail in Wednesday's contest" a would-be victory for leaders who have
failed to unite the conference behind a post-Trump strategy in the early months of the Biden
administration. - The
Hill
... ... ...
Cheney isn't the only House Republican facing backlash for taking on Trump. Earlier in the
week, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), one of seven Republican senators who voted this year to
convict Trump, was booed and called a traitor at the Utah GOP state convention, where he
narrowly beat back an effort to censure him.
On Friday, the Ohio Republican Party Central Committee voted to censure Rep. Anthony
Gonzalez (R-Ohio), Cheney and the eight other House Republicans who backed Trump's
impeachment in January. The Ohio GOP also formally called for Gonzalez's resignation.
... ... ...
Catullus 51 minutes ago
I don't care if Trump runs again just as long as these gross establishment Republicans
are thrown out on their asses
JoeyChernenko PREMIUM 39 minutes ago (Edited)
Romney is a real traitorous worm. Did you hear him say Biden is a good man with good
intentions when the Utah crowd was booing his worthless hide? And we need to make sure the
Bush dynasty remains out of power.
Anath 51 minutes ago remove link
the cheney family is pure evil. that is all.
chinese.sniffles 52 minutes ago
Why Would Wyoming choose Chenney, after all that evil that **** brought upon America. If
there was no ****, Obama would never get elected.
chunga 47 minutes ago remove link
Cynics suspect primaries are also rigged.
Basecamp3 PREMIUM 50 minutes ago
Comstock is a traitor that never read the Navarro Report which goes into detail of
how the election was stolen. Also, ousting Cheney has zero risk. She is stupid, weak, and
her own constituents hate her.
overbet 50 minutes ago
which has caused some GOP leaders to fear alienating female Republican voters,
particularly educated suburbanites who will be key votes in the 2022 elections.
The female republicans I know are smarter than that. All of them
Grave Dancer 22 38 minutes ago remove link
Liz's sociopath dad **** got hundreds of thousands killed based on a total fraud lie of
a war. And Liz has a problem with Trump because he tweets some unfiltered stuff once in a
while? Freaking kidding me? ay_arrow
GhostOLaz 37 minutes ago
Don't blame Liz, she has a legacy of treason to protect, Daddy removed the only secular
anti Communist govt in the middle East which protected Christains and religious
minorities...
gaaasp 20 minutes ago (Edited)
Women could wear pants and not be burkahed up in Syria and Libya and Iraq before
Bush/Clinton/Obama/Trump sent troops.
chunga 49 minutes ago
I don't want to give up on the process but the GOP has a lot of work to do.
nmewn 39 minutes ago
The thing about "us" is, when we find them we jettison them. Cantor was another one. She
voted to impeach an outgoing President who's trial she knew would be held AFTER he was out
of office and again just an average American citizen holding no federal office at all.
She is either incompetent, stupid (or both) or a cancer the GOP can live with excised
from the body.
Make_Mine_A_Double 40 minutes ago
Peggy Noonan really came out the closet in this weekend's WSJ with editorial of Liz
Chaney against the House of Cowards.
They are 2 of the same. We've had these demsheviks in the ranks for decades. Noonan
takes it in the anoose at dem cocktail parties and is Team Mascot for the RINOs.
Tucker finally exposed that filth Luntz. McCathry is actually living with him in one of
his apartments - I assume it's not platonic in nature.
This is why Trump could never even the bottom of the swamp....g.d. RINOs need to purged
with the extreme prejudice.
the Mysterians 40 minutes ago
War pig.
in deditionem acceptos 48 minutes ago
Liz will survive the vote. Too much graff from the MIC to get her out. McCarthey could
of got her out in Feb if he wanted. Wonder what honey pot he's dipping into?
A Girl In Flyover Country 43 minutes ago
She won't survive the Wyoming voters, though.
Cogito_ergosum 52 minutes ago (Edited)
She is protecting her dad who was part of the inside gang that carried out the...
demolition of the twin towers on 911...
Flying Monkees 37 minutes ago (Edited)
BS. The tribe's fingerprints were all over 9/11 as documented in extensive detail by
Christopher Bollyn.
JoeyChernenko PREMIUM 53 minutes ago
Don't any of these evil families ever just fade into oblivion? Bush, Cheney, Clinton,
Obama, etc.
beavertails 50 minutes ago
Extending and pretending there are choices when there aren't any. The MIC got this. The
"Prez" is just show to sell ads and steal, I mean raise fiat from the gullible.
More Hacks, More Baseless Accusations Against Russia
In January police in various countries took down the Emotet bot-network that was at that
time the basic platform for some 25% of all cybercrimes.
Based on hearsay Wikipedia and other had falsely attributed Emotet to Russian actors.
The real people behind it were actually
Ukrainians :
The operating center of Emotet was found in the Ukraine. Today the Ukrainian national police
took control of it during a raid (video). The police found dozens of
computers, some hundred hard drives, about 50 kilogram of gold bars (current price
~$60,000/kg) and large amounts of money in multiple currencies.
Now the U.S. is accusing Russia of somehow having part in another cybercrime :
President Joe Biden said Monday that a Russia-based group was behind the ransomware attack
that forced the shutdown of the largest oil pipeline in the eastern United States.
The FBI identified the group behind the hack of Colonial Pipeline as DarkSide, a shadowy
operation that surfaced last year and attempts to lock up corporate computer systems and
force companies to pay to unfreeze them.
"So far there is no evidence ... from our intelligence people that Russia is involved,
although there is evidence that actors, ransomware is in Russia," Biden told reporters.
"They have some responsibility to deal with this," he said.
Three days after being forced to halt operations, Colonial said Monday it was moving
toward a partial reopening of its 5,500 miles (8,850 kilometers) of pipeline" the largest
fuel network between Texas and New York.
Biden however is badly informed. There is no evidence that DarkSide has anything to do with
Russia. It is, like Emotet, a commercial
'ransomware-as-a-service' criminal entity that wants to make money and does not care about
geopolitics.
Yes, a version of the DarkNet software does exclude itself from running on system with
specific
language settings :
The DarkSide malware is even built to conduct language checks on targets and to shut down if
it detects Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Armenian, Georgian, Kazakh, Turkmen, Romanian, and
other languages ...
That is a quite long list of east European languages and Russian is only one of it. Why the
authors of DarkNet do not want their software to run on machines with those language settings
is unknown. But why would a Russian actor protect machines with Ukrainian or Romanian language
settings? Both countries are hostile towards Russia. To claim that this somehow points to
Russian actors is therefore baseless.
The Kremlin has once again pointed out the importance of cooperation between Moscow and
Washington in tackling cyberthreats amid a cyber-attack on Colonial Pipeline, a US company.
"Russia has nothing to do with these hacker attacks, nor with the previous hacker attacks,"
Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Preskov assured reporters on Tuesday.
"We categorically reject any accusation against us, and we can only regret that the US is
refusing to cooperate with us in any way to counter cyber-threats. We believe that such
cooperation - both international and bilateral - could indeed contribute to the common
struggle against this scourge [known as] cyber-crime," Peskov said.
The U.S. seems notoriously bad at attributing computer hacks. It claims that the recent
SolarWinds attack which intruded several government branches was also done by Russia. But that
attack
required deep insider knowledge and access to SolarWinds' computers
and processes :
The recently discovered deep intrusion into U.S. companies and government networks used a
manipulated version of the SolarWinds Orion network management software. The Washington borg
immediately attributed the hack to Russia. Then President Trump attributed it to China. But
none of those claims were backed up by facts or known evidence.
The hack was extremely complex, well managed and resourced, and likely required insider
knowledge. To this IT professional it 'felt' neither Russian nor Chinese. It is far more
likely, as Whitney Webb finds, that
Israel was behind it .
Indeed - the programmers of an Israeli company, recently bought up by SolarWinds, had all
the necessary access for such a hack. However the U.S. sanctioned Russia over the SolarWinds
hack without providing any evidence of its involvement.
If the U.S. continues to blame Russia without any evidence for each and every hack there may
come a time when Russia stops caring and really starts to hack into or destroy important U.S.
systems. The U.S. should fear that day.
Posted by b on May 11, 2021 at 17:31 UTC |
Permalink
Thanks b. I don't think Russia is going to escalate destructive attacks any time soon.
There's no upside.
They might even be reluctant to reveal their capabilities in the Ukraine.
For the moment, mockery is the best remedy while they up their game.
@ b who ended with
"
If the U.S. continues to blame Russia without any evidence for each and every hack there may
come a time when Russia stops caring and really starts to hack into or destroy important U.S.
systems.
"
How can you write such assertions that vary from the approach that both Russia and China
are taking?....strong defense but no offense.
Now if empire tried to hack into a Russian or Chinese system/network then appropriate
takedowns of malicious systems/networks would seem logical....and I expect they know
how...but will not do it on the basis of another avenue of empire lies and deceit.
You should have titled the post "Killing Two Birds With One Stone".
This pipeline is huge, running from Texas through the Southeast and all the way up to New
England. It's condition is beyond awful with multiple leaks along the route some of which
lose more than a million gallons per month and much more than can be determined since some of
the gasoline / jet fuel went into the aquifers. These faults have been well known for decades
and although some of the areas are heavily populated no remediation was done. The local
outcry recently caught the attention of the press when kids reported a gasoline smell along
the pipeline route to the police. The locals demanded the pipeline be closed for repairs and
sought answers from state officials and Federal authorities as to why this situation was
allowed. To blame the Russians for the closure of the pipeline which results in a surge in
prices and limited availability of gas for the summer is an absolute stroke of genius.
https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/local/ncdeq-colonial-pipeline-spill-huntersville/275-70e16fb6-c945-4634-b933-3975d0573f2e
It is odd that certain elements of the us intelligence community, along with negative
factions within the us political establishment, continue to absolutely refuse to enter into
verifiable and mutually binding international agreements on cyber security with exactly the
nation states that they accuse (without evidence) of malicious activity in the same sphere,
while at the same time operating in this field in an openly declared hostile manner under the
secrecy deemed necessary for 'national security'.
After Russiagate the credibility of CIA is below zero. So this looks like a part of
propaganda compaign against China.
"Yet somehow Tony Fauci didn't know this Can we really believe that? No, of course, we
can't," Carlson continued, adding "right around the time those Chinese researchers became the
world's first COVID patients, the government of Thailand contacted the CDC and Tony Fauci's
office to say its intelligence service had picked up 'biological anomalies' around the lab in
Wuhan. In other words, there had been a leak."
ay_arrow
AUS-AUD 8 hours ago (Edited)
If fauci funded the wuhan lab then the US funded the wuhan lab.
popeye 6 hours ago
There has been no new credible information released in the past two months pertaining to
the origin of SARS-Cov-2. US Intelligence is not a credible source (lying & deception
are the tradecraft of espionage). All I see is media narrative spin based on conjecture
that you can guarantee has political origins.
Yet Americans, who complain incessantly about the dishonesty of their media, credulously
swallow the narrative fed to them without analysis or critique. Stupid. You think you are
independent rebels, when you are in reality manipulated sheep, and oh so easily
manipulated.
Lets be clear - ZH is now a part of the narrative machine.
SurfingUSA 4 hours ago (Edited)
Can't make inferences????
The Wuhan lab is just the fall guy here.
The virus,
the lab (or Army games) release,
the election impact ...
ALL either Made in the (((USA))) or close to it.
Justin Timberbieber 8 hours ago
Yep, just the CCP. No western involvement whatsoever.
E5 8 hours ago
Until you trace the scientists back to UNC. Then you see that the actual virus they
accelerated came from the US.
Heimdall - Torwart von Assguard 6 hours ago
AND Canada
Ted K. 6 hours ago
The Winnipeg lab of the fully infiltrated Canada is indeed a piece of the puzzle.
Herdee 5 hours ago
And Ft. Detrick
RedNemesis 6 hours ago (Edited)
Okay. They accelerated and released a virus obtained from the US. So is the US
responsible for a country turning yellow cake uranium mined in Nevada into a nuclear
weapon?
truth or go home 5 hours ago
Yes, if the US gives them the recipe and then pays them to develop it.
And if the US did that to get around a law that makes it illegal to do makes it even
worse - which is exactly what happened.
SteveNYC 7 hours ago
I'm going with the "populism" route. Stopping populist governments in their tracks has
always proven reason enough for panic and overkill from TPTB:
- USA
- Brazil
- India
<< Primary targets.
Heimdall - Torwart von Assguard 6 hours ago
Poland
Hungary
Venezuela
Brazil
popeye 6 hours ago
Most Americans have never left their country, many have never left their state, and few
seem to have an education. You can't expect them to know much about anything outside the
US. Basically a flat earth mentality - "the world consists only of what I can see".
junction 8 hours ago
The only certainty is that all the major facts are lies.
Jolt 5 hours ago
You're on the right track, "junction", but be aware that the virus is just an ordinary
flu/corona virus that isn't deadly for the vast majority of humans. The real culprit, the
biggest tool for creating the worldwide "emergency" is the PCR test, which is 100%
fraudulent. This is by design, thanks to the pharmaceuticals.
williambanzai7 PREMIUM 8 hours ago remove link
No Tucker, if you just want to blame the whole thing on China you are missing the
punchline: Fauci
tion PREMIUM 8 hours ago (Edited) remove link
It's all an assortment of narratives and partial truths. Tucker points the finger at
China without mentioning how Fauci was funding Gain of Function work at the Wuhan lab. Here
is just one example of people from that lab using an HIV splice to increase
transmissibility of a pathogen to humans.
In this study, we investigated the receptor usage of the SL-CoV S by combining a human
immunodeficiency virus-based pseudovirus system with cell lines expressing the ACE2
molecules of human, civet, or horseshoe bat. In addition to full-length S of SL-CoV and
SARS-CoV, a series of S chimeras was constructed by inserting different sequences of the
SARS-CoV S into the SL-CoV S backbone. Several important observations were made from this
study. First, the SL-CoV S was unable to use any of the three ACE2 molecules as its
receptor. Second, the SARS-CoV S failed to enter cells expressing the bat ACE2. Third,
the chimeric S covering the previously defined receptor-binding domain gained its ability
to enter cells via human ACE2, albeit with different efficiencies for different
constructs. Fourth, a minimal insert region (amino acids 310 to 518) was found to be
sufficient to convert the SL-CoV S from non-ACE2 binding to human ACE2 binding ,
indicating that the SL-CoV S is largely compatible with SARS-CoV S protein both in
structure and in function.
Journal of Virology, February 2008
And by the way let's not pretend that dear Donald aka President Kushner's FIL didn't
also know about Fauci's questionable involvement with unethical gain of function research
at this lab before appointing him and the PEPFAR mafia to head the Covid taskforce, putting
the foxes in charge of guarding the hen house so to speak.
TheAlmightyCorndawg 8 hours ago
Which is precisely why Tucker is Operation Mockingbird.
Billy the Poet 7 hours ago (Edited)
Then show me solid evidence that what you say is true. You do have film of Tucker
working with the CIA, right?
2+2 ≠ 5 8 hours ago remove link
Huh?
Tucker has NEVER "supported the election hoax".
In fact, Tucker is one of the very few on MSM to continually call for proper voting
audits of the 2020 election, and he repeatedly highlights the obvious fraud that took
place.
ay_arrow
GoodyGumdrops 8 hours ago
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Election fraud has been happening in the US
for decades.
The only thing new this time around is they decided to mock the American people openly,
so that they can never claim ignorance again about the corruption.
The plandemic is the real worldwide atrocity being played out right now before our
eyes.
asteroids 8 hours ago
The heads of the NIH and the CDC have been caught lying. Therefore both agencies have NO
credibility and have lost the trust of the people. ...
Flying Monkees 8 hours ago
Imagine being a total POS like Fauci who would destroy the freedom and liberties of his
fellow Americans just so he can line his own pockets...
Paul alleged that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had used a middle-man to funnel
money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology via EcoHealth Alliance - which worked with the lab on
bat coronavirus projects.
Paul specifically referenced so-called "gain-of-function" research which in this case has
been focused on how to make animal viruses more transmissible to humans - specifically bat
coronaviruses .
"Government scientists like yourself who favor gain of function research," Paul
began...
...only to have Fauci interject "I don't favor gain of function research in China," adding
"You are saying things that are not correct."
Paul pushed back - continuing:
"[Those who favor gain of function] say that COVID-19 mutations were random and not
designed by man."
"I do not have any accounting of what the Chinese may have done," Fauci shot back, adding
that he's in favor of further investigation, but that the NIH had nothing to do with the
origins of COVID-19.
"We have not funded gain of function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of
Virology," he added.
"No matter how many times you say it, it didn't happen."
More from Sen. Paul via Twitter:
Senator Rand Paul @RandPaul ·
May 11, 2021 Dr Fauci dissembled or tried to hide his long time support for
'gain-of-function' research which creates super-viruses that jump from animals to humans.
ohm 4 hours ago (Edited) remove link
You can't sit on your thumbs and run year long investigations and background checks
while thousands are dying .
But that's just the point, thousands were not dying . Instead of seeking out opposing
viewpoints, he relied on the bogus Ferguson model that predicted 2 million deaths presented
by Fauci and Birx. Plenty of qualified opposing voices were out there - John Ionnides of
Stanford for instance. Trump needs to own up to his mistakes and vow not to repeat them.
nodhannum 3 hours ago
How many renminbi do they pay you comrade...as in be "han" or be gone. I've been to a
number of seminars given by Fauci back in his HIV days but he is a lying sob now. It's
getting hard for the fellow to cover hisw *** now even with the Maserati marxists in power
here.
"We are not prepared for a pandemic," Biden tweeted on Oct. 25, 2019, saying the country
needs leadership that "mobilizes the world to stop outbreaks before they reach our
shores."
this_circus_is_no_fun 4 hours ago
At first Fauxi denied the allegation. Then, after Paul cornered him with facts, Fauxi said
something like "this is why we did that". So, he admitted that he did what he was denying
just a few seconds before . He is literally incapable of telling the truth. I guess he's not
called Fauxi for nothing.
adonisdemilo 5 hours ago
Fauci has known from day one what's going on and going wrong. He's up to his neck in it
and taking a good look at his body language under questions from Rand Paul, HE'S CONTINUING
TO LIE.
chinese.sniffles 5 hours ago
Dr. Fauci:
Have you or your team send or granted permission for work projects to Wuhan or China?
What were those projects?
Why did you send them?
Why did you not do these projects in the USA?
Were any of these projects illegal in the USA?
etc. simple line of questioning, let him perjure himself.
thezone 5 hours ago
Fauci (the politician) knew to not write a check out to the lab directly. It was great to
hear Dr Paul bring up EcoHealth. A shell company to facilitate.
surfer4444 5 hours ago
Exactly, blame it on the sub contractor....an old game and the elite are using it well
radical-extremist 5 hours ago remove link
Fauci knows full well the story in the Democrat State News media will be about how he was
ATTACKED by Rand Paul, and not about him lying under oath about funding the Wuhan Lab.
chiquita 5 hours ago
This information has been out for a while if you follow War Room, Steve Hilton, and some
other sources. Peter Navarro has been hammering at Fauci relentlessly for the last few months
and now the MSM is going after Navarro, trying to discredit him. Gee, I wonder why when it
looks like the truth about Fauci is falling apart.
What a mess_man 4 hours ago (Edited)
Tucker blew this wide open last night. Of course lots of us here knew all this many months
ago. Fauci is lying through his teeth here, and both he and Daszak are deep in the Chicom's
pockets. As Tucker said, in a functioning world there would be a criminal investigation.
Instead Biden and Co. kiss his *ss and make him our foremost authority on Covid and vaccines.
Clown world for sure.
Meatballs 3 hours ago (Edited)
Actually, Saagar beat Tucker to the punch. Either way, the unraveling has begun.
Don't let the bioweapon profiteer, Daszak, off the hook.
Both greedy psychopaths should hang for their crimes against humanity.
Furthermore, we have no business sharing infectious disease technology with China, even if
they could run a lab properly.
Itinerant 4 hours ago
This story is about 14 months old, though not for the MSM.
Actual documentation of the grants from the NIH via the Eco Alliance have been circulating
in the public domain for all that time. In it they exactly describe the gain-of-function
research that is being outsourced to China, the viruses involved, the methods, the type of
experiments, and the aims of the research ... exactly and technically.
There is no room for caveats, or 'allege' or interpretation or anything like that.
The evidence is rock hard and crystal clear.
toady 4 hours ago
Yet there are no prosecutions.
dogbert8 5 hours ago remove link
Finally, the unmasking (pun intended) of Fauci has started.
bsdetector 5 hours ago
Just listened to the questions and answers. Fauci qualifies his answers with information
that was not sought in the questions. His answers change the character of his denials... "we
did not fund GOF research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology."
OK Dr. Fauci, please identify the viruses that you did fund for GOF research at the
Institute.
Jack Mayorhaufer 5 hours ago
master gaslighters once they reach certain status and paygrade on the Hill
novictim 2 hours ago remove link
"I don't know how many times I can say it? We did not fund gain of function research to be
done in the Wuhan Institute of Virology ...(under his breath) because we funded Eco Health
Alliance/Peter Daszak which granted the research funding to do gain of function research in
the Wuhan Institute of Virology."
CleeTorres 2 hours ago
A simple internet search shows Fauci is lying about funding for this research. But he
knows the media won't do their jobs.
Onthebeach6 2 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Let me assist Dr Fauci with the truth.
Why US outsourced bat virus research to Wuhan
Dr Christina Lin
April 2020
"A U.S. NIH-funded $3.7 million project was approved by Trump's Covid-19 advisor Dr.
Anthony Fauci in 2015, after the Obama White House imposed a ban on 'monster-germ' research.
In October 2014, the federal government declared a moratorium on gain-of-function research to
weaponize viruses related to influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). As a result, the research was outsourced to China's Wuhan
Institute of Virology, which is currently at the center of scrutiny for the Covid-19
pandemic."
Fauci looks very nervous . Perhaps why he has been so adamant about constantly moving the
goalposts? If you were guilty of something wouldn't you keep changing the focus and appear to
be very helpful and concerned?
Max21c 3 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Which people in & around the National Security Council, CIA, and Pentagon are involved
in this attempt to gain access, penetrate and spy on the PLA Biological Weapons/Warfare
programs via funding mechanisms route? Which people had contact with this institute and
programs and what if anything did the spy games produce?
When are they in Washington going to establish civilian rule over the US military and CIA
and National Security Council?
When are they going to knock off these silly spy games and spy world operations off and
stop this nonsense which produces zero positive results?
What did the gangsters on the Intelligence/Spy Committees in Congress know? What did the
gangsters atop the Pentagon, CIA, National Security Council know?
Which Washingtonian assholes are going to go to prison for this boomerang disaster?
How many other groups similar to "EcoHealth Alliance" operate as part of the US/UK
intelligence "community" and what other stupid stuff are the idiots mixed up in?
TheRapture 3 hours ago remove link
There is a great deal of evidence (NIH, State Dept grants to offshore USA bioweapons
research, Bat Lady was the protege of Dr. Ralph Baric at UNC who has been doing coronavirus
bioweapon research for more then twenty years, initial and simultaneous infections in Wuhan
at different locations suggesting an intentional release, etc., etc., etc.) And of course,
Trump had motive, opportunity and means to stage a false flag to destroy China's economy and
damage China's political relations with other countries.
It is likely the USA, no doubt using a CIA proxy, released SARS-CoV-2 in simultaneously in
multiple locations in Wuhan. The evidence is substantial. But most Americans can't bring
themselves to stare down that particular rabbit hole.
WorkingClassMan 3 hours ago
I'd rather an honest CCP commie ruling the roost than those traitors anyway.
"If I had but one bullet and were faced by both an enemy and a traitor, I would let the
traitor have it."
― Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, For My Legionaries
sarret PREMIUM 3 hours ago
Fauci is such a liar, pulling school kid mentality out of a hat to answer serious
questions. Likely in his mind he knows it all to be true but since the correct name is
中国科学院武汉病毒研究所
then unless you say that name, or the exact name of the exact subsidiary that was funding or
was being funded, then it is not correct and therefore he can answer the question incorrectly
without calling himself a liar internally and without saying what the error was in the
question that led him to be able to this.
In all respects he just disregards the spirit of the question when he knows full well that
he is in the wrong, but denies it every single time based on some concocted fabrication in
his mind that the question is not precise enough to nail him to the cross.
Completely disingenuous, can't trust a word he says.
Fish Gone Bad 4 hours ago
Lawyer speak:
We have not funded gain of function research on this virus
They funded all kinds of gain of function on all kinds of permutations of the virus, just
not THIS virus.
radical-extremist 5 hours ago remove link
Fauci is also responsible for the deaths of hundreds of men in San Francisco by covering
up Bath Houses as the origin of the spread of AIDS...for Mayor Diane Feinstein's political
career. No one dares talk about this today.
the Mysterians 5 hours ago
"I did not have sex with that woman!"
Flying Monkees 5 hours ago (Edited)
What could possibly be the reason for gain-of-function research if not bio-warfare?
These evil, irresponsible, arrogant a-holes need to pay.
Posa 5 hours ago
The Eco-Alliance grant from Fauci's NIAID states
We will use S [ie the Spike Protein that makes the SC-2 virus highly infectious] protein
sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and
analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S
protein sequences predict spillover potential.
That has been interpreted as a commitment to Gain of Function research on the Spike
Protein which is the key to turning SARS into a virulently transmissible pathogen.
surfer4444 5 hours ago remove link
Exactly...im just baffled how this PoS can blatantly lie to a Senate committee and get
away with it...there is zero accountability in our government...end times
Posa 5 hours ago
Fauci can lie because his audience is a convention of lazy, cowardly , illiterate dunces.
If Rand Paul were serious he would have had the damn grant in front of him and read the same
quotes as I provided in this post. PAul would have held these hearings last year when his
Party controlled the Senate.
Posa 4 hours ago
NOTE: This post was censored by The Hill. Typical free speech in America.
George Bayou 5 hours ago
"11 labs in the US create these super-viruses in the US and one of them collaborated with
Wuhan Virology Inst -- Fauci has supported NIH funds for all these labs!"
Why is this a-hole still working?
notfeelinthebern 4 hours ago (Edited)
Yap, yap,. yap. Another dog and pony show and the show is painfully old. They parade
personage after personage before congress and ask lots of questions. The swamp rats in the
hot seat lie by omission and with sleight of hand answers and when done with the act walk
away with smug faces....The show must go on.
George Bayou 5 hours ago
Here's an interesting article on Dr. Baric and what he was doing, mutating virus using
serial passaging so that the virus are able to infect a completely different species:
Take, for instance, this paper from 1995:
"High Recombination and Mutation Rates in Mouse Hepatitis Viruses Suggest That
Coronaviruses May Be Potentially Important Emerging Viruses." It was written by Dr. Ralph
Baric and his bench scientist, Boyd Yount, at the University of North Carolina. Baric, a
gravelly voiced former swim champion, described in this early paper how his lab was able to
train a coronavirus, MHV, which causes hepatitis in mice, to jump species, so that it could
reliably infect BHK (baby-hamster kidney) cell cultures. They did it using serial
passaging: repeatedly dosing a mixed solution of mouse cells and hamster cells with
mouse-hepatitis virus, while each time decreasing the number of mouse cells and upping the
concentration of hamster cells. At first, predictably, the mouse-hepatitis virus couldn't
do much with the hamster cells, which were left almost free of infection, floating in their
world of fetal-calf serum. But by the end of the experiment, after dozens of passages
through cell cultures, the virus had mutated: It had mastered the trick of parasitizing an
unfamiliar rodent. A scourge of mice was transformed into a scourge of hamsters. And there
was more: "It is clear that MHV can rapidly alter its species specificity and infect rats
and primates," Baric said. "The resulting virus variants are associated with demyelinating
diseases in these alternative species." (A demyelinating disease is a disease that damages
nerve sheaths.) With steady prodding from laboratory science, along with some rhetorical
exaggeration, a lowly mouse ailment was morphed into an emergent threat that might
potentially cause nerve damage in primates.
GeneKelly 5 hours ago remove link
"We have not funded gain of function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of
Virology,"
Sociopaths can lie without registering on a detector by simply defining terms differently
in their cerebral cortex and then answering -- from their perspective truthfully -- "no"
because the question doesn't match their internal definition.
So Fauci wasn't funding "gain of function". He was actually funding "increasing the
virulence of pathogens" or "enhancing the pathogens' ability to infect different
species".
Rand and others will have to ask the question a hundred ways to force Fauci to spill the
beans.
DeeDeeTwo 1 hour ago remove link
Tucker finally called Fauci a "criminal" at least twice and said, "In any functioning
society Fauci would be investigated."
Txjac 5 hours ago
Fauci also owns the patents on the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines
Everybody All American 5 hours ago remove link
How is it that only one Congressman dare questions Dr. Fauci? One tough questioner. These
cowards all need to hang for the crimes they are allowing. If they think we are just going to
sit back and watch this man for much longer lead us they are sadly mistaken.
Downhill from here 5 hours ago
Being an MD, Paul has some credibility on the topic. At least educationally and by
training, Fauci and Paul are peers.. More than likely other R's are letting him take
point.
replaceme 5 hours ago (Edited)
I forgot, that's the same dr daszak that sent the letter to the lancet saying that covid
didn't come from Wuhan, and that he had no reason to falsely say this. THAT Dr daszak. Got
it.
"We [NIH/Fauci] did not fund gain of function research to be done in Wuhan." What the
weasel didn't say is that the NIH did in deed fund Dr Baric who was working in collaboration
with Wuhan with gain of function experiments on the SARS virus. Baric worked with Ft Dettrick
and Univ NC researchers who in turn were collaborating with Canada and Wuhan.
Fauci can parse words but he's a traitor and ought to be held responsible along with all
others involved with this.
scraping_by 5 hours ago (Edited) remove link
One amendment to the story --
Carlson was quoting a story by Nicholas Wade, former science editor to the NYT. Published
in Medium. So it's not just a talking head repeating newsroom copy, as in CNN.
zorrosgato 14 minutes ago remove link
Fauci is part of a flawed system and don't be fooled in believing he is part of any
solution. His endorsing of impractical mask mandates along with mandatory vaccinations of the
population, using unproven genetically engineered drugs is proof enough.
"... As the world has become more complex, people have relied more and more on stereotypes and simplifications to help them interpret and filter events around them. Propaganda manipulates this desire for simplicity – handing people easy answers rather than winning them over with rational arguments. Society then rallies around these stereotypes and squashes dissents with 'herd mentality', an irrational set of psychological behaviors where individuals are swept along with a group, overriding their own rational assessments ..."
Below is a repeat of a Glenn Diesen quote from karlof1 comment # 57
" "As the world has become more complex, people have relied more and more on stereotypes and
simplifications to help them interpret and filter events around them. Propaganda manipulates
this desire for simplicity – handing people easy answers rather than winning them over
with rational arguments. Society then rallies around these stereotypes and squashes dissents
with 'herd mentality', an irrational set of psychological behaviors where individuals are
swept along with a group, overriding their own rational assessments." "
Think about the vaccine situation and what just happened to the medical profession in the
West....they got railroaded into agreeing that there was not an off the shelf "ivermectin" to
the virus and guaranteed future income to Big Pharma is more important.
Hey docs!!! Do no harm! Your complicity in this war crime against humanity is noted. What
are the responsible and humanistic actions to take now and why does the public not see
evidence that you are organizing to do them?
Until the reality of the CIA--to undermine peaceful relations and promote wars required
for Military Keynesianism--is taught in grade school, it will always find recruits. As with
the FBI, government sponsored propaganda was and remains required to manufacture the reasons
for their existence. Nations that promote an equitable polity have no need for a secret
police force, but do need some force to counter attempts from the outside to foment
destabilization. For example, today's Russia is freer than at any previous time in its
history as only extremist ideologies are banned while Communism--still deemed extremist by
the West--is relegated to a normal ideology with status as a normative political party.
Indeed, I'd argue that Russia remains the only genuine Liberal Western nation, which is a
reality Russophobes are unable to accept or even contemplate. The same also applies to the
concept of Communism thanks to the unwillingness to even attempt to understand Marx. And as
Western thought gets subsumed by Wokeness, the ideological divide between Neoliberal nations
and all others will continue to grow.
This is starting to look really like staging of "Brave new world..." Today's society is
closer to Huxley's "Brave New World" than to Orwell's "1984". But there are clear elements of
both. If you will, the worst of both worlds has come true today.
In 1949, sometime after the publication of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four , Aldous
Huxley, the author of Brave New World (1931), who was then living in California, wrote to
Orwell. Huxley had briefly taught French to Orwell as a student in high school at Eton.
Huxley generally praises Orwell's novel, which to many seemed very similar to Brave New
World in its dystopian view of a possible future. Huxley politely voices his opinion that his
own version of what might come to pass would be truer than Orwell's. Huxley observed that the
philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is sadism, whereas his own version is
more likely, that controlling an ignorant and unsuspecting public would be less arduous, less
wasteful by other means. Huxley's masses are seduced by a mind-numbing drug, Orwell's with
sadism and fear.
The most powerful quote In Huxley's letter to Orwell is this:
Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant
conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs
and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting
people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.
Aldous Huxley.
Could Huxley have more prescient? What do we see around us?
Masses of people dependent upon drugs, legal and illegal. The majority of advertisements
that air on television seem to be for prescription drugs, some of them miraculous but most of
them unnecessary. Then comes COVID, a quite possibly weaponized virus from the
Fauci-funded-with-taxpayer-dollars lab in Wuhan, China. The powers that be tragically deferred
to the malevolent Fauci who had long been hoping for just such an opportunity. Suddenly, there
was an opportunity to test the mRNA vaccines that had been in the works for nearly twenty
years. They could be authorized as an emergency measure but were still highly experimental.
These jabs are not really vaccines at all, but a form of gene therapy . There
are potential
disastrous consequences down the road. Government experiments on the public are
nothing new .
Since there have been no actual, long-term trials, no one who contributed to this massive
drug experiment knows what the long-term consequences might be. There have been countless
adverse injuries and deaths already for which the government-funded vaccine producers will
suffer no liability. With each passing day, new side-effects have begun to appear: blood clots,
seizures, heart failure.
As new adverse reactions become known despite the censorship employed by most media outlets,
the more the Biden administration is pushing the vaccine, urging private corporations to make
it mandatory for all employees. Colleges are making them mandatory for all students returning
to campus.
The leftmedia are advocating the "shunning" of the unvaccinated. The self-appointed
virtue-signaling Democrats are furious at anyone and everyone who declines the jab. Why? If
they are protected, why do they care? That is the question. Same goes for the ridiculous mask
requirements . They protect no one but for those in operating rooms with their insides
exposed, yet even the vaccinated are supposed to wear them!
Months ago, herd immunity was near. Now Fauci and the CDC say it will never be achieved? Now
the Pfizer shot will necessitate yearly booster shots. Pfizer
expects to make $21B this year from its COVID vaccine! Anyone who thinks this isn't about
money is a fool. It is all about money, which is why Fauci, Gates, et al. were so determined to
convince the public that HCQ and ivermectin, both of which are effective, prophylactically and
as treatment, were not only useless, but dangerous. Both of those drugs are tried, true, and
inexpensive. Many of those thousands of N.Y. nursing home fatalities might have been prevented
with the use of one or both of those drugs. Those deaths are on the hands of Cuomo and his
like-minded tyrants drunk on power.
Months ago, Fauci, et al. agreed that children were at little or no risk of getting COVID,
of transmitting it, least of all dying from it. Now Fauci is demanding that all teens be
vaccinated by the end of the year! Why? They are no more in danger of contracting it now than
they were a year ago. Why are parents around this country not standing up to prevent their kids
from being guinea pigs in this monstrous medical experiment? And now they are " experimenting
" on infants. Needless to say, some have died. There is no reason on Earth for teens, children,
and infants to be vaccinated. Not one.
Huxley also wrote this:
"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they
will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be
able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' -- this is the height
of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats ."
Perhaps this explains the left's hysterical impulse to force these untested shots on those
of us who have made the decision to go without it. If they've decided that it is the thing to
do, then all of us must submit to their whims. If we decide otherwise, it gives them the
righteous right to smear all of us whom they already deplore.
As C.J. Hopkins has
written , the left means to criminalize dissent. Those of us who are vaccine-resistant are
soon to be outcasts, deprived of jobs and entry into everyday businesses. This kind of
discrimination should remind everyone of ...oh, Germany three quarters of a century ago. Huxley
also wrote, "The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other
sets of people are human." That is precisely what the left is up to, what BLM is planning, what
Critical Race Theory is all about.
Tal Zaks, Moderna's chief medical officer, said these new vaccines are "hacking the
software of life." Vaccine-promoters claim he never said this, but he did. Bill Gates called
the vaccines " an operating
system " to the horror of those promoting it, a Kinsley gaffe. Whether it is or isn't
hardly matters at this point, but these statements by those behind the vaccines are a clue to
what they have in mind.
There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love
their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears , so to speak, producing a kind of
painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their
liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it.
This is exactly what the left is working so hard to effect: a pharmacologically compromised
population happy to be taken care of by a massive state machine. And while millions of people
around the world have surrendered to the vaccine and mask hysteria, millions more, about 1.3
billion, want no part of this government vaccine mania.
In his letter to Orwell, Huxley ended with the quote cited above and again here because it
is so profound:
Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant
conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs
and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting
people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.
Huxley nailed the left more than seventy years ago, perhaps because leftists have never
changed throughout the ages. 61,497 173
Fat Beaver 14 hours ago (Edited)
If i am to be treated as an outcast or an undesirable because i refuse the vax, i will
immediately become someone that has zero reverence for the law, and i can only imagine 10's
of millions will be right there with me.
strych10 14 hours ago
Welcome to the club.
We have coffee in the corner and occasional meetings at various bars.
Dr. Chihuahua-González 13 hours ago
I'm a doctor, you could contact me anytime and receive your injection.
Fat Beaver 13 hours ago (Edited)
I've gotta feeling the normie world you think you live in is about to change drastically
for the worse...
sparky139 PREMIUM 10 hours ago
You mean you'll sign papers that you injected us *wink *wink? And toss it away?
bothneither 2 hours ago
Oh geez how uncommon, another useless doctor with no Scruples who sold out to big Pharma.
Please have my Gates sponsored secret sauce.
Unknown 6 hours ago (Edited)
Both Huxley and Orwell are wrong. Neoliberalism (the use of once office for personal
gains) is by far the most powerful force that subjugates the inept population. Neoliberalism
demolished the mighty USSR, now destroying the USA, and will do the same to China. And this
poison dribbles from the top to bottom creating self-centered population that is unable to
unite, much less resist.
Deathrips 15 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Tylers.
You gonna cover Tucker Carlsons show earlier today on FOX news about vaxxx deaths? almost 4k
reported so far this year.
Is the population of india up in arms or is the MSM?
Nelbev 10 hours ago
Facebook just flagged/censored it, must sign into see vid, Tuck also failed to mention
mRNA and adenovirus vaxes were experimental and not FDA approved nor gone through stage III
trials. Beside deaths, have blood clot issues. Good he mentioned how naturally immune if get
covid and recovered, better than vaccine, but not covered for bogus passports. Me personally,
I would rather catch covid and get natural immunity than be vaccinated with an untested
experimental vaccine.
Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya; Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche; Dr. Ron Brown; Dr. Ryan Cole; Dr.
Richard Fleming; Dr. Simone Gold; Dr. Sunetra Gupta; Dr. Carl Heneghan; Dr. Martin Kulldorff;
Dr. Paul Marik; Dr. Peter McCullough; Dr. Joseph Mercola; Dr. Lee Merritt; Dr. Judy Mikovits;
Dr. Dennis Modry; Dr. Hooman Noorchashm; Dr. Harvey Risch; Dr. Sherri Tenpenny; Dr. Richard
Urso; Dr. Michael Yeadon;
Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya; Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche; Dr. Ron Brown; Dr. Ryan Cole; Dr.
Richard Fleming; Dr. Simone Gold; Dr. Sunetra Gupta; Dr. Carl Heneghan; Dr. Martin Kulldorff;
Dr. Paul Marik; Dr. Peter McCullough; Dr. Joseph Mercola; Dr. Lee Merritt; Dr. Judy Mikovits;
Dr. Dennis Modry; Dr. Hooman Noorchashm; Dr. Harvey Risch; Dr. Sherri Tenpenny; Dr. Richard
Urso; Dr. Michael Yeadon;
His making of the gamma and delta workforce was quite prescient. We are seeing it play out
now, we all know gammas and delta. There was a really good ABC tv movie made in 1980 Brave
New World. Excellent show, it shows the Alphas and names them Rothchild and so on. Shows what
these people specifically want to do to the world. I wonder if the ruling psychopaths
actually wait for science fiction authors to plan the future and then follow their
script.
Mineshaft Gap 10 hours ago
If Huxley were starting out today no major publisher would touch him.
They'd tell him Brave New World doesn't have a diverse enough of cast. Even the mostly
likable totalitarian guy named Mustapha turns out to be white! A white Mustapha. It's soooo
triggering. Also, what's wrong with a little electronic fun and drug taking, anyway? Lighten
up , Aldous.
Meanwhile his portrait of shrieking medieval Catholic nuns who think they're possessed in
The Devils of Loudun might remind the leftist editors too uncomfortably of their own recent
bleating performances at "White Fragility" struggle sessions.
Sound of the Suburbs 12 hours ago (Edited) remove link
They do try and just fool the masses.
If that doesn't work, they stick the boot in.
In the beginning ........
Mankind first started to produce a surplus with early agriculture.
It wasn't long before the elites learnt how to read the skies, the sun and the stars, to
predict the coming seasons to the amazed masses and collect tribute.
They soon made the most of the opportunity and removed themselves from any hard work to
concentrate on "spiritual matters", i.e. any hocus-pocus they could come up with to elevate
them from the masses, e.g. rituals, fertility rights, offering to the gods . etc and to turn
the initially small tributes, into extracting all the surplus created by the hard work of the
rest.
The elites became the representatives of the gods and they were responsible for the bounty
of the earth and the harvests.
As long as all the surplus was handed over, all would be well.
The class structure emerges.
Upper class – Do as little as they can get away with and get most of the rewards
Middle class – Administrative/managerial class who have enough to live a comfortable
life
Working class – Do the work, and live a basic subsistence existence where they get
enough to stay alive and breed
Their techniques have got more sophisticated over time, but this is the underlying
idea.
They have achieved an inversion, and got most of the rewards going to those that don't
really do anything.
As soon as anyone started thinking about this seriously, the upper class would be in
trouble.
The last thing they needed was "The Enlightenment" as people would start thinking about
this seriously.
Any serious attempt to study the capitalist system always reveals the same inconvenient
truth.
Many at the top don't create any wealth.
That's the problem.
Confusing making money and creating wealth is the solution.
The classical economists identified the constructive "earned" income and the parasitic
"unearned" income .
Most of the people at the top lived off the parasitic "unearned" income and they now had a
big problem. This problem was solved with neoclassical economics.
Neoclassical economics is a pseudo economics, which is more about hiding the inconvenient
truths discovered by the classical economists than telling you how the economy works.
Things had already gone horribly wrong by the 1930s.
In the 1920s, the economy had been booming, the stock market had been soaring and nearly
everyone had been making lots of money.
In the 1930s, they were wondering what the hell had just happened as everything had
appeared to be going so well in the 1920s and then it all just fell apart.
They needed a better measure to see what was really going on in the economy and came up
with GDP.
In the 1930s, they pondered over where all that wealth had gone to in 1929 and realised
inflating asset prices doesn't create real wealth, they came up with the GDP measure to track
real wealth creation in the economy.
The transfer of existing assets, like stocks and real estate, doesn't create real wealth
and therefore does not add to GDP.
The real wealth creation in the economy is measured by GDP.
Real wealth creation involves real work, producing new goods and services in the
economy.
The rentiers are exposed again.
What they need to do is get neoclassical economics back again.
They wrap it in a new ideology, neoliberalism, so no one will notice the return of their
special economics.
Leftists reacted with fury after Fox News host Tucker Carlson said people who wear masks
outside should be mocked and that parents who made their kids wear them were engaging in "child
abuse."
Carlson noted that masks were "purely a sign of political obedience like Kim Il-Sung pins in
Pyongyang" and that the only people who voluntarily wear masks outside are "zealots and
neurotics."
He then asserted that the tables should be turned on Biden voters who have been harassing
conservatives for almost a year for not wearing a mask in public.
"The rest of us should be snorting at them first, they're the aggressors – it's our
job to brush them back and restore the society we were born in," said Carlson.
"So the next time you see someone in a mask on the sidewalk or on the bike path, do not
hesitate. Ask politely but firmly, ' Would you please take off your mask? Science shows there
is no reason for you to be wearing it. Your mask is making me uncomfortable, " he added.
"We should do that and we should keep doing it until wearing a mask outside is roughly as
socially accepted as lighting a Marlboro on an elevator."
The Fox News host went on to call mask wearing "repulsive" while asserting that forcing
children to wear masks outside should be illegal.
"Your response when you see children wearing masks as they play should be no different from
your response to seeing someone beat a kid in Walmart. Call the police immediately. Contact
Child Protective Services. Keep calling until someone arrives," Carlson said.
"What you're looking at is abuse, it's child abuse, and you are morally obligated to attempt
to prevent it," he added.
As expected, Carlson immediately began trending on Twitter, with hysterical leftists
hyperventilating over Tucker once again challenging their cult. Many called for the Fox News
host to be fired while others ludicrously described him as a "national security threat."
As we
highlighted yesterday , even Dr. Fauci now admits that the risk of vaccinated people
spreading COVID outside is "minuscule," and yet some health professionals are pushing for the
mask mandates to be made permanent.
The transmission of COVID-19 outdoors is almost non-existent, making mask mandates merely a
political tool of population control.
In a recent open letter to the German government and state premiers, five leading members of
the Association for Aerosol Research (GAeF) wrote, "The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 viruses
takes place indoors almost without exception. Transmission outdoors is extremely rare and never
leads to cluster infections as can be observed indoors."
Why the us government did not fund this type of mask for all is telling what the overall
strategy is.
Controlling you, your neighbor, and others that think for themselves.
Its not about the virus
Robert Neville 7 hours ago
Actually, M95 masks filter out 95% of particles over 4 microns in diameter in perfect
conditions. In the real world it is much less effective than that. Viruses are generally less
than one micron in size so they are ineffective for most viruses. Also, the masks are so hard
to breath through that some version have an exhale valve so they do nothing to protect others
if you are infected. Most masks don't protect your eyes. The only thing that works is a space
suit that is decontaminated before you remove it. The rest is virtue siganling.
Properly fitted n95's do protect against virus and the science proves it.
Dickweed Wang 10 hours ago (Edited)
This is an excerpt from the "Stanford Study" from November 2020 (that's been making the
rounds in the alternative media and conservative media space recently) about the uselessness
of masks in preventing "the virus":
A meta -analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical
mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or
influenza-like illness based on six RCTs [28] . Using
separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta -analysis found no protective
effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus [28] . A recent
systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings
(self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks
and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like
illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community
settings [29] .
It's predictable that the usual suspects have come out of the woodwork to "fact check" and
disparage the entire paper (do an internet search for 'Stanford Mask Paper' and you'll see
what I'm talking about). Their main criticism is 'that wasn't published by Stanford', while
they totally ignore the claims made in the paper. When you look at the people and
organizations doing the fact checking it really shows that the entire mask issue is a
political/control ploy. Here's the link to the entire paper if anyone is interested:
From comments: " Tucker is right on this one. If you wear a mask outside you truly are a
moron. You may as well add goggles and a butt plug." ... "Don't forget about those solo drivers
with masks on!", "Maskers are stupid scared virtue signalers"
As an anti-mask militant for quite a while now I've been going out of my way to ask people
with masks on outdoors why they're wearing one (I've really tried to be polite but it's
getting increasingly hard to do that). In literally hundreds of instances I haven't gotten a
straight answer yet. It's stunning that people are so gullible but it shows what the power of
propaganda really is. 99% of that is coming from teevee, which truly rots your brain.
Capt Tripps 10 hours ago remove link
They are signaling the submission to a tyrannical state. That submission makes us all less
free.
safelyG 10 hours ago
mister tucker is wrongeddy wrong wrong.
we must all wear multiple masks. indoors. outdoors. at work. at play. while we sleep.
while we bathe. while we eat. while we sing praises unto the most high.
and we must remain 8 feet apart, one from the other. at all times.
and report our whereabouts and our contacts and our body temperature. to the
authorities.
get your vacines!
lovingly,
bill n melinda
radical-extremist 10 hours ago
When Tucker Carlson says to tell people to take off their masks and call CPS on parents
who mask their children he's trolling the Left. And because the Left has no sense of humor or
irony or hypocrisy...they're of course OUTRAGED, which was his point.
Realism 10 hours ago remove link
I like it best when hiking outside, in 75 degree weather with a nice breeze, you see
people put up their mask as they walk by
Pure comedy, it's hard to understand the stupidity if you think you'll get any disease
much less Covid walking by someone
And importantly, would you really be hiking if you had Covid LOL
aztrader 10 hours ago
Mask wears see it as a badge of honor because they "care" about other people. In reality,
it's a badge of Stupidity and ignorance.
Prince Velveeta 10 hours ago (Edited) remove link
California is an open-air mental ward. I was just out there and the collective idiocy is
astounding. People jogging with masks on , exaggerating their breathing as they pass you in
some competitive virtue signaling event. I witnessed some idiot jogging up the hill past my
family member's house, with a bandana on his face, being sucked into his mouth as he's
gasping for air.....
Back in the good old days, when things were more innocent and simple, the psychopathic
Central Intelligence Agency had to covertly infiltrate the news media to manipulate the
information Americans were consuming about their nation and the world. Nowadays, there is no
meaningful separation between the news media and the CIA at all.
Analysis: US
blinks first on Russia-Ukraine tensions
Journalist Glenn Greenwald just highlighted an interesting point about the reporting by The
New York Times on the so-called
“Bountygate†story the outlet broke in June of last year
about the Russian government trying to pay Taliban-linked fighters to attack US soldiers in
Afghanistan.
“One of the NYT reporters who originally broke the Russia bounty story
(originally attributed to unnamed ‘intelligence
officials’) say today that it was a CIA claim,†Greenwald
tweeted .
“So media outlets - again - repeated CIA stories with no questioning:
congrats to all.â€
Indeed, NYT’s original
story made no mention of CIA involvement in the narrative, citing only
“officials,†yet this latest article speaks as though it had
been informing its readers of the story’s roots in the
lying, torturing , drug-running , warmongering Central
Intelligence Agency from the very beginning. The author even writes “The New
York Times
first reported last summer the existence of the C.I.A.’s
assessment,†with the hyperlink leading to the initial article which made no
mention of the CIA. It wasn’t until later that The New York Times began reporting that the CIA
was looking into the Russian bounties allegations at all.
The Daily Beast , which has itself uncritically published many articles
promoting the CIA “Bountygate†narrative, reports the
following:
It was a blockbuster
story about Russia’s return to the imperial “Great
Game†in Afghanistan. The Kremlin had spread money around the longtime central
Asian battlefield for militants to kill remaining U.S. forces. It sparked a massive outcry
from Democrats and their #resistance amplifiers about the treasonous Russian puppet in the
White House whose admiration for Vladimir Putin had endangered American troops.
But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had
“low to moderate†confidence in the story after all.
Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the
story is, at best, unproven â€" and possibly untrue.
So the mass media aggressively promoted a CIA narrative that none of them ever saw proof of,
because there was no proof, because it was an entirely unfounded claim from the very beginning.
They quite literally ran a CIA press release and disguised it as a news story.
In totalitarian dictatorships, the government spy agency tells the news media what stories
to run, and the news media unquestioningly publish it. In free democracies, the government spy
agency says “Hoo buddy, have I got a scoop for you!†and the
news media unquestioningly publish it.
In 1977 Carl Bernstein published an article titled “ The CIA and the Media
†reporting that the CIA had
covertly infiltrated America’s most influential news outlets and had
over 400 reporters who it considered assets in a program known as
Operation Mockingbird . It was a major scandal, and rightly so. The news media is meant to
report truthfully about what happens in the world, not manipulate public perception to suit the
agendas of spooks and warmongers.
Nowadays the CIA collaboration happens right out in the open, and people are too
propagandized to even recognize this as scandalous. Immensely influential outlets like The New
York Times uncritically pass on CIA disinfo which is then spun as fact by cable news
pundits . The sole owner of The Washington Post is a CIA contractor ,
and WaPo has never once disclosed this conflict of interest when reporting on US intelligence
agencies per standard journalistic protocol. Mass media outlets
now openly employ intelligence agency veterans like John Brennan, James Clapper,
Chuck Rosenberg, Michael Hayden, Frank Figliuzzi, Fran Townsend, Stephen Hall, Samantha
Vinograd, Andrew McCabe, Josh Campbell, Asha Rangappa, Phil Mudd, James Gagliano, Jeremy Bash,
Susan Hennessey, Ned Price and Rick Francona, as are known
CIA assets like NBC’s Ken Dilanian, as are
CIA interns like Anderson Cooper and CIA applicants like
Tucker Carlson.
This isn’t Operation Mockingbird. It’s so much worse.
Operation Mockingbird was the CIA doing something to the media. What we are seeing now is the
CIA openly acting as the media. Any separation between the CIA and the news media, indeed even
any pretence of separation, has been dropped.
This is bad. This is very, very bad. Democracy has no meaningful existence if
people’s votes aren’t being cast with a clear
understanding of what’s happening in their nation and their world, and if
their understanding is being shaped to suit the agendas of the very government
they’re meant to be influencing with their votes, what you have is the most
powerful military and economic force in the history of civilization with no accountability to
the electorate whatsoever. It’s just an immense globe-spanning power
structure, doing whatever it wants to whoever it wants. A totalitarian dictatorship in
disguise.
And the CIA is the very worst institution that could possibly be spearheading the movements
of that dictatorship. A little research into the many, many horrific
things the CIA has done over the years will quickly show you that this is true; hell, just
a glance at what the CIA was up to with the
Phoenix Program in Vietnam will.
There’s a common delusion in our society that depraved government
agencies who are known to have done evil things in the past have simply stopped doing evil
things for some reason. This belief is backed by zero evidence, and is contradicted by
mountains of evidence to the contrary. It’s believed because it is
comfortable, and for literally no other reason.
The CIA should not exist at all, let alone control the news media, much less the movements
of the US empire. May we one day know a humanity that is entirely free from the rule of
psychopaths, from our total planetary behavior as a collective, all the way down to the
thoughts we think in our own heads.
May we extract their horrible fingers from every aspect of our being.
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is
to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter , or
throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi , Patreon or Paypal . If you want to read more you can buy
my books . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying
to do with this platform,
click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else
I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these
people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in
the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between
them.†â€" Thomas Jefferson
The trial was pointless .
We knew the outcome . We knew
the threat. Convict Derek Chauvin of murder, or cities will burn . Jurors
surely knew they would be doxxed if they didn’t vote to convict; one
potential juror was
dismissed after he dared mention this fear.
There is a debate to be had about police conduct. I’m not going to back
the blue unconditionally after Charlottesville
, Ashli Babbit , and
the ruthless
manhunt for January 6 rioters. Derek Chauvin would have carried out the same orders against
us. However, what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd isn’t even close to
what happened to white
man Daniel Shaver , gunned down in a hotel hallway by a police officer who was later
acquitted and was paid for his mental suffering . This is about race, not police. I expect police will crack
down further on law-abiding
whites while ignoring black crime .
The howls for Derek Chauvin’s head were primal. I
haven’t heard such cries of triumph since O.J. Simpson was
acquitted .
Of course, Derek Chauvin was hardly a champion of white identity . In 2018, the
Twin Cities Pioneer Press gave a fawning profile to his then-wife, Hmong
refugee Kellie Chauvin. She called her husband a “gentlemanâ€
and “just a softie.†Less than two years later, just three days
after George
Floyd’s death , she divorced him. Her lawyer
told journalists about her “utmost sympathy†for
Floyd’s family.
What’s so striking about the Derek Chauvin case is that it could have
happened anywhere. Every police officer (or white person who lives in a black neighborhood)
knows about the sob stories, the wailing, the lying, and the sudden switch from threats to
begging and back again when blacks face cops. Floyd himself had
tried this soft-shoe routine when he was arrested in 2019. Derek Chauvin and his three
colleagues had probably seen far worse.
Whether a routine arrest like this becomes a cause depends on countless factors. If
the teenager Darnella Frazier had not
taken a video , nothing would have happened. Even with body cam footage, I suspect there
would have been no case. Without a simple image to rouse the simple masses, no one would have
cared.
The sanctification of George Floyd makes this even more surreal. The #MeToo movement took
down powerful men who had made inappropriate jokes or crude gestures decades ago, but a
criminal who spent his last moments on earth trying to rip-off shopkeepers and lying to police
has become a holy
figure , complete with literal claims of miracles. George Floyd’s life
and death were practically a caricature of what the crudest
“racist†would conjure out of a hateful imagination. A white man
with his record would have been treated exactly the
same , but because Floyd was black, journalists made him a saint. Most people let
others
build their reality . Post-white America has a new faith .
Fox News host Greg Gutfeld, author of The Bible of Unspeakable Truths and The Joy
of Hate , said that even if Derek Chauvin wasn’t guilty of all charges,
he
thought the verdict was a good thing. “I want a verdict that keeps this
country from going up in flames,†he explained. That’s the
bravery of American conservatives for you. While the country didn’t
“go up in flames,†there were some troubling signs last night
that worse is to come.
The guilty verdict didn’t calm the streets. It didn’t
even calm the politicians. The President of the United States
said that “this can be a moment of significant change.â€
Kamala Harris , whose
parents are immigrants,
intones that this won’t “heal the pain that existed
for generations.†Barack and Michelle Obama
want “true justice,†which requires “that
we come to terms with the fact that Black Americans are treated differently, every
day.†(I don’t think they mean affirmative action.) Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez said the verdict
wasn’t justice and doesn’t want people to think the
system works. Empty-headed celebrities
demand that more be done.
Rep. Tlaib represents Detroit ,
where the already-ruined city saw a huge
increase in homicides and shootings in 2020, just another part of what was undoubtedly the
largest
single-year increase in the murder rate in American history. Almost all the added victims
were black. “The community†doesn’t seem to
care, so there’s no reason politicians should.
Let’s hear no wailing about “black lives.â€
The main victims of the crime wave are black, with victims including
children , partygoers , and funeral guests
. Voters who elect
progressive prosecutors don’t seem to care any more than the
“community†does. Do they prefer bloodshed to good police
work?
Vox
tells us BLM has led to a reduction in “police homicides†in
areas where there were protests. Of course, at least some of these homicides would have
been justified use of force. Yet the very same research Vox cites says that between 2014 and
2019, there were “somewhere between 1,000 and 6,000 more homicides than
would have been expected [absent protests]†in those places. Even if we accept the
unhinged premise that police suddenly stopped gunning down blacks for no reasons, the result of
BLM was thousands of dead blacks â€" and nice houses for the
movement’s co-founder .
Still, it’s not about blacks. It’s about us. Rudyard
Kipling, a poet who wouldn’t get far in our affirmative
action world , wrote :
It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: â€"
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet
you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.â€
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
We paid the Dane-geld. We’ve shamefully paid it to people with far less
nobility and courage than the Vikings. The Minnesota protester screaming that riots worked is
right. They worked because they had media backing. If others ran the press, the Cannon
Hinnant case alone could have changed everything. Instead, most whites
haven’t heard of it, nor about the others of
our race butchered every
year .
Our loss of identity leaves us vulnerable to moral blackmail. Whites seem to be in a
permanent state of shellshock. White conservatives want to be left alone, with Tucker Carlson
saying
that what the nation needs “more than anything†is
“a moment to catch our national breath.†Really? Conservatives
know something is wrong, but don’t dare recognize the real problem.
Republicans who collaborate with this rotten system have
shut down even halting steps towards white
identity .
Meanwhile, over the last decade, white liberals have radically changed their views on race
and actively discriminate against
whites . It’s more correct to say that new views were
inserted into their brains through hysterical media coverage of police shootings. Those who
call themselves “very liberal†are hopelessly deluded. A
majority think that
police gun down over 1,000 unarmed black men a year â€" almost 100 times the actual
number.
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/5Bf07CnmFidD/
Statistics can’t compete with sob-stories, and stories give people
meaning. I believe many Americans get their moral purpose for life from them.
There are also specific benefits in keeping the system going. Activists and politicians
build careers. Blacks get a chance of hitting the “
ghetto lottery †(assumed they aren’t killed) and becoming
heroes. It’s a strong incentive to turn a petty scam into an epic showdown.
Journalists who want to lead a social revolution or just get clicks (or both) fall right in
line.
Even as this is written, there is a case in Columbus, Ohio that could be our next George
Floyd-style passion play. Officers arrived at a chaotic brawl and shot a black girl. Body cam
footage shows the girl trying to stab someone before she was shot. Nonetheless, the image the
Associated Press
uses for the story is a Black Lives Matter protest. It looks like yet another case of a
degenerate “community†causing chaos, attracting the police, and
causing a racial confrontation.
The police are going to lie. I’m so thankful that someone from the
family was actually on the scene,†[Aunt] Bryant said . . . .
“The police are going to lie. The police are going to cover up for
themselves. They don’t care. At this point, I feel like
they’re just out to kill Black people. They’re not here
to protect and serve. That isn’t happening. That’s been
over a long time ago. They’re not here to protect and serve.
They’re here to kill Black folks.
Like many other whites, I’m exhausted. Unlike Tucker Carlson , I don’t
think we need a chance to catch our breath or pursue change more slowly. We need radical
change.
Every confrontation between a white officer and a non-white criminal is a potential
riot . The process is corrupt
because judges, jurors, and politicians know that the mob has a veto over the verdict. The rule
of law is dead.
The answer is separation . Without it, this will never
stop.
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/2vb9uMyWhLuW/
The strange reality is that there is almost no difference now between being a notorious
white advocate or any white guy. Derek Chauvin went, in just one day, from a heartwarming
“softie†who married a Hmong refugee to the embodiment of white
supremacy. A few days ago, it was a
soldier who stopped a black guy from accosting women. He had to be chased from his home.
Tomorrow it could be you.
You could try to stop a crime. You could fight back against an assault. Maybe you just look
at someone the wrong way. Maybe you do nothing at all. But if you
donated $10 to a cause the media don’t like â€" or even if
you didn’t â€" you could be the mark for the next great hate
hoax.
I write this reluctantly. Many of us become white advocates kicking and screaming, afraid to
see the truth. We all get here through experience
, usually painful.
However, no matter how far you run, how earnestly you plead, what you say, or even whom you
marry, you will always be white to those with power. That means many despise you. At some
point, you must decide to stand or kneel, and a society that kneels before the memory of a
George Floyd is not one worth serving or saving.
Whites created this country. They sustain it. Without whites, there is no America. America
is an extension of Western Civilization, white civilization, on this continent. Whites
pay to support
people who hate, curse, and sometimes kill us. We gain nothing. They owe everything. What they
have, we gave them, through weakness, folly, and good
intensions .
We deserve reparations for trillions wasted in a 60-year effort to babysit a population that
pays us back with violence and hatred. Most importantly, we deserve liberation from this
albatross that prevents any kind of real national life. Almost any price would be worth paying
if we could be sovereign and free, something our ancestors took for granted.
All the quasi-theological abstractions about “privilege†and
“critical theory†melt away before one immutable truth: They
need us; we don’t need them. Until we have the will to say so, all of us
â€" including you â€" are just one “viralâ€
incident away from ruin.
Don’t know who Gregory Hood is but I do know after reading all of his
essays, that he is the most erudite writer on race issues. I find him fair and balanced
basically sticking to the relevant issue of what ever he is writing about.
“Almost any price would be worth paying if we could be sovereign and
free…â€
This essay is superb…but worryingly, only as far as it goes. What,
very specifically, is the separation plan, and what is the price that might have to be paid
and IS worth paying, and what is the price that is NOT worth paying? The action-plan cannot
be safely specified, because we have already come too far for one to safely specify it.
Already. And worse is to come.
Besides individual ramifications, there is this. In Trump vs. Hawaii, Justice Roberts
declined to overrule Korematsu (the Japanese-internment case). He wrote that Korematsu had
been “overruled by history.†Group internment remains the law
of the land.
And yes, I am too cowardly to speak-out. Again. I was an undergraduate at an elite
University exactly when (late 60s) and where this all started. I (and my friends, and
like-minded faculty members and administrators) were all too cowardly to speak out, and take
action, then. Too much to lose. I apologize to the younger generations.
American Renaissance is a joke. No mention of the (((real problem))) at all. Until we can
discuss and point to the (((instigators))) of our present day horror, we will achieve
nothing. The funny and ironic thing about all of this is, (((they))) will suffer as much as
any White at the hands of the Frankenstein’s monster they created. I guess
Whites can take some small comfort in those just desserts.
The U.S. had a good run while it lasted. My plan is to move on. Whites really should
consider leaving. Problem is when we establish a new area they will just come to move in on
us all over again.
Fox News host Greg Gutfeld, author of The Bible of Unspeakable Truths and The Joy of
Hate, said that even if Derek Chauvin wasn’t guilty of all charges, he
thought the verdict was a good thing. “I want a verdict that keeps this
country from going up in flames,†he explained. That’s the
bravery of American conservatives for you.
This is how greed-driven “Jews†(Gutfeld is a partially
Hebrew, greed-driven Globalist and stooge for Conservatism Inc) have destroyed the neoconned
American right, and ultimately the nation. Having no soul or backbone, brushing it all under
the carpet in deference to the Golden Calf markets, Satanic Hebrews like Gutfeld will appease
the irrational mob all day long, and then just prior to collapse, invoke their
“Jewish†heritage and flee to Israel.
This us why they are known as Judenrats , and have always been.
And “liberal†Judenrats are even worse, but had
trouble penetrating the GOP until the ((neocons)) came along and sold it on easy-money
wars.
Anything for a buck, no matter how Satanic. Morality never enters into the equation.
They’re only destroying animal goyim nations, after all.
Whites don’t need blacks, browns or Jewish parasites.
The day we refuse to be intimidated and believe the lies is the day we get our countries
back.
Demand that Congress exercise their constitutional power over money creation.
National strike.
Something.
We need to turn this cancer around rather than waiting for the ship to hit the iceberg. That
will be the financial collapse lurking. It is the perfect opportunity for radical reform
including constitutional admendments. It will be a blessing in disguise: angry masses looking
for soneone to blame. Tptb will try to throw US to the angry masses but we throw them.
@steinbergfeldwitzcohen
y intractable endemic racial frictions in the USA are being systematically nurtured and
nourished by malign agents embedded in the American governmental and media frameworks.
The behaviour and loyalties of your Senator Maxine Waters makes this abundantly clear,
beyond any ambiguity or doubt.
So there is a cancer, for sure, eating away at the American Republic.
To extend the analogy, the danger with any cancer is permitting it to get past the point
of no return, after which the host cannot possibly recover and is inevitably consumed.
So you better find a cure soon, preferably something holistic which feeds the healthy
constituents and promotes healing at the same time as extinguishing the poisonous
infections.
Otherwise Team America may suffer a tragic and permanent demise.
Don’t forget that Jews own the media and the politicians. The culture
of vicitmhood, cancel culture, “wokeness,†race-baiting and
multi-racialism all either originate in the Jewish community or are strongly supported by
Jews. Jews brought down white, Christian Russia in 1917 and they are in the process of doing
that here. Jews hate us Christian whites and that fact is reflected in their media.
“All the quasi-theological abstractions about
“privilege†and “critical
theory†melt away before one immutable truth: They need us; we
don’t need them. Until we have the will to say so, all of
us…â€
Us who? White liberals don’t want you & don’t
need you & never will accept you, let alone agree any hare-brained scheme to
‘separate’ or have a racial homeland. And
they’re using Blacks to tell you that.
And until we have the will to say so, nothing will result from DOA dreams about a separate
state for “usâ€. A separate quasi-theological state abstraction
based on race will melt away in immutable reality as quickly as the communist belief in a
dictatorship of the proletariat abstraction. You have to make it here; there is no
“us†anymore. Get ready for 2022 or civil war as you will, but
there’s no escape to la-la land.
In the 1960 census, Minnesota was 98.8% white. In 1973, Time magazine ran an article on
the “Good Life in Minnesota.†It really was. We led the nation
in education. In 1960, there were 1,400 violent crimes in the State. Now, it is 13,000 to
14,000. What happened? We had mass migration from Chicago. Our Minnesota socialists offered
generous welfare benefits that attracted Chicago’s blacks and resettled
many refugees from failed countries, like Somalia, to the State. The State went from low
crime, highly educated, to much crime, much disorder, and a feeling we now live in a 3rd
world country. Today, we have armed soldiers with machine guns on the corners of the streets
in Minneapolis. You’d think the woke monsters that censure our news and
who form the Chauvin jury would awake from their idiocy, but instead, they censure the facts,
portray cops as the bad guys, portray drug abusing criminal degenerates like George Floyd as
saints.
It looks like blacks are now untouchable. This can only cause them to increase their
savage ways.
Realistically, wouldn’t it be better if every white person that wanted
to be armed could do so, and do so without a gov’t permission slip? The
reason we can’t pack a piece is because the gov’t says
the police will protect us. I know that’s a lie, do you?
Get rid of street cops like Chauvin because they are the ones that
aren’t there to protect us and end up in Floyd type situations. We should
be demanding our Constitutional rights to carry a weapon if we want to AND have the laws
changed so if we take out some POS there’s nothing to worry about.
Just think if a shop keepers in Portland put a shotgun round through their window through
the same hole made by the brick some antifa or blm POS threw. All the rioting and destruction
would have been cut off in seconds as these miscreants scatter. That’s the
only way to handle the low life trash that currently has immunity via a justice system that
is broken.
Eliminate street cops. Demand our Constitutional rights. Tell the gov’t
to change the laws that allow for deadly force when attacked by some miscreant.
No, Whites cannot police them, just like we cannot educate them. That’s
why the only acceptable solution is to expel them from White countries. Any other course of
action will mean the end of civilization because their presence is incompatible with
civilized life. Fuck them all and their cuckservative fans.
The politician most responsible for pitting ordinary men and women
against each other, ruining marriage among ordinary people, then
accusing someone else of "having no soul" is ironic.
It's the Orwellian narrative: "We have enemies overseas." Enemies
that aren't real enemies because we really don't actually want to
start a war with them but we need to put on a show to keep the
people distracted from looking at who are the real enemies inside
their own country.
We should stop seeing capitalism as this unmovable, eternal and indestructible
system ...
Yes, in fact USA has adjusted capitalism as needed/wanted with socialism (the "welfare
state") and neoliberalism (crony-capitalism).
= ... capitalism and the USA are historically specific phenomena, and they will - 100%
certainty - collapse and disappear eventually.
Still, a collapse can take many forms and affect the world's people in different ways. We
can't just expect that capitalism will die of natural causes and the world will inevitably be
a better place for it. We are right to be wary of the worst outcomes.
= ... you just need to last longer than your political enemy. The fact that USA outlived
the USSR gave it almost 17 years of incontestable supremacy ...
You make "outlasting" seem like a random thing. USSR didn't just lose the roll of the
dice.
= No one takes neoliberalism seriously anymore, even among the high echelons of the
economics priesthood.
Examples?
= It is in this world that the Ukraine chose to align with the American Empire. To put it
simply, it chose the wrong side at the wrong time: it chose the West in an era that's
shifting to the East.
But their "choice" wasn't a free and knowledgeable one, was it? The West was pushing for
that change for 10 years and Nuland bragged of spending $5 billion to achieve it.
And the "choice" was for the entirety of Ukraine to move into the West. Ukraine
suffers greatly from not having Crimea and Donbas. For example, the West had planned gas
fracking in eastern Ukraine (by Burisma). That, of course, never happened.
= The euphoria of the fall of socialism masked the degeneration of capitalism that was
started at the same time and it particularly impacted the Warsaw Pact (Comecon) and the
Western ex-USSR nations.
Ukraine was already an oligarchic nightmare when Maidan happened.
= Nazism is not a system, it is just crazy liberalism, and I hope the white supremacists
and traditionalists in the West take note of that - if they don't want to be
crushed.
Nazism lives on in the form of the combination of: neoliberalism, neoconservativism, and
neocolonialism (aka Zionism). And those who adhere to these ideologies don't seem to have any
concern about being crushed. AFAICT the beatings will continue until morale improves
.
It's hard to track neoliberalism because the neoliberals don't consider themselves
"neoliberal": they're just "normal" or simply "liberal". They are the Hadean ideology par
excellence, the ideology that disguise itself as a-ideological, the invisible ideology.
But we can infer the death of neoliberalism as codified in the Washington Consensus list
from 2008 onward by the set of policies enforced in the USA, the UK, Japan and other
developed European countries (where neoliberalism are expected to be hegemonic), and here I'm
specifically asking you to focus on the so-called "austerity" (which is a more regressive
form of neoliberalism, but is not technically neoliberalism) and the rise of MMT through
money printing or, in the case of Japan, more T-bond issuance, in a complete disregard to
national (sovereign) debt after the pandemic (and, in the USA's case, even before that). Also
pay attention to the list of Economy "Nobel" (Riksbank) Prize winners post-2008 - none of
them being neoliberals in the academic sense of the word, nor having a neoliberal past
(apparently).
The only place left where neoliberalism is still alive and well, albeit weakened, is in
Latin America and the so-called "emerging economies" (Turkey, South Africa and Russia). But
those are not the dominant part of the world in the capitalist sense, it would be akin to the
Roman Empire surviving only as a remnant in pieces of Hispania or Gallia.
The Jewish Anti-defamation league is after Tucker Carlson. That's as bad as it gets. They
have more money than God.
Anti-Defamation League chief Jonathan Greenblatt "Tucker must go"...."white supremacist
tenet that the white race is in danger by a rising tide of non-whites" that is "anti-Semitic,
racist and toxic."
The rules at issue in the case, initially adopted between 1964 and 1975, had been meant "to
promote competition, localism and viewpoint diversity by ensuring that a small number of
entities do not dominate a particular media market," Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for the
court. But the rules, he added, were a relic of a different era -- "an early-cable and
pre-internet age when media sources were more limited." "By the 1990s, however, the market for
news and entertainment had changed dramatically," Justice Kavanaugh wrote. "Technological
advances led to a massive increase in alternative media options, such as cable television and
the internet. Those technological advances challenged the traditional dominance of daily print
newspapers, local radio stations and local television stations."
The case, Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project, No. 19-1231,
concerned three rules. One barred a single entity from owning a radio or television station and
a daily print newspaper in the same market, the second limited the number of radio and
television stations an entity can own in a single market, and the third restricted the number
of local television stations an entity could own in the same market.
In 2017, the commission concluded that the three rules no longer served their original
purposes of promoting competition and the like. The vote was 3 to 2 along party lines, with the
commission's Republican members in the majority.
They were not deciding if media consolidation was OK. They were deciding if the FCC had the
regulatory authority to make such a change. The court decided, unanimously, that they did.
If they had decided otherwise, it would open up any such regulatory changes to lawsuits
against the change. This includes further tightening media ownership rules, or changing rules
on pollution, or regulations on corporate governance.
Is they have should have gone for the throat and said FCC, SEC, FTC, FEC, etc. rule-making
is unconstitutional per se because all legislative and pseudo-legislative activity must be
enacted explicitly by only the Congress.
It would have utterly horrified and enraged progressives and big corporation-loving
republicans, but it would have been considered a judicial Gettysburg for the forces of populism
on both sides because it would have gutted the power of the administrative state to render the
people's assembly a vestigial organ.
The EUP is cutting its own throat trying to bully China. I see the move was made as soon
as Blinken arrived and began spreading lies about both Russia and China. I know China and
Russia would like these rogue nations to uphold their honor by obeying the UN Charter, but it
seems too many have caught the Outlaw US Empire's disease and now want to return to their
Colonial ways. If the EUP ends up trashing the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI)
with China, many individual European nations are going to be very angry. China won't mind if
that's what the EUP does as is explained here :
"After China announced sanctions on 10 individuals and four entities from the EU as a
countermove to EU's unilateral sanctions against China, some people from the EU reacted
strongly, claiming China's countermeasures were "unacceptable." The European Parliament
canceled a meeting on Tuesday to discuss the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) with
China. Some members of the European Parliament warned that the lifting of Chinese sanctions
should be a condition to promote talks on CAI. Voices that support to block the agreement in
an attempt to punish China have been hyped by some anti-China forces.
"Yet those forces should be told that the CAI between China and the EU is mutually
beneficial, rather than a gift from the EU to China. If the European Parliament wants to
obstruct the deal, taking it as a bargaining chip in interactions with China, it should first
reach a consensus among European countries. If they all agree, let's just take it as
negotiations between China and the EU never took place last year. But don't blackmail China
with the case. China despises such ugly deeds."
China's saying essentially that it will forego the benefits of trade if it isn't properly
respected and doesn't care if the EU's dire economic condition worsens because it can't stand
up for itself in the face of the world's #1 Bully, which is exactly the same line Russia has
taken.
It is not just Jens Quisling, half (or more) of the European political elite are USA
proxies.
Take for example the European green parties.
I am pretty sure that the Dutch green party is at its core a NATO/military intelligence
operation. It was created as a merger of three parties, all of whom had a distinct pacifist
and socialist signature. The new party, GroenLinks ("GreenLeft") has forgotten all of that
and has limited itself to churning out Big Climate slogans. The party leader is an obviously
hollow puppet in the image of Justin Trudeau. His opinions are handed to him by advisors in
the shade.
A few years ago, an MP for GroenLinks, Mariko Peters was enthousiastically
promoting more military missions in Afghanistan. She was also a board member of the
"Atlantische Commissie", the local Dutch chapter of the Atlantic Treaty Organisation
(the USA chapter is the more well-known Atlantic Council). If you study her antics and
associations more closely, it is pretty obvious that there is nothing green or left about
this lady and that she is an obvious atlanticist diplomat/spy type.
Currently, there are no political parties in the Netherlands that are critical of NATO.
This used to be very
different not even a very long time ago.
What the article does not mention is the association, reputedly for a six-figure salary)
of former Grüne luminary Joschka Fisher to the Nabucco pipeline project (competing with
ns2). Fischer is also a member of the council on foreign relations and a founding member even
of the European chapter ECFR.
Your editorial "The
Semiconductor Shortage" (March 13) is right that government action is not needed to correct
the short-term supply-demand imbalance causing the global chip shortage, but wrong that the
U.S. can "prod" its way to stronger domestic semiconductor production and more secure chip
supply chains in the long term. Global competitors haven't passed the U.S. as a location for
chip manufacturing by prodding. They've done it by funding ambitious government incentives to
lure semiconductor production to their shores.
As a result, only 12% of global manufacturing is now done in the U.S., down from 37% in
1990.
It is impossible to define neoliberalism purely theoretically, for several reasons. First,
methodologically, although neoliberal experiences share important commonalities (explained in
what follows), neoliberalism is not a mode of production. Consequently, these experiences do
not necessarily include a clearly defined set of invariant features, as may be expected in
studies of 'feudalism" or 'capitalism", for example. Neoliberalism straddles a wide range of
social, political and economic phenomena at different levels of complexity. Some of these are
highly abstract, for example the growing power of finance or the debasement of democracy, while
others are relatively concrete, such as privatisation or the relationship between foreign
states and local non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Nevertheless, it is not difficult to
recognise the beast when it trespasses into new territories, tramples upon the poor, undermines
rights and entitlements, and defeats resistance, through a combination of domestic political,
economic, legal, ideological and media pressures, backed up by international blackmail and
military force if necessary.
Second, as is argued in Chapters 7 and 9., neoliberalism is inseparable from imperialism and
globalisation. In the conventional (or mainstream) discourse, imperialism is either absent or,
more recently, proudly presented as the 'American Burden': to civilise the world and bring to
all the benediction of the Holy Trinity, the green-faced Lord Dollar and its deputies and
occasional rivals, Holy Euro and Saint Yen. New' converts win a refurbished international
airport, one brand-new branch of McDonald's, two luxury hotels, 3,000 NGOs and one US military
base. This offer cannot be refused - or else.- In turn, globalisation is generally presented as
an inescapable, inexorable and benevolent process leading to greater competition, welfare
improvements and the spread of democracy around the world. In reality, however, the so-called
process of globalisation - to the extent that it actually exists (see Saad-Filho 2003) - is
merely the international face of neoliberalism: a worldwide strategy of accumulation and social
discipline that doubles up as an imperialist project, spearheaded by the alliance between the
US ruling class and locally dominant capitalist coalitions. This ambitious power project
centred on neoliberalism at home and imperial globalism abroad is implemented by diverse social
and economic political alliances in each country, but the interests of local finance and the US
ruling class, itself dominated by finance, are normally hegemonic.
Third, historical analysis of neoliberalism requires a multi-level approach. The roots of
neoliberalism are long and varied, and its emergence cannot be dated precisely. As Chapters
я to 6 show, neoliberalism amalgamates insights from a range of sources, including Adam
Smith, neoclassical economics, the Austrian critique of Keynesianism and Soviet-style
socialism, monetarism and its new classical and 'supply-side' offspring. Their influence
increased by leaps and bounds with the breakdown of the postwar order: the end of the 'golden
age' of rapid worldwide growth in the late 1960s, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in
the early 1970s, the erosion of the so-called 'Keynesian compromise' in the rich countries in
the mid 1970s, the meltdown of the Soviet bloc in the 1980s and the implosion of developmental
alternatives in the poor countries, especially after balance of payments crises in the 1980s
and 1990s. Chapters 1 and 2 show that the collapse of the alternatives provided space for the
synthesis between conservative view's and the interests of the US elite and their minions. The
cauldron was provided by the aggressive populist conservatism of Ronald Reagan and Margaret
Thatcher, and the broth was tendered by finance - that had become hegemonic worldwide after the
'coup- led by the chairman of the US Federal Reserve System, Paul Volcker, in 1979.3 By
persuasion and by force, neoliberalism spread everywhere.
It is, however, important to avoid excessively linear accounts of the rise of neoliberalism.
For example, in the United Kingdom, key elements of Thatcher's monetarist economic platform had
been imposed by the previous Labour government; she only expanded them and gave them a
compelling rationale. There was also an irresolvable tension between the puritanical claims
made by milk-snatching Thatcher, Reagan's ventriloquists, and the intellectual harlots peddling
their wares around the US Imperial Court, and the political practice of these neoliberal
administrations. For example, Reagan's 'voodoo economics' (in the words of his deputy, George
Bush pere) would have been unacceptable to the guardians of the scriptures. History shows that
it is easier to impose pristine economic and political models in the dominions, because at home
the strength of conflicting interests and the messy realities of limited power do not allow
history to start anew on demand. This is best illustrated in Chapter 14's discussion of the
asymmetric application of agrarian liberalism. It is relatively easy to parachute well-paid
advisers into distant and unimportant countries, where Lord Dollar can easily bend the natives'
will. This purifying ritual will make them almost civilised. However, should the ignorant
masses and their brutal leaders reject dollar diplomacy and be reluctant to play by the (new)
rules, weapons of mass destruction are available and they can be deployed increasingly
effectively from great distances.
Although every country is different, and historical analysis can reveal remarkably rich
details, the overall picture is clear. Tire most basic feature of neoliberalism is the
systematic use of state power to impose (financial) market imperatives, in a domestic process
that is replicated internationally by 'globalisation'. As Chapters 22. 23 and 30 argue in the
cases of the United States, the United Kingdom and east and south-east Asia respectively,
neoliberalism is a particular organisation of capitalism, which has evolved to protect
capital(ism) and to reduce the power of labour. This is achieved by means of social, economic
and political transformations imposed by internal forces as well as external pressure. The
internal forces include the coalition between financial interests, leading industrialists,
traders and exporters, media barons, big landowners, local political chieftains, the top
echelons of the civil service and the military, and their intellectual and political proxies.
These groups are closely connected with 'global' ideologies emanating from the centre, and they
tend to adapt swiftly to the demands beamed from the metropolis.
Their efforts have led to a significant worldwide shift in power relations away from the
majority. Corporate power has increased, wiiile finance has acquired unrivalled influence, and
the political spectrum has shifted towards the right. Left parties and mass organisations have
imploded, while trade unions have been muzzled or disabled by unemployment. Forms of external
pressure have included the diffusion of Western culture and ideology, foreign support for state
and civil society institutions peddling neoliberal values, the shameless use of foreign aid,
debt relief and balance of payments support to promote the neoliberal programme, and diplomatic
pressure, political unrest and military intervention when necessary. For example, Chapter 24
shows how' the ruling economic and political forces in the European Union have instrumentalised
the process of integration to ensure the hegemony of neoliberalism. This account is
complemented by Chapter 2n's analysis of the segmentation of Eastern Europe into countries that
are being drawn into a Western European-stvle neoliberalism and others that are following
Russia's business oligarchy model. In sum, neoliberalism is everywhere both the outcome and the
arena of social conflicts. It sets the political and economic agenda, limits the possible
outcomes, biases expectations, and imposes urgent tasks on those challenging its assumptions,
methods and consequences.
In the meantime, neoliberal theory has not remained static. In order to deal with the most
powerful criticisms levelled against neoliberalism, that it has increased poverty and social
dislocation around the world, neoliberal theory has attempted to present the ogre in a more
favourable light. I11 spite of the substantial resources invested in this ideologically
inspired make-over, these amendments have remained unconvincing, not least because the heart of
the neoliberal project has remained unchanged. This is discussed in Chapter 15 for poverty and
distribution, while Chapter 21 unpicks the agenda of the 'Third Way', viewed by many as
'neoliberalism with a human face'.
A MULTI-PRONGED POWER PROJECT
Neoliberalism offered a finance-friendly solution to the problems of capital accumulation at
the end of a relatively long cycle of prosperity. Chapters 1. 22 and 30 show that neoliberalism
imposed discipline upon a restless working class through contractionary fiscal and monetary
policies and wide-ranging initiatives to curtail social rights, under the guise of
anti-inflation and productivity-enhancing measures. Neoliberalism also rationalised the
transfer of state capacity to allocate resources inter-temporally (the balance between
investment and consumption) and inter-sectorally (the distribution of investment, employment
and output) towards an increasingly internationally integrated (and US-led) financial sector.
In doing so, neoliberalism facilitated a gigantic transfer of resources to the local rich and
the United States, as is shown by Chanters 11 and 15. Neoliberal globalism is not at all a
model of 'economic deregulation', and it does not promote 'private initiative' in general.
Under the ideological veil of non-intervention, neoliberalism involves extensive and invasive
interventions in every area of social life. It imposes a specific form of social and economic
regulation based on the prominence of finance, international elite integration, subordination
of the poor in every country and universal compliance with US interests. Finally, neoliberalism
does not foster rapid accumulation. Although it enhances the power and the living standards of
the global elite and its appendages, it is destructive for the vast majority. Domestically, the
expansion of 'market relations' tramples upon rights of access to food, water, education, work,
land, housing, medical care, transportation and public amenities as well as 011 gender
relations, as is shown by Chanters 16 to 18. Lawrs are changed to discipline the majority,
restrict their rights of association and make it difficult to protest against the consequences
of neoliberalism and to develop alternatives. The police, the courts and the armed forces are
available to quash protests in the 'new democracies' such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Nigeria, South
Africa, South Korea and Zambia, as well as in 'old democracies' such as France, India, Italy,
Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Chanter 20 shows that democracy is everywhere
limited by the rights of global capital to seize the land and exploit its people, while Chanter
8 reviews the systematic seizure of assets which has gone hand in hand with neoliberalism in
many countries. Finally, an increasing share of global profits is being pumped into the rich
countries, especially the United States. These transfers increase the pressure 011 the
periphery, where rates of exploitation must increase sharply in order to support extraordinary
levels of elite consumption domestically as well as in the United States. In other words,
neoliberalism is a hegemonic system of enhanced exploitation of the majority. Chanter 12 shows
that the neoliberal promise of rising living standards for poor countries has not been
fulfilled, and Chanter ip, discusses the manner in which foreign aid has served this process of
exploitation. These and other chapters in this volume argue that neoliberalism prevents the
implementation of those very policies that would most likely contribute to economic growth and
poverty reduction: as Chapter 28 argues for South Asia, neoliberalism has fatally narrowed the
policy discourse. This exploitative agenda is primarily but not exclusively the outcome of a
shift in the power relations within (and between) countries. It is also the outcome of
technological changes, especially cheaper international transportation, communications and
computing power, the internet, the emergence of 'flexible' production, greater international
integration between production chains and in the financial markets, and so 011. These material
changes responded to existing social changes at least as much as they induced them.
TRANSCENDING NEOLIBERALISM
In spite of its power, the transformations that it has wrought 011 the world economy, and
the achievement of ever rising living standards for the minority, neoliberalism does not offer
an efficient platform for capital accumulation. Under neoliberalism, economic growth rates have
declined, unemployment and underemployment have become widespread, inequalities within and
between countries have become sharper, the living and working conditions of the majority have
deteriorated almost everywhere, and the periphery has suffered greatly from economic
instability. In other words, neoliberalism is a global system of minority power, plunder of
nations and despoilment of the environment. This system breeds economic, political and social
changes, creating the material basis for its own perpetuation and crushing the resistances
against its reproduction. Chanters 26 to 30 discuss the continuing crisis in Latin America,
sub- Saharan Africa, South Asia, Japan and East and South-East Asia. They argue that neoliberal
policies have enhanced instability everywhere, while Chanter 10 shows that the theoretical and
empirical evidence cannot support neoliberalism's central hypothesis that trade openness is
good for growth.
However, neoliberalism also destroys its own conditions of existence. Its persistent failure
to deliver sustained economic growth and rising living standards exhausts the tolerance of the
majority and lays bare the web of spin in which neoliberalism clouds the debate and legitimates
its destructive outcomes. Tire endless mantra of 'reforms' which systematically fail to deliver
their promised 'efficiency gains' delegitimises the neoliberal states, their discourse and
their mouthpieces. The explosion of consumer credit that has supported the improvement of
living standards in the centre, given the growing fiscal constrains upon the state, limits the
scope for interest-rate manipulation - the most important neoliberal economic policy tool. Most
importantly, popular movements have emerged and successfully challenged the neoliberal
hegemony. Whatever their limitations, as Chapter ?? argues, the recent social explosions in
Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, as well as more limited social movements elsewhere, show that
neoliberalism is not invulnerable. This book details and substantiates these claims, and points
toward an agenda of reflection, critique and struggle.
Canadian Cents@9 The book Capitalism on a Ventilator is a collection of essays or articles
produced by the Workers World Party, one of the Communist Parties in the US.
Amazon lists the book as currently unavailable (and asks if you want an email if it
becomes more available.)
It is indeed possible this is a surreptitious way of censoring the book, especially if the
unavailability means WWP (which operates the International Action Center) simply hasn't
complied with technical requirements imposed by Amazon.
Such as guaranteeing delivery within a limited number of days. Amazon has, apparently,
tightened up a lot to make it difficult for independents to sell on Amazon.
But it is also possible that the limited budgets and other resources led to limited
numbers of copies which are now sold out. When the new press run is complete, the book
becomes available again.
"Liberal" appeared in Europe in a socio-economic context in the late 1600s to describe an
system where business would be free, unhindered by royal/government control. For the most
part, to start up a business, one needed a royal license or patent. The liberals wanted
unregulated business, and their motto was "laissez faire" (let it be done/happen).
Laissez-faire capitalism is generally considered the first (entrepreneurial) phase of
capitalism, starting in the early 1700s.
Outside the English-speaking world, the word still relates to free trade and unregulated
business practices.
"Neoliberal" is more recent, coming into common usage since the arrival of the
Thatcher/Reagan regime of globalization. Neoliberals go one further than the original
liberals. While the latter just wanted governments to let businesses do their thing, the
neoliberals believe that it is government's duty to promote and support business, in other
words to play a major role in making it possible for corporations to make money. Hence,
Boeing and the other corporations and the big banks must NEVER be allowed to fail, for that
would represent a failure of government as it is understood in neoliberal ideology.
The liberalism which is referred to here is the economic liberalism which was adopted in
the United Kingdom in the 1840s after the "reform" of the Corn Laws, which permitted free
trade in grain and therefore brought down both the price of wheat and the small farming
community in the UK, as it was intended to do. Later these liberal policies (largely modelled
on the "comparative advantage" economic theory, which had already been refuted by the time it
was developed by David Ricardo) were used to justify the Irish genocide of 1847-9.
This policy was eventually abandoned later in the nineteenth century, except for places
like India, of course. It was restored in the West in the 1970s, under the name of "free
trade", and therefore is called neoliberalism, or new liberalism in the economic sense.
The term is not a compliment.
I suspect that the term "liberal-fascist" derives partly from the term Islamofascist,
meaning a Muslim who does not bow to Washington six times a day, and partly from the term
"social-fascist", a Stalinist term for a socialist who did not bow to Moscow six times a
day.
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. According to Losurdo, the term "liberal" (as an
adjective) is first found in 16th Century Spain, and essentially was a defense of slave labor
to serf labor.
The first theoretician of Liberalism that I can think of is John Locke. If he wasn't the
first, he certainly was the most influential, as he was the philosopher of the Founding
Fathers of the USA.
Liberalism was never an organized "school" or ideology. The term itself as we know today
(an ism) was only consolidated sometime around the French Revolution (1789), hence why many
people today (mainly Western First Worlders) still associate the term is progressivism and
even leftism. In reality, they are confounding the term with radicalism, which was the
faction of the abolitionist liberals who extrapolated liberalism to all human beings.
Neoliberalism is literally the New Liberalism. The neoliberals believe that everything
that happened between the Russian Revolution (1917) and the post-war welfare state
social-democracy was an abortion of History that should've never have happened. They then
propose the return to the classical liberal era (until 1914) with updates to the new
technological realities of their time, as if the period of 1917-1975 never existed. They then
seek to "link up" 1980-present to 1500-1914.
@vk "The neoliberals believe that everything that happened between the Russian Revolution
(1917) and the post-war welfare state social-democracy was an abortion of History that
should've never have happened."
Personally, I tend to define 'neoliberalism' as global financial capitalism. 'Global'
being the key. Something similar to what's described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-imperialism
. Technological advances in global communications and transportation (containerization) being
its most important precursors.
But I agree that the collapse of the Soviet Union, a competing alternative model, has to
be an important component also.
@ Posted by: Mao Cheng Ji | Feb 25 2021 12:28 utc | 87
You're thinking about Monetarism - the economics school founded by Milton Friedman that
served as the economic theory of neoliberalism after the 1980s.
Neoliberalism was founded in 1947 (Mont Pelerin Society). One interesting thing about the
original neoliberals was that they didn't distinguish between European social-democracy and
communism: in their view, the welfare state was the realization of the Communist Manifesto's
program (it really does propose for what we nowadays call the welfare state in some of its
pages as some kind of transition program).
@ Posted by: Mao Cheng Ji | Feb 25 2021 12:49 utc | 89
Monetarism is the economic theory. Neoliberalism is the political-ideological doctrine.
Neoliberalism found in Monetarism the missing piece for them to govern the Western world,
sometime in the mid-1970s.
It is common for a political-ideological doctrine to absorb theories outside of its
"field" in order to strengthen itself and gain power. Change of clothes (i.e. change of the
theories it adopts) is also common.
The impression Westerners have nowadays that one political-ideological doctrine must
always have exactly one economic theory or even that they are the same thing comes from the
fact that we live in the Era of Marxism, i.e. a historical period where Marxism is dominant.
But Marxism is the exception to the rule, based on the scientific theory of the greatest
philosopher of all time.
In practice, the bourgeois ideologues will have to make do with much inferior
theoreticians (John Locke, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Paul Samuelson, Mises, Hayek,
Böhm-Bawerk, Walras, Keynes, Friedman etc. etc. etc.) and so it is expected for them to
change their thinkers from time to time.
@vk "Neoliberalism found in Monetarism the missing piece..."
The way I see it, economics is the base. Like I said, technological advances in global
communications and transportation shifted the paradigm. What we have now is international
division of labor, controlled by west-owned global finance. Global financial capital is
rising above national boundaries; the role of national governments is to provide resources,
infrastructure, and disciplined low-cost labor, thus attracting a portion of global capital,
competing for it.
That's what I call 'neoliberalism', but I don't insist on it. What's in the name?
'Hyperimperialism', 'super-imperialism', 'inter-imperialism' or even 'state cartel' would
do.
It's just that 'neoliberalism' is a popular word these days, that seems to be used to
describe the current form of "relations of production". And why not.
Now, about ideologies. My feeling is, there are always hundreds of various ideologies
flying around. The establishment will pick a suitable one, shine it up in think-tanks, and go
with it. It'll become the dominant ideology. Until it doesn't suffice anymore, and then
they'll replace it with another. But that's all bullshit. Pwogwessivism, liberalism, social
democracy, the third way, whatever. No need to pay attention.
@ Posted by: Mao Cheng Ji | Feb 25 2021 14:18 utc | 97
Now, about ideologies. My feeling is, there are always hundreds of various ideologies
flying around. The establishment will pick a suitable one, shine it up in think-tanks, and
go with it. It'll become the dominant ideology. Until it doesn't suffice anymore, and then
they'll replace it with another. But that's all bullshit. Pwogwessivism, liberalism, social
democracy, the third way, whatever. No need to pay attention.
That's the definition of democracy in the post-war, as defined by the likes of Arthur M.
Schlesinger, Jr. and Hannah Arendt.
Schlesinger defined democracy or Western democracy as the system with a "vital center". A
vital center is a political system dominated by a political spectrum (left-right). The
ideologies within this political spectrum freely compete against each other in the public
arena for political power (getting into the White House; forming a majority within a
Parliament). Schlesinger is the father of what we nowadays call "pluralism". In opposition, a
totalitarian system is one of a single party, in which he put Nazi Germany and the USSR -
they don't have a "vital center".
Hannah Arendt defined totalitarianism as any system that vertebrates itself on one single
meta-narrative (History). She put as the totalitarian holotypes both Nazi Germany and the
USSR - the first built itself over the narrative of the master race; the second over class
struggle. By exclusion, she defines a democratic system as those without a single narrative
or any meta-narrative. By a different route, she comes to a similar endgame as Schlesinger,
with the exception that, in her model, democracies don't necessarily need to be multi-party
or even plural. You could be a single-party system and not plural - as long as the party
doesn't adopt any "meta-narrative", it suffices as free and democratic. Needless to say,
Arendt is one of the precursors to Postmodernism (absolute relativity).
That's why the West, until the present days, still consider itself as fully democratic and
China and Russia fully totalitarian: as long as the West doesn't adopt a meta-narrative and
keeps more than one party, they are democratic by post-war standards. It's not and never was
about eradicating poverty, turning the world a better place, fomenting progress for the
people etc. etc.
Lots of stabs being made at a definition for Neoliberalism. The following is from Hudson's
J is for Junk Economics , pgs 167-8:
" Neoliberalism: An ideology to absolve banks, landlords and monopolists from
accusations of predatory behavior. Just as European fascism in teh 1930s reflected the
failure of socialist parties to put forth a viable alternative, today's U.S.-centered
neoliberalism reflects the failure of industrial capitalism or socialism to free society from
rentier interests that are a legacy of feudalism.
"Turning the tables on classical political economy, rentier interests act as
plaintiffs against public regulation and taxation of their economic rents in contrast
to Adam Smith and other classical liberals, today's neoliberals want to deregulate
monopoly income and free markets for rent seeking, as well as replacing progressive income
taxation and taxes on land and banking with a value-added tax (VAT) on consumers.
"Endorsing an oligarchic role of government to protect property and financial fortunes
(see Chicago School and Moral Hazard ), neoliberalism loads the economy with an
exponential growth of debt while depicting it in a way that avoids recognizing the rising
rentier overhead (rent, interest and insurance) paid to the FIRE sector. (See Junk
Economics and Social Market .) Neoliberals want to privatize public
infrastructure. They defend this grabitization by depicting public ownership and regulation
as less efficient than congtrol by financial managers, despite their notorious short-termism.
The pretense is that private operators will provide goods and services at lower cost even
while extracting monopoly rent, building interest, dividends and high management salaries
into prices. (See Pentagon Capitalism .)"
A related definition follows:
" Neoliberal Disease: A term coined by Jan Hellevig to describe the free hand that
leaders of the demoralized post-Soviet bureaucracies gave neoliberals to redesign and
de-industrialize their economies by creating client kleptocracies . 'They freed the
markets, but only for the criminals. They totally neglected investments to modernize the
industry, and let the assets and cash streams be openly or covertly stolen by insiders and
the mob. The result was total chaos and the breakup of the Soviet Union.'" (Jon Hellevig,
"Russian Economy--The disease is not Dutch but Liberal," Awara March 2 2016, reprinted in Johnson's Russia
List , March 3, 2016, #12.)" [All Emphasis Original]
It should be noted the strategy Hellevig describes is the same as that used by those
termed "Corporate Raiders" that first prominently surfaced during Reagan/Bush and were
responsible for the so-called Savings & Loan Crisis.
If you don't have Hudson's book, I highly suggest getting it as it's filled with excellent
information and beats taking both micro- and macroeconomics. It's the companion book to
Killing the Host , which is essential for understanding Neoliberalism. The only part
of the Saga missing is a definitive history telling how the Neoliberal doctrine arose in the
UK and was exported to the USA @1880. Hudson has provided key portions but the overall story
still remains to be told.
the worst mistake jimmy carter ever made was to hire brzezinski, father of the
mujahideen and grandfather of al-qaeda. we used to brag about arming terrorists with weapons
to shoot down russian helicopters, hell they even made a "comedy" about it called charlie
wilsons war. now we accuse the russians of placing bounties on americans in afganistan and
demand more sanctions be placed on russia.
utter hypocrisy.
as for the maidan cookie monster and her neocon half wit husband, further proof of
failing upward, nothing succeeds like failure in washington. /div
Yesterday's Lavrov presser has finally had the Q&A section added to it and its a
doosey! Lavrov's sounds incendiary in print! "Question: Your recent interview generated a lot
of controversy. You implied that Russia admits the possibility of breaking off with the EU.
How do you see this break and what conditions would have to happen for it to occur, that is,
where does Moscow draw the red line?"
Lavrov: "This interview took place on February 12, and the EU High Representative for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell was here on February 5. Upon his return, he
made a number of statements to the effect that Russia had failed to live up to expectations
and to become a modern democracy and is rapidly moving away from Europe. That is, it sounded
as if Russia was a hopeless case. This happened several days before the interview. Hence, the
question as to whether we were ready to break off with the EU during the interview with
Vladimir Solovyov based on those remarks about Russia. As a matter of fact, anyone who is
even slightly interested in the situation in Europe has long known that a break-off has been
underway for many years now. The EU has been consistently tearing down our relations.
"2014 was a turning point. A coup took place in Ukraine, and the EU showed it was helpless
and unable to comply with the agreement that was reached between the government and the
opposition right before the coup. Importantly, Germany, France and Poland put their
signatures under it. The opposition spat on these signatures and on the EU, which thought it
was important to comply with this agreement. It was then that the EU was really humiliated.
Everyone knows what happened next. By and large, the EU turned a blind eye to the attacks
against the residents of Crimea and eastern Ukraine on the part of the ultras and neo-Nazis
who came to power, and decided to put all the blame on the Russian Federation.
"The EU has consistently destroyed all the mechanisms without exception that were based on
the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, including the biannual summits and annual meetings
between the Russian Government and the European commissioners and presidents of the European
Commission, projects to form four common spaces, over 20 sector-specific dialogues and almost
every other more or less important contact, as well as the Partnership and Cooperation
Council's annual meetings with the Russian Foreign Minister and the EU High Representative
for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. These meetings were supposed to be used to conduct a
full review of all areas of cooperation between Russia and the EU. To reiterate, all of that
has been destroyed. Not by us, mind you."
That's the most candid I've read of his answers to the events of that time. Lavrov turns
down his fire and brimstone to make this very important distinction as he finishes his
answer:
" Importantly, we do not have any problems in our relations with individual European
countries , I would even say, most European countries. Russia's relations with Finland
are a very good example of how they are being built systematically and based on general
principles, primarily, equality and mutual benefit, and how they are translated into the
language of specific economic, cultural and other projects that are of interest to both
sides.
" The EU should not be confused with Europe. We are not leaving Europe, we have many
friends and like-minded people in Europe, and we will continue to expand mutually beneficial
relations with them ." [My Emphasis]
It's the NATO/EU combo controlled by the Outlaw US Empire that's the problem. And another
blast aimed at the EU over Navalny related events:
"In evaluating the questions expressed by Mr Haavisto, we heard that our colleagues from
Finland and other EU countries always bring them. We know that they are edited and written by
the EU, in Brussels, and are a subject of consensus. We hear this regularly enough, and these
statements are practically the same, word for word. If the organisation called the European
Union has made this decision, we take it as a certainty. We reply to problematic issues,
and the main point we express is how the EU consistently, diligently and deviously avoids
specific discussions that are fact-based rather than accusations often made against us for
some reason or without any evidence ." [My Emphasis]
In the last Q&A, Lavrov again restates what he earlier said about the EU being at
fault for the utter erasing of relations that were painstakingly built up over many years,
and he repeats what Merkel said at the time foe emphasis, for Russia was innocent of all the
crap it was being accused of in 2014:
"At this point, German Chancellor Angela Merkel specially took the floor to say in public
that Russia must be punished and that in this situation politics must prevail over the
economy. This was very unconventional for a representative of Germany."
This ought to remind people that this proved Merkel to merely be a cheap prostitute
unworthy of any trust, who should have been ousted from her position years ago.
Fox News ' Tucker Carlson said on the
Thursday night episode of his program that his show has been targeted for cancellation.
Carlson said
that "in the last several weeks, and particularly in the last 24 hours, the call to take
this show off the air by groups funded -- for real -- by the Ford Foundation, or by George
Soros, by Michael Bloomberg, by Jeff Bezos, has become deafening, going after our advertisers,
going after the companies that carry our signal into your home."
What's more, he added, there has been a "cowardice and complicity" on behalf of the "entire
media class in all of this," suggesting that eventually, reporters at legacy news outlets will
be targeted as well.
Writing for Fox News' website, Carlson added that it may be part of a larger campaign to
silence Fox News and other media, noting that some legacy news outlets have dedicated resources
calling for the channel to be taken down. One columnist for The New York Times, he added, "has
written three separate columns demanding that someone yank this news channel off the air
immediately" and on Wednesday, "suggested that 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' was somehow guilty of
terrorism and violence, something that we've opposed consistently for four years."
"Fox is the last big organization in the American news media that differs in even the
smallest ways from the other big news organizations. At this point, everyone else in the media
is standing in crisp formation, in their starched matching uniforms and their little caps,
patiently awaiting orders from the billionaire class. And then there's Fox News off by itself,
occasionally saying things that are slightly different from everyone else," Carlson wrote
.
He added: "These are craven servants of the Democratic Party. They are feline, not canine.
All of their aggression is passive aggression."
On Thursday afternoon President Biden gave a much anticipated and wide-ranging speech laying
out his foreign policy agenda during a visit to the State Department. As expected much of it
was a repudiation of Trump's "America First" vision - though without mentioning Donald Trump by
name. His address to State Department diplomats and staff was centered around the theme of his
words: "America is back. Diplomacy is back at the center of our foreign policy."
Alarming for anyone who has called for an end to the vision which sees Washington as
essentially acting the like to 'global police force' - which unfortunately became a
(disastrous) reality starting in the Bush years and under the neocons, Biden vowed that as
commander-in-chief he would "defend democracy globally" .
He urged for the US to rebuild "the muscles of democratic alliances that have atrophied from
four years of neglect and abuse." He emphasized that "We can't do it alone."
Of course, the big question is what will that look like, with many expecting a return to the
kind of 'humanitarian interventionism' abroad and liberal internationalism that defined the
Obama years . This often took the form of covert wars (with the foremost example being Syria)
and military interventions under the guise international coalitions (such as NATO's war on
Libya) aimed at regime change.
"We must meet this new moment of accelerating global challenges – from a pandemic to
the climate crisis to nuclear proliferation – that will only be solved by nations working
together in common cause," Biden said in the afternoon address. "That must start with
diplomacy, rooted in America's most cherished democratic values: defending freedom, championing
opportunity, upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law, treating every person with
dignity."
Here are some of the highlights and significant foreign policy changes in US posture...
Russia
Biden said that "we will not hesitate to raise the costs on Russia." At a moment Russian
opposition leaders are lobbying Washington for the targeted use of Magnitsky sanctions on
Putin's inner circle, Biden actually mentioned the imprisoned opposition activist Alexey
Navalny by name.
He called on the Kremlin to release Navalny "immediately and without condition" while
expressing that authorities had targeted him for "exposing corruption" of Putin and top Kremlin
leadership. And
further :
He said that he "made it clear to President Putin, in a manner very different from my
predecessor, that the days the United States rolling over in the face of Russia's aggressive
action" – pointing to cyber attacks from the SolarWinds breach and the poisoning of
opposition figure Alexei Navalny – "are over."
Stakeholders consist of "customers, suppliers, employees, and local communities" in addition
to shareholders. But for Klaus Schwab and the WEF, the framework of stakeholder capitalism must
be globalized. A stakeholder is anyone or any group that stands to benefit or lose from any
corporate behavior -- other than competitors, we may presume. Since the primary pretext for the
Great Reset is global climate change, anyone in the world can be considered a stakeholder in
the corporate governance of any major corporation. And federal partnerships with corporations
that do not "serve" their stakeholders, like the Keystone Pipeline project, for example, must
be abandoned.
...T ake one David Campbell, a British socialist (although non-Marxist) and author of The
Failure of Marxism (1996). After declaring that Marxism had failed, Campbell began advocating
stakeholder capitalism as a means to the same ends. His argument with the British orthodox
Marxist Paddy Ireland represents an internecine squabble over the best means of achieving
socialism, while also providing a looking glass into the minds of socialists determined to try
other, presumably nonviolent tacks.
Campbell castigated Ireland for his rejection of stakeholder capitalism. ... Ireland's
more-radical-than-thou Marxism left Campbell flummoxed. Didn't Ireland realize that his market
determinism was exactly what the defenders of "neoliberalism" asserted as the inevitable and
only sure means for the distribution of social welfare? "Marxism," Campbell rightly noted, "can
be identified with the deriding of 'social reform' as not representing, or even as obstructing,
'the revolution.'" Like so many antireformist Marxists, Ireland failed to recognize that "the
social reforms that [he] derided are the revolution."
Ireland and Campbell agreed that the very idea of stakeholder capitalism derived from
companies having become relatively autonomous from their shareholders. The idea of managerial
independence and thus company or corporate autonomy was first treated by Adolf A. Berle and
Gardiner C. Means in The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932) and after them in James
Burnham's The Managerial Revolution (1962). In "Corporate Governance, Stakeholding, and the
Company: Towards a Less Degenerate Capitalism?," Ireland writes of this putative autonomy:
"[T]he idea of the stakeholding company is rooted in the autonomy of 'the company' from its
shareholders; its claim being that this autonomy can be exploited to ensure that companies do
not operate exclusively with the interests of their shareholders in mind."
This apparent autonomy of the company, Ireland argues, came about not with incorporation or
legal changes to the structure of the corporation, but with the growth of large-scale
industrial capitalism. The growth in the sheer number of shares and with it the advent of the
stock market made for the ready salability of the of the share. Shares became "money capital,"
readily exchangeable titles to a percentage of profit, and not claims on the company's assets.
It was at this point that shares gained apparent autonomy from the company and the company from
its shareholders.
Moreover, with the emergence of this market, shares developed an autonomous value of their
own quite independent of, and often different from, the value of the company's assets.
Emerging as what Marx called fictitious capital, they were redefined in law as an autonomous
form of property independent of the assets of the company. They were no longer conceptualized
as equitable interests in the property of the company but as rights to profit with a value of
their own, rights which could be freely and easily bought and sold in the marketplace .
On gaining their independence from the assets of companies, shares emerged as legal
objects in their own right, seemingly doubling the capital of joint stock companies. The
assets were now owned by the company and by the company alone, either through a corporation
or, in the case of unincorporated companies, through trustees. The intangible share capital
of the company, on the other hand, had become the sole property of the shareholder. They were
now two quite separate forms of property. Moreover, with the legal constitution of the share
as an entirely autonomous form of property, the externalization of the shareholder from the
company had been completed in a way not previously possible.
Thus, according to Ireland, a difference in interests emerged between the holders of the
industrial capital and the holders of the money capital, or between the company and the
shareholder.
Nevertheless, Ireland maintains, the autonomy of the company is limited by the necessity for
industrial capital to produce profit. The value of shares is ultimately determined by the
profitability of the company's assets in use. "The company is, and will always be, the
personification of industrial capital and, as such, subject to the imperatives of profitability
and accumulation. These are not imposed from the outside on an otherwise neutral and
directionless entity, but are, rather, intrinsic to it, lying at the very heart of its
existence." This necessity, Paddy argues, defines the limits of stakeholder capitalism and its
inability to sustain itself. "The nature of the company is such, therefore, as to suggest that
[there] are strict limits to the extent to which its autonomy from shareholders can be
exploited for the benefit of workers or, indeed, other stakeholders."
Here is a point on which the "neoliberal" Milton Friedman and the Marxist Paddy Ireland
would have agreed, despite Ireland's insistence that the extraction of "surplus value" at the
point of production is the cause. And this agreement between Friedman and Ireland is exactly
why Campbell rejected Ireland's argument. Such market determinism is only necessary under
capitalism, Campbell asserted. Predictions about how companies will behave in the context of
markets are only valid under current market conditions...
Despite this insurmountable "neoliberal"/Marxist impasse, the notion of stakeholder
capitalism is at least fifty years old. Debates about the efficacy of stakeholder capitalism
date to the 1980s. They were stirred up by Friedman's rejection of the "soulful corporation,"
which reached its peak with Carl Kaysen's "The Social Significance of the Modern Corporation"
in 1957. Kaysen viewed the corporation as a social institution that must weigh profitability
against a broad and growing array of social responsibilities: "there is no display of greed or
graspingness; there is no attempt to push off onto the workers or the community at large part
of the social costs of the enterprise. The modern corporation is a soulful corporation." Thus,
in Kaysen, we see hints of the later notion of stakeholder capitalism.
Likely, stakeholder capitalism can be traced, although not in an unbroken line of
succession, to the "commercial idealism" of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
when Edward Bellamy and King Camp Gillette, among others, envisioned corporate socialist
utopias via incorporation. For such corporate socialists, the main means for establishing
socialism was through the continuous incorporation of all the factors of production. With
incorporation, a series of mergers and acquisitions would occur until the formation of a
singular global monopoly, in which all "the People" had equal shares, was complete. In his
"World Corporation , " Gillette declared that "the trained mind of business and finance sees no
stopping-place to corporate absorption and growth, except final absorption of all the World's
material assets into one corporate body, under the directing control of one corporate mind."
Such a singular world monopoly would become socialist upon the equal distribution of shares
among the population. Stakeholder capitalism falls short of this equal distribution of shares
but gets around it by distributing value on the basis of social and political pressure.
Interestingly, Campbell ends his argument, rather undogmatically, by stating unequivocally
that if Friedman was right and "if these comparisons [between shareholder and stakeholder
capitalism] tend to show exclusive maximization of shareholder value to be the optimal way of
maximizing welfare," then "one should give up being a socialist." If, after all, the
maximization of human welfare is really the object, and "shareholder capitalism" (or
"neoliberalism") proves to be the best way to achieve it, then socialism itself, including
stakeholder capitalism, must necessarily be abandoned.
@Levtraro to travel. It
will be a perk for them – a reward for being good servants. I can even forsee that
airlines will refit their fleets, stripping out coach class altogether, as the people who buy
the cheap seats won't be flying anymore anyway. A lot of industries will down-size so as to
only serve the quality customers.
And rich people are buying up land – lots of it. They are becoming what they already
deem themselves to be: an aristocracy, and a hereditary one at that.
Neo-liberal GloboCap is morping into neo-feudalism. They'll own everthing, and they'll be
happy. You'll own nothing and you'll be happy (or else).
I disagree. Current GloboCap elites and elites thoughout history have needed large
populations to look down to and to harvest for all they can yield. It is not good enough to
have all that you want when all others also have all that they want.
It is not nice enough to travel in your own or rented Gulf Stream or First Class or
Business Class when economy seats are non-existent. It is not good enough that a machine
calls you Sir instead of a real lowly human.
Real respect, admiration and adulation, could never be replaced by programmed respect,
admiration and adulation.
Joe Biden will ram through warped liberal social experiments masquerading as credible,
time-tested programs designed to stabilize the nation.
It was a stark image never before seen in Washington, DC, and one that bodes ill for the
future prospects of the country. A locked down capital ringed in barbed wire, with 25,000
troops encompassing the Capitol building, provided a surreal backdrop to Joe Biden's
inauguration as the 46 th POTUS.
The excuse Democrats have provided for turning the 'citadel of democracy' into a maximum
security prison is not due to a growing distrust with the electoral process. Nor was it blamed
on the spectacle of the mainstream media and Big Tech silencing the voices of exactly one half
of the U.S. electorate – up to and including that of the now former president, Donald J.
Trump. No, to suggest such irrational things would attract howls of 'conspiracy theory' from
the liberal gallery.
Thankfully, we have Silicon Valley fact checkers and corporate media commentators to lead us
to the valley of truth, which informs us that all those Trump "insurgents" who invaded the
Capitol building on January 6 th were motivated by pure evil intentions rooted in
racism, sedition and white supremacist ideology. And as Hillary Clinton suggested during an
off-the-rails interview with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Trump and his motley crew of
deplorables may have taken their marching orders from none other than Vladimir Putin himself.
Who needs fiction writers these days when we have the Democratic Party?
Conservatives need to come to grips with the realization that they are not dealing with
rational people who will be willing to engage in cool-headed discussion and debate. Despite a
full sweep of the political landscape, the left remains consumed by a collective fit of rage,
hysteria and raw emotion that shows no sign of abating. Why? Partly due to political immaturity
in the ranks, and partly because 'victory' for the left no longer means victory at the polls;
these fanatics, for that is really what they are, will not rest easy until the political
opposition is shorn of its voice and representation. In other words, when it is completely and
unequivocally obliterated. And given the political proclivities of Big Tech and Big Media,
those dreams are dangerously within reach. Unless the right is able to essentially build its
own internet architecture to bypass the left's censorship machine, they will eventually go the
way of the dinosaurs as a political force.
In the meantime, Joe Biden, or whoever will be pulling his strings, will ram through warped
liberal social experiments masquerading as credible, time-tested programs designed to stabilize
the nation. Of course they are nothing of the sort. These are globalist-backed policies –
such as defunding the police, opening the border, vilifying the right as 'racist,' and
sexualizing the minds of elementary-age children – designed to utterly destabilize the
nation and all of its core institutions, including not least of all the nuclear family. Anyone
who speaks out against these reckless initiatives will be struck down by the harshest cancel
culture cult ever known to man. In fact, 'domestic terrorism' legislation is already drafted
that, if passed by Congress, will go far at stifling any dissenting voices from the right.
The very first line of the proposed legislation , entitled
'Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2020,' which was conveniently prepared just weeks before
the Capitol riots erupted, states that "White supremacists and other far-right-wing extremists
are the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing the United States " Buried deep in
the text is a single line devoted to Antifa, and nothing whatsoever about Black Lives Matter,
yet these groups were responsible for torching and looting a swath of destruction across the
United States following the death of George Floyd during an arrest by a while police
officer.
Days before Biden's ironclad inauguration, the media was out in full force propagating the
notion of a connection between right-wing Trump supporters and – wait for it –
terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda.
"I did see a similar dynamic in the evolution of al-Qaida in Iraq, where a whole
generation of angry Arab youth with very poor prospects followed a powerful leader who
promised to take them back in time to a better place, and he led them to embrace an ideology
that justified their violence," Retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former head of
Joint Special Operations Command in Iraq and the commander of all U.S. and allied troops in
Afghanistan, said in an interview. "This is now happening in America." So there you have it,
straight from the horse's mouth: the 'deplorable' right in the United States is almost on par
with the same guys who carried out the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
Needless to say, with such outrageous comments making the rounds, there was little chance of
a balanced message from Joe Biden's inaugural
speech with regards to the myriad problems now stalking America. Indeed, the address was
top heavy with warmed-over clichés about "unity," as well as references to racism and
inequality.
After four years of groundless rhetoric about "racist Trump supporters" (yet no other
conservative president has been so successful at attracting members of the Black
and Latino community to the Republican standard than Donald Trump), it was only natural
that Biden would allude to "a rise in political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism
that we must confront and we will defeat." Coming just days after the riots at the Capitol
building by Trump supporters, which the hapless mainstream media has been at great pains to
label a "racist" event, the message made it amply clear for whom the bell tolls.
Once again, at this dangerous crossroads in American history, any hope for a true bipartisan
breakthrough is doomed to failure, and more so now as the radical neoliberal wing of the
Democratic Party is demanding the most outrageous social, cultural and political overhaul the
nation has ever witnessed. No true conservative will ever abide by these changes.
At the same time, the voice and demonstrations of the right is not only being brutally
vanquished, it is actually being assimilated under the banner of "domestic terrorism." This
marks the widest chasm between the two primary political parties in the United States, which,
unless quickly bridged, will end in imminent disaster for the American experiment in
democracy.
By 8 January 2021, Mitch McConnell had determined he would not permit the Senate to try
Trump until 19 January 2021 or later. He ruled that the Senate could not convene for special
session unless all 100 Senators formally agreed; he maintained that ruling consistently,
through 19 January 2021. By 10 January 2021, House majority Whip James Clyburn suggested the
House may not deliver articles of impeachment to the Senate until after Biden has been in
Office 100 days.
Not until today, 20 January 2021, did Pelosi deliver articles of impeachment to the Senate.
The same day, McConnell said: (a) the Senate will receive the House managers at noon ET
Thursday, 21 January, when the managers will present and exhibit the articles; (b) at 2:00 PM
21 January, Chief Justice John Roberts will be escorted into the Senate chamber and swear in
all senators; (c) the impeachment articles' trial will begin Tuesday, 26 January.
Until 20 or 21 January, the Senate majority would remain Republican; and a GOP-majority
Senate would not only acquit Trump but also impeach, strongly, the articles of impeachment. So,
why did Mitch McConnell block early Senate trial? Two possible intersecting reasons:
has
said Trump fed the "mob" lies to provoke the mob to use violence to prevent Congress's
certification of Biden's election.] (b) If trial occurs (as it will) when the Democrats
control the Senate, a conviction might seem a Democrat-framed lynching -- not the GOP's
traitorous assassination of Trump's "populism" and his political career.
I do not suggest such reasons are wise, logical, or even rational, but possibly real.
McConnell is a crafty, dissembling, unscrupulous pseudo-aristocrat, but no Socrates or
Aristotle.
"Liberal" and "moderate" Democrats, never-Trump Republicans,"The Squad, " the "Deep State"
-- the nation's whole jumble of psychopathic and otherwise-psychically-ill "Elite," "woke,"
anti-"White"/anti-male/anti-meritocracy/sexually-deviant members -- all share one mantra :
Trump and populism are evil, inimical to "Democracy" and the "culture," "morality," and "public
interests" of the U.S. Populism must be extinguished. Never again may Trump "hold and enjoy any
Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States" [U.S. Constitution Article I § 3
clause 7].
Why ought anyone care?
I voted twice for Trump, the second time (2020) merely because he was the lesser evil. In
2016, Trump promised more than a few moves that would have bettered the nation, e.g.
,
Trump meant and honored some promises -- at least partly. But others -- (a), (b), (f), (h),
(i), and (k) -- were bad jokes. His Israel policy was evil. He railed against growing
impairment of free speech. But his concern was mostly his own freedom of expression; and he
failed to do anything substantial toward restoring the general public's freedom of speech. He
continued, and worsened, Obama's persecution of Julian Assange and Bradley ["Chelsea"] Manning.
Edward Snowden remains exiled. Trump has pardoned or commuted sentence of tens of nefarious
criminals, but not Assange, Manning, or Snowden.
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, George W Bush, and Obama supported the
illegal "state" called Israel. But Trump lifted Israel-support, and, concomitantly, anti-Iran
policy to insane levels. Trump's Israel-related domestic policy included design of blocking or
impeding first-amendment-protected speech and assembly that opposes Israel's genocidal
persecution of Palestinians. Trump rendered formal equation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism
and sought to outlaw the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement.
So, why ought we care whether, after Trump is not President, the Senate tries the articles
of impeachment of Trump and rules that Trump shall not "hold and enjoy any Office or honor,
Trust or Profit under the United States"? Why ought we care even whether simply the Senate
tries the articles of impeachment but acquits Trump?
Trump's 2016 election suggested a true populist might become President -- not a closet
"Elite," but one who would resist the Elites and the Deep State, not surround himself with
snakes of the swamp. If the Senate tries Trump and rules that Trump shall not "hold and enjoy
any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States" because Trump and his supporters
exercised their First Amendment freedom of speaking and assembling to support populism and
protest a corrupt election, speech and assembly freedoms will cease and near-certainly no
capable, electable populist will run for the Presidency.
But that consideration is subsumed in another, greater, more vital, fundamental
concern. We have a federal Constitution. Every federal legislator and judge promises, by oath,
not to act contrary to that Constitution. Every federal judge must promise this: "I solemnly
swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right
to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform
all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution and laws of the United States."
...You live in a totalitarian state with arbitrary power.
Your government has three branches: CIA, CIA, and CIA. They infest every other corner of
your government with spies. Until you can accept this you will be an irrelevant muppet
writing bullshit.
... ... ...
4. Every jew ever involved in health care fraud over the past 100 years
If you might be a Trump supporter, just stop. Trump was an incompetent fraud. And Biden
(well his handlers really), will be very competent and will soon make you feel the sting of
systemic punishment.
Everyone can claim some African ancestry. Suggest you get familiar with the process real
quick
Back in 1987, as a young political science major, my constitutional law professor made us
attend a lecture by a visiting scholar on the 200th anniversary of the Constitutional
Convention. I cannot remember who the lecturer was, but I do recall one phrase he used that
has stuck in my mind ever since: the Constitution only works if we have a "constitutional
frame of mind." In other words, the Constitution reflected the culture and the attitudes of
its authors. Today, elites in both parties could give a damn about the Constitution. They
simply ignore the Constitution when it suits them -- or, conversely, use it as a club to
bludgeon their enemies when it suits them.
Today we are reduced to parsing the language of the Constitution because nobody is really
committed to the upholding the culture and the attitudes that informed it when it was
written. Therefore it has become meaningless.
The president must dance to the tune of the bankers and assorted oligarchs who actually
control the US. They enjoy confusing the common people with changing rhetoric and theater,
but at the end of the day, the president is little more than a figurehead, and the policies
remain largely the same. Many do not realize that the Obama administration deported some
2,750,000 illegals.. Under Trump it was only 935,000. Foreign wars? Police brutality? the
rich getting richer? Prison industrial complex? decimation of the middle class? endless
currency debasement? these things are consistent regardless, because they represent the
interests of the actual rulers. The red candidate throws a bone to the "conservatives", the
blue candidate throws a bone to the socialists, but the policy makers continue from one
administration to the next. The last president who tried to stand up to the powers that be
was JFK . and look what they did to him.
Tucker Carlson said Monday or Tuesday night on his show that McConnell warned Trump not to
pardon Assange, and he held the impeachment over Trump's head.
Swampington has gone rogue. I have a feeling that during much of Trump's presidency the
threat of impeachment loomed large, and maybe worse.
Look at Sessions, recusing himself and cowering in the corner. Barr comes in and does
diddly squat. The Durham investigation was a very long joke.
Two years of the Mueller Commission (when everybody in the know knew it was a pack of
lies), spying, leaking, abuse of the FISA Court, Kavanaugh, impeachment over Ukraine, Covid,
Antifa, BLM, stolen election ..never-ending chaos.
These corrupt clowns will do whatever the hell they please. They are the law now. If they
do end up following the law, it will only be because the destruction they've caused already
will be deemed to be enough.
With the federal judiciary's corrupt or cowardly treatment of legitimate
election-result challenges, the federal judiciary has shown it has abnegated its
constitutional duty and will incline to commit impeachable offenses to avoid resisting the
Elites' and the Deep State's subjugation of the People. The Supreme Court has shown that
five or more pseudo-aristocrat judges (two Democrats, three or more Republicans) align with
the Elites and the Deep State. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is correct. The People are
suffering a revolution wrought by the "Establishment" (of the Elites and the Deep
State).
I would say that they are more cowardly than corrupt.
They know that if they supported Trump's legitimate (good evidence) questioning of the
election result, they would personally be in big trouble, so the Supreme Court is really not
a Supreme Court at all – it's a piece of establishment window dressing – same as
the rest of the hollowed out US Democratic institutions.
Real power in the US lies with the ZioGlob deep state and their MSM, the military
(whichever way they turn), and the 72 million US gun owners (whatever they decide to do).
There's also the aspect of real military power outside the US (Russia and China) that could
be brought to bear, and would be potentially decisive. Accepted that some of these are
TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It) scenarios but that seems to be how it is.
Genuine Democracy isn't coming back to the US any time soon.
@Beavertales at, do you really think Trump will discuss anything that went on in private?
He is not the type to write a memoir.
And some of the most bizarre decisions he made while POTUS were as a result of "advice"
from his favourite daughter Ivanka and her repellant husband. Ann Coulter has an article
where she lists the boneheaded decisions Trump made on "advice" from the two incompetent
rich-kids..
This short video is very indicative of the stupidity of Ivanka: she is so stupid, that she
can't even see the contempt these politicians have for her, and sticks around like a bad
smell:
[French Government Posts Video Of Ivanka Trump At G-20 Summit | NBC News]
McConnell must, not maybe, must be the first person to go if the Republican Senate has any
chance of surviving in a way that serves conservative interests. He has been positively of
Zero support to president Trumps four years in office, only giving lip service to the
interests of the issues the presidents supporters wanted addressed.. For four long years,
McConnell was an expert at bringing every advance, or potential advance in conservative
interests to naught. He however, had no problemo at all in taking advantage of President
Trumps popularity with conservative voters, when his re-election was in doubt. Maybe his
middle name should be Mitt.
@anonymous ChiComs -- from whence In Laws $ all arises . McConnell shows the country is
totally sold out to the ChiComs and in fact "governed" by them -- the rest of Congrassholes
are about the same with various "spies" working them, having sex with them, and screwing us
-- the USA is an occupied country via IsraHell and the Chinese Communists -- very, very bad
days are ahead and most in the USA are moron mask wearers who actually believe the filthy
pieces of cloth do something for their "health" contrary to all actual 41 Medical Studies to
date which state the opposite -- truly Maskholing was an IQ test and the country failed to
reach even the level of "Moron". Easy to steal an election when dealing with Maskhole Morons.
Sad all are being pulled down by them .
@Aardvark you are charged by the Feds you will be railroaded, innocence means zero once
you are charged and all the "Judge" cares about is getting you to plead guilty and move the
case, you will be grossly overcharged to force this to happen and the Judge will glare at you
and let you know he hates you if you go forward -- unless you are a Leftist Political hack or
"activist" then you will be cut loose and probably never even charged ."justice" Roberts is
the "model" -- his rulings in Obamacare etc. show he has no care for the actual "law" at all
-- all the other Federal "judges" follow his example .The best thing that could happen to the
USA is for the end of the Federal Courts, DOJ, and FBI -- all are Enemies Of The People --
get involved with them and find out.
@FoSquare The works of Plato and Aristotle have had much influence on the modern view of
the "sophist" as a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of
language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning. In this view, the sophist
is not concerned with truth and justice, but instead seeks power.
Societies that value truth but recognize the difficulties involved in discovering it also
put value on freedom of expression. Those interested in power for its own sake, not so much.
Unfortunately the power mongers always have the advantage of moral certainty. For them Alinsky
and the Protocols are the only bibles.
@Anon olling 90% of the mass media of mindfuckery, mesmerization and mass megalomania and
finally, the CIA financed and directed "Social Media", the greatest enemy of our First
Amendment rights;;; those nefarious forces nearing absolute control over the federal regime in
the Di$trict of Corruption have now fully succeeded in driving the last nail into the coffin of
the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights, the enabling precondition for establishment of the
federal system.
Behind the scenes, roaring and howling with fits of schadenfreude laughter; the ultimate
shotcallers, those OWNER$ of the Federal Reserve and most other major international banking
institutions, are rubbing their greasy palm$ with total glee by having pulled off the greatest
heist in world history.
Former President Trump is playing his final scene today, making ready to hand over the
lead part of a government like reality show to the mentally infirm Joe Biden. Biden, with
history of pathological lying and a trail of crimes and associations with other crimes had no
actual chance of winning a real election, but real elections are now only part of America's
history. Trumped & Dumped: The Psychological Operation Scrambles to Survive | Jack Mullen
https://blog.thegovernmentrag.com/2021/01/21/trumped-dumped-psychological-operation-enters-phase-two/
@Old and Grumpy wn individual of blackmail able importance -- was discovered in one of
Ep$tein's logs).
Anyone notice how the Joint Chiefs of $taff for the U$ armed forces put out a notice to all
military personnel that they must not participate in acts of sedition prior to the coronation
of the Kamal's Foote/Biding administration.? Since the days of their attempted Operation
Northwoods false flag scheme to attack Cuba, which was vetoed by JFK (among his other sins
against the Deepe$t $tate); the proof was already in the pudding that the JC$ is dirty and our
military is compromised by their chains of command from the top-down -- which is the way the
enemies of We The People choose to employ their nefarious control system over one and all --
excepting, of course, the Elite$ themselves.
@Mefobills of savvy self-promoter and foil for Hillary. That would explain a lot,
especially Hillary's (and the Democrats) absolute hatred of Trump and his supporters. That his
shtick worked is testament to both his talent for self-promotion and our dislike of Hillary.
Guess she miscalculated
In any case, it became obvious that either the fix was in, when he refused to back Flynn and
appointed swamp creatures to fill his administrations' posts, or Trump was a fool. But that's
not to say he wasn't useful in exposing the media and deep state's contempt, hatred and fear of
us -- deplorables all -- by personifying it in their attacks on him.
The question that matters now, for populists, is how do we avoid the leadership trap?
For the most part, our entire legal profession has been taken over by an overeducated,
inexperienced crowd of people who are not able to deal in "Letter" and "Spirit" of law. They're
prisoners of the letter of the law because their only background is of the spoken and written
word.
The USA is now the proverbial Whale in a Swimming Pool: it is big, powerful and impressive
- but can't hide its moves anymore and has little to none margin for any maneuver.
The American Center-wing is ossifying, or, in Cold Warrior terminology (Arthur
Schlesinger Jr.), is losing its "vitality". It is entering a stage where it must "burn the
village in order to save it".
... it seems the answer is that Germany plays the role in Europe that the US plays in the
world and both are satisfied with that role even though neo-liberalism, austerity and
war-mongering are leading us to inhumanity and disaster.
Like i said before elsewhere Biden would capitalize on what Trump has put forth and take
the infamy and blame for instead of moving in the opposite directions of whatever Trump
criticized for in foreign policy. That means be it trade war with China, renege on climate
deals, strong arming NATO and EU countries, or giving everything Israel wants nothing stop
Biden from maintaining what has been put in place.
At most they'll just make excuse on why they had to maintain the policies they themselves
criticized Trump for without changing direction.
He said Joe Biden's strong conviction was that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a "bad idea"
and that the administration would use "every persuasive tool" to convince partners,
including Germany, to discard the project.
That is pretty much a declaration of war against countries in Europe. Stay
away,
America's
disarray is its own woes, not other countries' opportunity The Financial Times lives in
a world where the USA doesn't have more than 2,000 operational nukes, doesn't control the
financial system (SWIFT), doesn't issue the universal fiat currency (Dollar Standard),
doesn't have a big fucking navy, doesn't enjoy absolute ideological hegemony etc. etc.
...Tronald's foreign policy has been a disaster, even if he has supposedly not sparked a
new war. Let's not talk about all the secret operations, multiplied drone attacks, state
terrorist assassinations, etc. And the new administration is now continuing this...
They've stopped thinking, become utterly predictable.
They just go through the motions. They know that they can't win-achieve their long held
objectives-but they can't stop repeating themselves, including their past errors. They are
not allowed to. The US ruling caste-servants of the ruling class- are only allowed to
operate within very narrow boundaries. They aren't allowed to take radical measures when
faced with new crises- they are confined within ever diminishing political circles. The
duopoly has become an obvious One Party system. And its politics are those of the Gilded
Age-150 years old and still going strong.
The only solution to America's problems is defeat so complete that it cannot be denied
even by the least perceptive. Anyone with money to spare should be buying popcorn
futures.
...Biden is an elderly figurehead. Trump's mistake was being openly bullying and vulgar
instead of underhanded. Already, the EU ( as cowardly vassals ) are falling into line on
Iran and Russia.
...Paul Craig Roberts is correct. There has not been a regime change, there has been a
revolution and treating policies of this "president" as if he is more than a figurehead
being run by oligarchs is foolish in the extreme.
They've stopped thinking, become utterly predictable.
One could say this about the American people who have been herded into two camps so that
the Center can rule. Here's an example: One of Biden's first executive actions is to
include undocumented residents in the Census. This will please the Left immensely and
outrage the Right. But the Census is conducted every 10 years and it was completed in 2020.
So Biden's action is actually meaningless. How many people will actual notice this? Very
few.
It is funny/sad to see the Post Trump Stress Disorder victims are already rationalizing
and making excuses for the war that the establishment drones they voted for will be
starting, and those drones are not even sworn in to office yet. They know that they voted
for war yet their plastic, Hollywood "identities" are so intertwined with their assumed
self-evident moral superiority that they are compelled to defend the evil they are
responsible for even before it is committed. For them, doing nothing crudely is far worse
than murdering millions accompanied by lofty and emotive platitudes.
Meet the Filthy Rich War Hawks That Make up Biden's New Foreign Policy Team
"I expect the prevailing direction of U.S. foreign policy over these last decades to
continue: more lawless bombing and killing multiple countries under the cover of "limited
engagement," – Biden Biographer Branko Marcetic
by Alan Macleod November 13th, 2020
https://www.mintpressnews.com/filthy-rich-war-hawks-make-joe-biden-foreign-policy-team/273039/
Neera Tanden – Reduce US Deficits by Raiding the Economies of Countries We Have
Destroyed:
Neera Tanden, Biden's Pick for Budget Office: Now Is Not the Time To 'Worry About Raising
Deficits and Debt'
by Robby Soave https://reason.com/2020/11/30/neera-tanden-biden-omb-debt-deficit/
She once suggested that if Americans care about the deficit so much, maybe we should make
Libya pay for it.
| 11/30/2020
( Ariana Ruiz/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom )
Trump ripped the mask off US foreign policy and exposed it for what it is - ugly Zionism
and outrageous Jewish supremacy. Trump did many foreign policy changes previous incumbents
and their handlers wanted to do but were constrained by the optics and international
opinion.
I agree the Biden administration will continue the same tired old foreign policy, only
with the mask back on. Of course the media won't notice the similarities, but the public
will. No matter how fervently the managers tinker with the edges it is events that drive
changes and change people.
I just listened to President Biden's speech. It was a good one, even a great one. Thinking
about what Plato means by the 'noble lie' it was a noble speech, and there wasn't much of a
lie about it.
b finished the posting with
"
While Trump had continued the wars the U.S. waged when he came into office he did not start
any new ones. Since Joe Biden first entered the Senate 47 years ago he has cheered on every
war the U.S. has since waged. It would be astonishing to find four years from now that he
did not start any new ones.
"
Prepare to be astonished. Biden isn't going to start any new wars for the same reason
that Trump didn't......MAD
Humanity has been in the MAD phase of the civilization war we are in since the Obama era
push back in Syria.
Biden's chest beating will not be as "impressive" as Trump's but the trajectory is the
same.
The new chief says to tighten the circle of wagons, but those accused of besieging the
Outlaw US Empire's wagon train stopped attacking and moved on long ago. Meanwhile,
supplying the wagon train continues to take resources away from dealing with very real
domestic problems. The upshot is China will continue to pull away and increase its lead
geoeconomically, and together with Russia will continue to solidify and strengthen the
Eurasian Bloc. Very soon, the EU is going to be faced with a very stark choice--to join the
Eurasian Bloc and thus stave-off economic atrophy or continue to allow its brand of
Neoliberal Parasites to eat and risk rupture, perhaps not in 2021 but before 2030.
The key is that the false narrative that was initiated in 1945 and bolstered in 1979
continues to be treated as gospel despite its path to certain ruin. I noted there were no
questions asked about the international call for a Bretton Woods 2.0 that would end dollar
hegemony and Petrodollar recycling, while removing the one source of coercion behind its
illegal sanctions.
The only possible target of opportunity I see is Venezuela as the frack-patch is about
to fold-up shop and fuel prices cause domestic inflation to soar -- Here in Oregon, gas
prices have gone up 50cents/gal since the first of the year--25%. The oil being the obvious
target now the the lower-48 has definitely peaked.
@ 32 juliania... you are the eternal optimist! there is something admirable about that!..
however you have to contend with a lot of cynical people who think like it's business as
well, as b's post notes..... you might not like to hear this, but nothing is going to
change under biden... big wheels set in motion and biden is not interested in the least in
changing any of it... neither was trump as some of his fanbots are coming to see too...
political speeches are just so much b.s... juliania - as the saying goes, talk is cheap, it
is actions that count.... watch peoples actions, not their talk... biden can talk a good
line, but that has nothing to do with his actions... top of the day to you!
@34 Invading Venezuela and 'taking the oil' won't be easy though there is a possibility
Colombia will help out. Which means the total disruption of South America. More economical
to just buy the stuff.
"It is funny/sad to see the Post Trump Stress Disorder victims are already rationalizing
and making excuses for the war that the establishment drones they voted for will be
starting, and those drones are not even sworn in to office yet. They know that they voted
for war yet their plastic, Hollywood "identities" are so intertwined with their assumed
self-evident moral superiority that they are compelled to defend the evil they are
responsible for even before it is committed. For them, doing nothing crudely is far worse
than murdering millions accompanied by lofty and emotive platitudes."
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 20 2021 16:16 utc | 26
Tnx for expressing this in a much nicer and polite way then i would have written. And
yes, yes it is sad/amusing to watch NPC`s turn into pretzels to explain away their
cognitive dissonans ,utter foolishness and stupidity.
The plan now, on the part of the Swamp, is to declare every Trump supporter a terrorist and
an insurrectionist.
But we did not tear down statues of American heroes.
Antifa and BLM did that. We did not attack the police and call for them to be defunded or
fried like bacon. Antifa and BLM did that.
We did not burn and loot the business centers of dozens of America's major cities. Antifa
and BLM did that.
And what have Republican leaders done? They condemn you, anyone who dares to continue to
express support for Donald Trump, as a domestic terrorist. And when there was ample cause to
call out the real terrorists–Antifa and BLM–many of the Republican leaders cowered
and kept silent.
I am strongly against balkanization of the country. The example of the USSR shows where it
leads -- misery of common pople and dramatic drop of the standard of living, while new gand of
ruthless oligarchs emerge from the ruins.
Pushing the Trump-inspired populist movement underground may only cause it to resort to more
drastic measures. As the leftist libertarian reporter Glenn Greenwald observes ,
"these people know they are scorned and looked down upon... and the more you humiliate
and make them feel powerless, the more you take away their ability to organize and express
that rage, it's gonna find an outlet in more destructive ways."
As a former professor at a top-ranking university, I favored a Trump re-election, not
because I support Trump so much as abhor what the opposition represents and is proving itself
to be. In response to the social media threat to expression, I have inaugurated a new group on
Telegram called 'Thought Criminals'. There, fellow 'thought deviationists' like me are able to
express views that are effectively proscribed on mainstream social media platforms. No one
among us advocates violence or the overthrow of the government. None of us is 'racist'. We
advocate only the rights enshrined in the US Constitution.
But some groups, no doubt, are intent on violence. Yet the violent extremists consist mostly
of Antifa and related 'activists', who will unfortunately trick Trump supporters into another
error during the inauguration, like some appeared to do when involved
in the Capitol siege. It's not as if violent extremists among the Trump base were always there,
ready to pounce on any opportunity to express their "racist," "white nationalist"
views.
Rather, as the rising party has already demonstrated, these people stand to lose the most
under a Biden-Harris regime, whose Big Tech and mainstream media allies act as governmental
enforcement apparatuses.
Trump supporters have been hated and demonized simply for wanting to live without being
reprimanded and punished for their whiteness, their middle-Americanness, or their values. They
face an anti-white, anti-native, anti-middle-America extremism that is set to silence and crush
them into submission.
These and others will form a new underground under the prevailing ideological and political
hegemony. This banishment of millions, and not Trump, is why the nation will fall apart, if
indeed it does.
JJ_Rousseau 5 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:58 PM
The best thing that could happen is for USA to "balkanize". For the rest of the world, and
for Americans too. The founding fathers intentionally put restraints on the federal
government's power to prevent the situation we now face. Both parties (actually the duopoly)
are guilty of breaching the constitution, on so many levels we have lost count
Ronj14848 JJ_Rousseau 1 hour ago 15 Jan, 2021 07:23 PM
The USA have more American in uniform outside America than civilian Americans inside America.
You bleed yourself dry trying to be the boss of the world.
chert JJ_Rousseau 3 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 04:52 PM
Right, states should have more power than the federal government. Case in point: North Dakota
is trying to pass a law to sue Facebook and Twitter for those who have been censored on those
platforms. But federal law under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act will supersede
because federal law wins.
apothqowejh 4 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 04:17 PM
As an American, I can't say a reckoning hasn't been overdue. The myopia in this country, and
the tolerance for evil, was bound to rebound. From a refusal to honestly look at 9/11, a
refusal to accept responsibility for Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and a host of other
insanely brutal blunders, to an acceptance of such horrors as the USAPatriot Act and the
COVID scam, everyday Americans have obliviously sleepwalked into a totalitarian dystopia.
Tyranny abroad inevitably leads to tyranny at home, and we have well-earned it by refusing to
vote for peace and non-interventionism; for limited government, for responsible spending. Now
our votes no longer matter, and we are caught helpless in the whirlwind of our own
destruction.
newagerage apothqowejh 4 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 04:33 PM
The CIA, NSA, Pentagon... all these corporations lead to disaster as the employees have to
keep causing trouble to justify their jobs and spend, spend like crazy, the Army and
intelligence agencies spending the hard worked money from Silicon Valley and other sectors.
The country just doesn't make sense, first outsource jobs to China and then when they see
that Chinese people are smarter than them outsource those to India? are Indians idiots? I
don't think so... both countries will rule the World by the end of the century. And the most
important of all... where is your public education system? you can live without a proper
health system, China does, but without a decent public education system? most Americans don't
know where Portugal or Belgium is placed, no matter black or white...
ceshawn 6 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:31 PM
Trump didn't do this. The irrational reaction to Trump did this. It started with the
now-fully mythological Russia-gate nonsense (that started with an almost ridiculously made up
FISA warrant application). Continued through constant over-the-top challenges by Democrats of
Trump following Obama-era laws (separation of children and adults for illegal border
crossings) and the clear obstruction used by opponents during his entire Presidency. Trump
was a disaster, Biden will be a nightmare (or a complete liar), but the left shouldn't be
complaining when the reaction to their candidate is equally as disturbing as their reaction
to the right (and yes, the circus that was the "raid" at the Capitol is just as bad as the
intel community doing shady things against a sitting President).
Ronj14848 ceshawn 1 hour ago 15 Jan, 2021 07:27 PM
Trump didnt start new wars......but he has created a situation that foriegn wars will spring
from his actions. He has created hate for a country that during the second world war was a
much loved country.
billy brown ceshawn 4 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 03:36 PM
What could the 'rioters' do? We aren't going to let them poison us anymore. This election
will not be stolen and the new patriot act isn't going to get passed quietly. They are going
to have to crush us or allow a partition of the country
ceshawn 5 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:36 PM
If I were Russia or China, I would be watching carefully. Biden almost HAS to go after Russia
over the Crimean disaster of Obama and China will be his easy-out enemy if things are
complicated otherwise. North Korea will somehow become a big deal again as well. Let those
missiles fly, because the incoming administration has a proven track record of blowing up
innocent women and children for "funsies" (drone strikes on "suspected" terrorists...oh and
their families) without any form of due process or care for the safety of collateral damage.
Ronj14848 ceshawn 58 minutes ago 15 Jan, 2021 07:36 PM
True...the media support the military industrial complex. Their friends own the miltary
industrial complex . See who they support politically and avoid them like the plague.
Ronnie Spelbos ceshawn 2 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 06:04 PM
if I was Russia or an Eastern European nation I would offer asylum to white heterosexual men
and their families who want to leave the US. Take advantage of the brain capital and work
ethic of this group. The US is no country for white men.
Ohhho 6 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 01:41 PM
The Evil empire felt vulnerable so it lashed out with vengeance! None if it helps to fix the
issues behind the problem so I expect to see more of it in the near future!
TheFishh Ohhho 5 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 03:32 PM
There are literally just a few things the US can do to rebound as a decent country, but the
establishment doesn't want to make those moves. They rather see everything collapse than see
their wealth and power decreased by any amount.
OneHorseGuy 6 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:17 PM
"79% of Americans think the US is falling apart" those not accounted for are possibly
homeless or illiterate and don't have the opportunity of putting their view forward.
Ronnie Spelbos OneHorseGuy 2 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 06:02 PM
102% think the US is falling apart - cites Dominion.
newswithoutbord OneHorseGuy 6 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:31 PM
Spot on, mate!
RTaccount 6 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:22 PM
There will be no peace, no unity, and no prosperity. And there shouldn't be.
TheFishh RTaccount 4 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 03:38 PM
The US regimes past and present have worn out their bag of tricks. A magician is a con-man.
And the only way they can entertain and spellbind the crowd with their routines is if
everyone just ignores the sleight of hand. But people are starting to call the US out for the
tricks it is pulling, and that's where the magician's career ends.
omyomy RTaccount 5 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:54 PM
We the sane people know who is picking a fight. No matter what the propaganda outlets decree.
Tor Gjesdal 6 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:18 PM
79%,sure? OK. Very soon 85% of Westerners will understand their Countries are heading for
failures. They have been deceived for way too long.
Twenty Tor Gjesdal 5 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 03:23 PM
The alternative to western governments is dictators, one party rule. Yes, most western
governmental concepts are idealistic, but we wouldn't trade for anything else because we know
better.
JIMI JAMES Tor Gjesdal 6 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:31 PM
0 covid cases,i dont think so.
soumalinna1 4 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 03:36 PM
Correct. America will never be the same again. Democrats and CNN destroyed a once great
nation.
Ronnie Spelbos soumalinna1 2 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 06:06 PM
The 1965 Immigration Act destroyed the US. A country too diverse with little in common was
always bound the fall apart.
Drayk soumalinna1 3 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 04:42 PM
In their efforts to expunge the Trump movement from memory let alone existence, these
neo-Stalinists are hellbent on nullifying constitutionally guaranteed rights – freedom of
speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to bear arms are under assault.
In place of the Bill of Rights, they would impose a Bill of Don'ts:
Don't say what we don't want to hear.
Don't gather where we don't allow, especially if you are a 'deplorable'.
Don't bother petitioning for grievances, because we don't care. Don't own weapons and don't
defend yourself when you or your property are attacked, even as the police are defunded.
Don't tell us about your right to privacy because our right to surveil you supersedes
it.
Don't tell us you have the right to confront the witnesses aligned against you, or see the
evidence alleged against you, or to present evidence and witnesses in your own defense. That's
your white privilege speaking, and we will not tolerate hate speech.
Don't expect us to be bound by due process or the rule of law. Feelings and desired outcomes
trump facts and rules, both of which are tools of oppression, relics of the fascist
patriarchy.
Don't object, or we will cancel you entirely from these Disunited States of Woketopia.
And first and foremost, don't dare have the temerity to question election results that have
handed us uncontested power.
Only authoritarians sanction this state of affairs. The harm they will do, as they neglect
and inflict further pain on the Republic, will be immeasurable. The nation is failing, not
merely because it is divided, but because a contingent has rejected its foundational
principles. That contingent is now in control.
For anybody who listened to state hearings in one or more state if is clear that there was widespread fraud. And its importance
is much larger then the question who won the elections
Notable quotes:
"... Multiple methods of attack on the election outcome have been prepared, all methods well planned, tried and perfected in the string of color revolutions around the World. Because those attacking Trump are the same as those who have been doing the "regime changes" in the vulnerable countries over the past 30 years. ..."
"... The playbook/manual is fully symmetrical – it always addresses both possible outcomes – if their side does not manage to steal the election then they incite an insurrection and oust the winner (the Viktor Yanukovych outcome). ..."
"... It is funny how few people appear to understand that Hunter's laptop was not just a suppressed election decider then an important reason for Biden's suitability – the insurance of ensurance, the media ready Kompromat. ..."
"... Finally, it is very important to keep in mind that none of what transpired would have been possible in a healthy country ..."
"... Maybe it was hostility towards Trump's supporters rather than hostility towards Trump. Trump is a reliable pro-immigration ultra-Zionist rabidly pro-LGBT liberal. The views of a large proportion of Trump's supporters are diametrically opposed to Trump's own views, but his supporters aren't smart enough to figure that out. ..."
"... whatever else Trump may be, he's no white nationalist. But again his supporters can't figure stuff like that out. ..."
"... In extreme situations, it's more important to win than to play by the rules. – This is the moral reasoning **** of the fraudsters. The basic equation they applied is so simple that it hurts (and therefore: worked perfectly well – in all of the West) ..."
"... In the Art of Winning Elections it did not take a genius to develop this solution – the lowest number of night-suitcases (filled with ballots) for the highest number of elector votes . ..."
"... In my mind the election was already unfair when you have the entire MSM and the Internet social media companies rooting for one candidate while attacking the other and banning/censoring the voices of his supporters under various pretexts. Both candidates and their supporters, should have been given equal exposure but I don't know how that could be achieved in practice. ..."
"... At a minimum the circumstantial evidence of vote counts being stopped in swing states along with gerrymandered rules was highly suspicious. To claim a mandate on such a close election while losing house seats is absurd but the Republicans bungling the Georgia Senate run off over $2K checks and a sycophantic MSM ensures they will. ..."
"... We are to believe Biden won 507 counties, the least EVER, but won the most votes ever. Trump won 74 million votes, beating Obama's 69 million in 2008, the previous all-time high. Trump won over 2500 counties. ..."
"... Strange that all these presidential elections are always neck and neck. Just because there are two parties does not mean that election after election the vote will boil down to one or two "swing states" and a few thousand votes. Statistically, it just doesn't make sense. ..."
"... This is strong evidence, if not proof, that these elections are scripted from beginning to end ..."
"... The convenient thing about postal votes is that they make it possible to wait until the opponent's votes are all in and counted – then send in just enough postal votes to tip the balance. It's rather like an auction in which one bidder gets only the one bid, and then a rival can offer $1 more. ..."
"... Well said. I'm sure that it's no coincidence that DJT has been involved with televised wrestling over the years. Every great contest requires a memorable "heel" to engage the spectators. In televised snooker in the UK, final matches often are over best of 35 frames. It's unusual for them not to go to the last ball of the final frame. Got to have a little drama. ..."
"... The point is, it is the average intellect, moral and civic weight of the involved constituencies that allows or doesn't allow what shouldn't be allowed in a real democracy. You don't have actual democracy below a lower threshold of intellect and moral and civic worth of all the main involved parties. ..."
"... When you consider Donald Trump's grotesque antics, his entirely unpresidential behavior, evident falsehoods and blatantly corrupt actions – together with the systematic media blitz taking every opportunity to show him in the worst possible light; it is quite astounding that he received as many votes as he did. Far, far more than could be accounted for by simply ascribing them to his 'deplorables'. ..."
"... I think Trump's greatest legacy will be that he ripped away the curtain and the masks fell and we all got to see just how nefarious and rigged the system is, from federal judges to our intelligence community to the FBI/DOJ to Congress to the media ..."
"... Dominion machines can do anything! They can assign a weight of 1.5 per single vote to one candidate, and .75 per vote to the other, and can adjust as necessary. They can assign batches of "adjudicated" ballots to the candidate of your choice. They can just switch votes from one candidate to the other in increments of several thousand, let's subtract 29,000 votes from candidate a and add them to b's column. They can allow access by a third party to the administrator's identity and password so the third party can enter and participate directly in tabulation of the votes. ..."
"... They won the election the old way: they stole it fair and square. ..."
"... If you like your bourgeois job and want to keep it, you will support the narrative. ..."
"... All of the comments on here that analyze DJT's strengths and weaknesses miss the point. I personally think he made some very poor choices; but, to inappropriately paraphrase Carville, it's the fraud, stupid. ..."
"... Occam's Razor should be applied- instead of the nonsense of Chavez having an interest in voting software; voting machines being manipulated; truckloads of paper ballots being moved across state lines- my favorite; etc. ..."
"... t would be very easy to have individuals in a nursing home or even an adult day care center for mentally (dementia) incapacitated adults sign ballots. There are numerous day care centers in New York City, federally funded, where individuals could be coaxed to sign ballots. Just say Trump will close the day care center -- especially where interpreters must be provided because the individuals cannot understand English due to varying stages of mental incapacity. ..."
"... I wonder how many people have watched the twenty hours or so of state legislature hearings related to the election. Can people just not be bothered? These were historic hearings of huge importance, but I assume they didn't get much coverage in the MSM. I think most of them were livestreamed only by small right-wing networks. ..."
"... What were the results of the 2016 election? Billary received 65 million to Trumps 62 million. Gotcha. So we have roughly 127 million who showed up to vote that time. (Wonder how many of those were legit.) So ONLY 4 years later, Joe "I Look Like I'm Drugged" Biden ALLEGEDLY received 80 million and Trump received 74 million. Okay, that is a turnout of 154 million votes. So if I believe in this fairy tale, I was supposed to believe that in ONLY 4 years the vote count increased by an alleged 27 million. Hell, a lot of our most populous states do not even have that many people. ..."
"... Laws don't say a little bit of fraud is OK, because the fraud committed on or by a business didn't cause bankruptcy. Either there was fraud, or there wasn't. ..."
"... That several courts refused to hear cases for lack of standing, is patently ridiculous. If a candidate has no standing, who does? In an election, everybody has standing because they are affected by the result, and by virtue of Citizens United , corporations do as well. ..."
"... Watch this recent interview of Chris Hedges by Jimmy Dore about the root causes of our current woes. Hedges speaks off the cuff in words that sound as polished, powerful and precise as the language in tracts considered to be classics. His Pulitzer clearly was not found in a Cracker Jack box. ..."
Before the election I polled all my friends who would win. The majority of both left and right oriented said that it would
be Trump. I said, yes Trump would win a fair election, but he will lose on who is counting. Multiple methods of attack on
the election outcome have been prepared, all methods well planned, tried and perfected in the string of color revolutions around
the World. Because those attacking Trump are the same as those who have been doing the "regime changes" in the vulnerable countries
over the past 30 years. Trump never had a grain of chance against this mighty machinery. Corrupt local governors and blackmailed
and co-opted all levels of judiciary, targeted lawlessness, threats and examples of violence and future civil war if the other
side wins, censorship, eviction of election observers, night-time suitcases of ballots, one-sided main sewerage media.
All pure déjà vu – this is exactly how the color revolutions work – the art of winning elections. The US bombers arrive
only if the "peaceful transition of power" (aka the stealing of election and post-election) fails. In the color revolution manual,
there is also a chapter on prevention of resistance to the stolen election – thus the msm and congress screeching like castrated
pigs against Trump's imaginary incitement of insurrection (pure psychological projection). I was always sure that Trump is too
much of a cheap demagogue and hot air filled balloon to be able to initiate a real insurrection.
The playbook/manual is fully symmetrical – it always addresses both possible outcomes – if their side does not manage to steal
the election then they incite an insurrection and oust the winner (the Viktor Yanukovych outcome).
... ... ...
In political terms, in the 2016 election a quasi-populist candidate slipped through. This will never happen again because state
laws will be enacted with built-in mail voting and electronic voting machines. Competent or incompetent populists will never get
through again. This will ensure that the choice will always be only between the approved, controllable candidates with plenty
of skeletons in wardrobes and dirty laptops in their closets. It is funny how few people appear to understand that Hunter's laptop
was not just a suppressed election decider then an important reason for Biden's suitability – the insurance of ensurance, the
media ready Kompromat.
Finally, it is very important to keep in mind that none of what transpired would have been possible in a healthy country
: election of Trump without enough Kompromat to have to invent the dumbest Putin's puppet meme and the consequent exposure
of the manipulative Deep State, the sulfuric acid for the brain MSM and the high-techs fakers. These are all the Hegels' seeds
of destruction in action.
One thing to ask is why was this huge effort made to oust Trump?
Maybe it was hostility towards Trump's supporters rather than hostility towards Trump. Trump is a reliable pro-immigration
ultra-Zionist rabidly pro-LGBT liberal. The views of a large proportion of Trump's supporters are diametrically opposed to Trump's
own views, but his supporters aren't smart enough to figure that out.
In extreme situations, it's more important to win than to play by the rules. – This is the moral reasoning **** of the
fraudsters. The basic equation they applied is so simple that it hurts (and therefore: worked perfectly well – in all of the West):
Trump = Hitler.
**** If I might go with Sigmund Freud here, I'd say: – Their rationalizations instead of "their moral reasoning".
I prefer this model, and it's not being discussed: Someone was making BIG money off of those programs and policies leftover
from Obama. Trade with China? Care to mention one BIG company who peddles Chinese wares? Maybe two or three of them, perhaps?
"Follow the money", is what Deep Throat told Woodward. If we do that with our darling Deep State? Just ask yourself, who stood
to benefit from four years of Hillary, pray tell? There's your answer.
The Deep State regime stole this election in exactly the same states where Trump successfully campaigned in 2016 to win against
Clinton. In the Art of Winning Elections it did not take a genius to develop this solution – the lowest number of night-suitcases
(filled with ballots) for the highest number of elector votes .
Thanks for a balanced assessment. In my mind the election was already unfair when you have the entire MSM and the Internet
social media companies rooting for one candidate while attacking the other and banning/censoring the voices of his supporters
under various pretexts. Both candidates and their supporters, should have been given equal exposure but I don't know how that
could be achieved in practice.
Trump was severely hamstrung by the role played by the MSM and the social media. In a real democracy this state of affairs
should not be allowed: where the rich and powerful who control the media have an unequal say and overwhelming influence compared
to the ordinary voters.
Now we have Ruby Freeman, heretofore only on video rolling out suitcases in Fulton County, now on AUDIO discussing her $100
an hour election heist gig and the "Secretary of State" is mentioned at 2:02 by her boss Ralph Jones:
There is a small element of illogic in the numbers part of the argument, namely in using 2 different metrics to make that argument.
(I agree with the corruption part of the argument covered by Glenn Greenwald. It's censorship in action).
As I've done before, I'll reiterate, I'm no fan of Biden or Trump. In fact I'm worried about the war cabinet Biden already
seems to be assembling just as I still worry about the crazed maniac Pompeo for the next few days left in the current administration.
But here's the point and it is a very subtle one: to say it was a tight race and only 1 in 7,000 Americans had to change their
vote is a bit misleading. In the absurd Electoral College, winner take all the state system (which is far more scandalous in my
view), we take one state at a time. If we accept the vote count, Biden won over 7,000,000 more votes more than Trump, a margin
of victory of 4.4%. Not very close.
Therefore, if it were a one person one vote nationwide system, 2.2% would have to change their minds, meaning 1 out of every
45 Americans.
But it's a state by state margin that we're after. Thus more to the point would be to take each individual state and its margin.
So if we took Georgia as one example, the margin of Biden's lead was 11,779 votes out of 4,935,487 votes cast for Biden and Trump
(we disregard all the third party votes in this argument). 5,890 voters would have to "change their minds". Out of the Biden/Trump
overall vote, that's 1 out of 838 Georgian voters.
To apply a different system, overall US vote count, to one state, Georgia, is using which system you prefer to come up with
an illusionary 1 out of 7000 Americans, not applying the same metric down the line. It's a separate state by state system, not
a nationwide vote. You have to stay consistent to be accurate in this method of argumentation.
Very technical, yes. What about mail-in voting? What is the evidence that this is by definition rigged or manipulated? Mailed
ballots have a paper trail like in-person ballots. Presumably someone could steal your ballot from your home and vote on your
behalf, but this can be traced and found out. At least one state, Washington, doesn't even have in-person voting at all. Does
that mean all of their votes are fraudulent?
What about voter suppression? Shouldn't that be factored in? That seems to happen a lot more often in red states than blue
states. What about Trumps attempts to sabotage the US Postal System? Doesn't that bother anybody who supports him? What about
his refusal to commit to the results prior to Election Day? (He did the same in 2016 by the way). This only added to his
opponents concern about his dictatorial tendencies.
Finally, in all the arguments I've seen anywhere, I haven't seen anyone lay out which states use those ridiculous electronic
voting machines which leave no paper trail. That should be the other real scandal and those should be immediately banned in every
state. Get rid of those and the Electoral College and we might have a fair system.
Oh, and get rid of a system that is eternally dominated by 2 parties as well, whether through run off elections or even better,
proportional representation. The latter that would be truly more democratic.
why was this huge effort made to oust Trump? What did they want him to do that he wouldn't do? Was he an impediment to the
increase of control over the average person? Did not want to start up another action against Syria? Would not attack Iran without
having a coalition of NATO countries lined up? Was against total outsourcing to China? Not confrontational enough against Russia?
Perhaps he gave the deplorables dangerous ideas about them having some rights. If that question could be answered then we'd
know what is coming.
He humiliated the upper echelons of society so thoroughly via his 2016 campaign and victory.
@anon Because Trump
inflames white nationalism, which is anathema to the Jews.
There is evidence that Trump himself is a Jew, and a fanatic Zionist at that, so his self-serving incitement of white nationalism
(whose causes he did little to implement, unlike his steady support for every imaginable Israeli cause, tbe more outrageous the better,
short of war with the "usable" nukes he had had developed for the purpose, that Russia warned him away from) was especially galling
to the top Jews such as the Rothschilds for whom Israel is nothing sentimental, just one more piece in their chess game for world
power.
And thank you for this site which is a beacon of free speech and dissent against our vile, corrupt, incompetent ruling class.
In all the post election rancor little attention has been brought to how razor thin the margin actually was. And with you being
a vociferous critic of Trumps boorish antics and insane foreign policy the candor on this issue is appreciated.
At a minimum the circumstantial evidence of vote counts being stopped in swing states along with gerrymandered rules was highly
suspicious. To claim a mandate on such a close election while losing house seats is absurd but the Republicans bungling the Georgia
Senate run off over $2K checks and a sycophantic MSM ensures they will.
And after abetting barbaric violence and anarchy for months the Democrats will now use trespassing in their "Sacred Temple"
to unleash a crackdown by the national security state and unprecedented censorship and social-credit run by woke-corporate oligarchs.
Interestingly (And as many predicted) it appears they will reopen the economy and declare "victory" over Covid shortly after
Bidens inauguration. Clearly the bizarre excesses of the lockdowns and dynamiting of the economy were calculated to undermine
Trump and consolidate wealth and power from the start.
The question is what exactly this "new normal" will be and how far they're willing to go in order to purge the Trumpists and
populist right. It will be easy to garner support for the latter but if the daily disruptions and financial shocks continue the
system will collapse.
A new, large scale war would be a useful distraction but it's hard to imagine the U.S sustaining one in its current state much
less against capable adversaries like China and Russia.
Then again, arrogant, idiotic, catastrophic policy blunders are the defining feature of this ruling class for the last 30 years
so I wouldn't put it past them given the madness we've seen already.
In effect, America's media and tech giants formed a united front to steal the election and somehow drag the crippled Biden/Harris
ticket across the finish line.
adjustment
via a plastic bag put over their heads. If they were lucky.
There was no real contest. Because? A. Control of the mainstream media was so one sided. And that is where we are at now here
in USA. Imagine, a standing President of the USA has been banned and censored by all the "American" mainstream media giants. Actually,
you do not have to imagine. It just happened: Big Tech and MSM has openly torpedoed the First Amendment and US Constitution. So
we know where they are coming from. It's also kind of disappointing how most of our "representatives" are dealing with this.
The only cause other than himself on which Trump has been consistent is serving Israel. One of the only two major policies
of Obama's that he didn't reverse was support of Israel, though he took it to yet another level. The other one was
increasing military spendings. Obama never cut military spending. My money is on Biden never doing it either, and also
that he will take support of Israel to yet another level. I hope I'm wrong.
On the election night I was listening to two of our New Zealand reporters who were reporting the incoming results. I remember
quite clearly after results had been coming in for a while they remarked: "well that's it another four years of the same". That
were their exact words. That must have been before the postal votes came in, which suddenly changed the picture completely to
Biden's advantage. Postal votes I believe were introduced for the first time in 2020 because of the Corona pandemic. It's believed
that postal votes can be more easily tampered with. Postal votes are expected to remain during future elections I believe.
We are to believe Biden won 507 counties, the least EVER, but won the most votes ever. Trump won 74 million votes, beating Obama's 69 million in 2008, the previous all-time high. Trump won over 2500 counties.
Clarice Feldman at the Americanthinker.com noted that many residences
had multiple votes from the current occupants plus previous occupants (apartment complexes) in this election, because old voter
rolls aren't purged in a timely manner. The same addy might have 3 previous residents voting, plus the same individual voters
legitimately voting at their new addresses.
My advice for whites is this .we will probably be getting in new wars for neocons now, so you might wanna think twice before
signing up for the military. You may find your twenties being used up in multiple deployments in foreign miserable places.
Strange that all these presidential
elections are always neck and neck. Just because there are two parties does not mean that election after election the vote will
boil down to one or two "swing states" and a few thousand votes. Statistically, it just doesn't make sense.
Of course the media loves these nail-biter elections because it drives up their viewership. Every election we get the same
old farcical "debates", scandals and continual ridiculous sound bites. This is strong evidence, if not proof,
that these elections are scripted from beginning to end, even up to and including the "march to the Capitol" and the
ensuing "insurrection".
Exactly. "Spin". He also appears to be entirely ignorant of the fact that the constitution states that each states electors,
and the procedure for choosing them, must be accomplished via the state[s] legislatures, and that in all 6[?] swing states that
recorded early morning, miraculous turn-around votes from Trump to Biden, that that particular constitutional procedure had been
entirely , and very conveniently, ignored:
The Lobby wants Syria by any means, up to a direct confrontation with the Russian Federation. The Jewish hatred for Iran is boundless
(same for Russia – take note, Americans). Zionists care not about human lives.
"I don't know or care anything about Dominion voting machines, whether they are controlled by Venezuelan Marxists, Chinese
Communists, or Martians. But the most blatant election-theft was accomplished in absolutely plain sight".
Cui bono? Obviously the main group profiting from the fraudulent election was the Democratic Party and its supporters. So why drag in foreign governments? Most of them are all too well aware that it's very dangerous to attract the attention of
the USA for good or bad. Like trying to save a drowning whale.
So their sensible strategy is to stand back at a safe distance and watch the monster perish in its own poisons, hoping it doesn't
lash out and harm them in its dying struggles.
The convenient thing about postal votes is that they make it possible to wait until the opponent's votes are all in and counted
– then send in just enough postal votes to tip the balance. It's rather like an auction in which one bidder gets only the one
bid, and then a rival can offer $1 more.
Ridiculous if you want a fair election. But nobody who matters wants or expects anything of that kind. A proper political machine
gets everything cut and dried well in advance.
Trump was unpredictable and, to a degree, uncontrollable. He had to go.
Well said. I'm sure that it's no coincidence that DJT has been involved with televised wrestling over the years. Every great contest requires
a memorable "heel" to engage the spectators. In televised snooker in the UK, final matches often are over best of 35 frames. It's unusual for them not to go to the last
ball of the final frame. Got to have a little drama.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch the rancher counts the silver dollars.
...If ego or narcissism can explain it, so be it. I'll go with insane or suffering from dementia. Any 'drain the swamp' or 'fix
the system', MAGA or "build back better" argument would appeal only to retards. Re-visit Carroll Quigly's succinct description
of political parties in the USA in Tragedy and Hope, pages 1247-1248 (hardcover) or Google same.
I'm beginning to believe that a different species is holding sway and we are the proverbial Eloi.
The point is, it is the average intellect, moral and civic weight of the involved constituencies that allows or doesn't allow
what shouldn't be allowed in a real democracy.
You don't have actual democracy below a lower threshold of intellect and moral and civic worth of all the main involved
parties.
We could in other words say: there will be as much real democracy as is desired by the average citizen, where to desire it
is not to blandly say "I agree with democracy".
It is funny how few people appear to understand that Hunter's laptop was not just a suppressed election decider then an
important reason for Biden's suitability
Yes, few people understand that all regime-approved candidates are people able to be blackmailed for a precise reason, and
not at all by chance. What about Hegel though?
@obvious Globalist
NWO creeps stole the election, they spent 4 years trying to overthrow the 2016 election by coups aided and abetted by the Globalist
Mainslime Media, FBI etc. -- you missed all that of course? .
They also PUBlICLY previewed, as they did the COVID Agenda, stealing
the election a couple months before, gamed and planned it in various outcomes .Anyone who can't see what is up is either willfully
ignorant, lying, or "stupid" as you say.
No decent person is in favor of the Agenda of Harris/Biden serving the NWO "Great
Reset" to crush the Peons -- you must see yourself as above the coming carnage -- I have news for you -- your not.
We'll know we're in an actual civil war when different branches of the military, or units within a branch are fighting each
other or when the police are fighting the military. Don't hold your breath of course because every cop and soldier in America is a traitor and they're all on the same team.
What I still find unfathomable is the fact that the steal was so obvious: so in your face but yet the big media, big tech,
federal and state law enforcements, spooks, judges, big GOP politicians etc still behave like nothing ever happened. Trump and
his supporters are now labeled domestic terrorists and lawfare is about to be unleashed on them. It's surreal.
Had the Orange heeded his MAGA base rather than his (((rat-in-law))) he'd still be President. There was certainly
election fraud; enough of the betrayed base stayed home to make it effective. Trump was a p -- y all four years and got what
he deserved. He was always a stop-gap time-buying non-solution...
...issues can no longer be discussed openly, the reliability of elections in the USA is the most important issue that faces us. The
people will accept an honest winner in a serious election. Nothing is as cleansing to our natural divisions as the result of a
well-contested election, in the knowledge that, in a reasonable interval, the same offices will be up for new contests.
Nothing is as damaging to our peace of mind as knowing that one side won fairly, but was robbed of governing. I thank Ron Unz for writing and publishing such a reasonably argued essay on the matter. It is the gold standard for 2020 election
analyses.
This is sad people. Was talking to a friend and even his 80 something year old mother commented on how decrepit Sleazy Joe
looks and walks. I was watching him deliver "his speech" last night and the guy had a hard time reading a few sentences off the
teleprompter without stammering and stuttering.
After an embarrassing and truly cringe worthy "speech" Biden is seen walking off. The dude can barely walk...
For eighty million who cast their ballots for the old geezer, it's mostly out of economic necessity; however, for the seventy
plus million people who are Trump supporters, it's a fight for their country and more importantly, culture.
Brought to you by the same people who gave us the Weimar Republic, only twice as vicious and vindictive this time because they
know what they did wrong last time -- they weren't vicious and vindictive enough.
When you consider Donald Trump's grotesque antics, his entirely unpresidential behavior, evident falsehoods and blatantly corrupt
actions – together with the systematic media blitz taking every opportunity to show him in the worst possible light; it is quite
astounding that he received as many votes as he did. Far, far more than could be accounted for by simply ascribing them to his
'deplorables'.
And, even if Biden did, in fact, just manage to win – presenting himself as a force of reason, stability and sanity – a great
mass of voters sensed something in him that they distrusted even more than in Trump. That was a stunning rejection – of almost
the same magnitude as Hillary's in 2016!
You're right, and Ron Unz is right. Had Trump retained his white male voters of 2016, the Democrats likely couldn't have pulled
off the steal. But in the end Donald Trump was a mere salesmen selling a con.
...If you had told people in France in 1785 or Russia in 1913 that within a few short years about a quarter of their population
would be slaughtered in revolutionary turmoil and many more displaced, they would have dismissively laughed in your face believing
– as do we – that their civilizations were far too advanced for such nonsense.
Let us hope such a horrific fate is not in store for all of us as the Great Reset is imposed on us all given how western civilization
has clearly failed to the point where some sort of profound, substantive reform is inevitable.
Given that the foundation of this Reset comprises so much ill-will, deception, theft and coercion, it is unlikely that this
new paradigm will benefit the millions of people it will soon dominate.
Another
can of worms, there would be additional Congressional hearings over it, etc. At the time Trump was still in the middle of the
Muller investigation. That special prosecutor investigation tied up Trump until March 2019.
I firmly believe that no man in human history could have taken on and fought Deep State, the Swamp, the Establishment, media,
GOPe, et al., as valiantly as Trump. Even in his 70's the man has superhuman energy, fortitude, and strategizing. I think Trump's
greatest legacy will be that he ripped away the curtain and the masks fell and we all got to see just how nefarious and rigged
the system is, from federal judges to our intelligence community to the FBI/DOJ to Congress to the media
"I don't know or care anything about Dominion voting machines"
Why not? Take a look at Patrick Byrne's summary of evidence for massive election fraud involving the Dominion machines, on
his blog over at DeepCapture.
It will explain how a man who sheltered in his house, did not campaign, drew no more than six or seven or twenty-five people
to his events, got seven million more votes than a man who drew up to thirty thousand people at his rallies.
...An expert witness in Georgia was able to hack into Dominion in front of the legislative committee in less than a minute. "We're
in." In Dominion, and on the internet.
Dominion machines can do anything! They can assign a weight of 1.5 per single vote to one candidate, and .75 per vote to the
other, and can adjust as necessary. They can assign batches of "adjudicated" ballots to the candidate of your choice. They can
just switch votes from one candidate to the other in increments of several thousand, let's subtract 29,000 votes from candidate
a and add them to b's column. They can allow access by a third party to the administrator's identity and password so the third
party can enter and participate directly in tabulation of the votes.
And more. If your disfavored candidate is winning by a landslide and your 1.5/.75 ratio isn't working, you can put in a USB
card and adjust accordingly.
If you're desperate you can upload tens of thousands of votes in a single drop which all, every one, go to your preferred candidate.
And you can do it in one hour on a machine which can only handle a few thousand votes per hour, fed in manually.
If things get out of control you can call a halt to the vote count, send the observers home, and haul out the extra ballots
stashed under the table skirt. But it's best to be mindful of the video cameras. Which they were not.
Really, read about it: Patrick Byrne, DeepCapture, "Evidence That The 2020 Election Was Rigged." Lays out the various ways
by which it was done, then appends evidence using graphs, memos from election administrators, and statistical analysis.
He's no Trump supporter either, is a committed libertarian, and has never voted for either a Democrat or Republican presidential
candidate in his life. He thinks Barack Obama graced the presidency and that Michelle Obama was a class act as First Lady.
Also: The Chinese government acquired Dominion for $400 million in the fall of 2020.
Finally, does anyone think the Dominion case against Sydney Powell potentially offers an opportunity for the evidence of electoral
fraud to be aired in public?
While it's an effective rhetorical tactic by our fearless leader Unz, there's no reason to be agnostic about CIA ballot-stuffing.
That's as blindingly obvious as their censorship.
The ballot-stuffing shows only the most cursory measures to conceal it, consistent with a command structure that exercises
precision control over media attention. CIA can censor adverse information on their candidate's trading in influence and abuse
of function. So naturally CIA dumped votes in statistically absurd proportions, trusting to their Mockingbird media to short-circuit
public inquiry. When you have arbitrary Nazi-grade life-and-death power, as CIA does, it's hard not to get sloppy. They don't
give a fuck that you saw what they did there, cause shut up.
Spot on about postal votes; it's my only slight disagreement with Ron's take on the affair.
These votes were being received for days, if not weeks before the deadline and could have been (and probably were) counted as
they came in. The gross imbalance between Trump and Biden votes in these after-hours counts, along with the sudden spikes obvious
on many graphs, is proof, imo, of the cheat. In order to get ahead of the narrative, the 'rats said it would happen, and, lo,
it did.
If the regime can't provide for trustworthy elections, it can't expect to be regarded as legitimate. Probably by design; they
don't need us.
Navarro's three reports do a good job of summarizing most of the possible vote fraud. He's a Harvard PhD so more than qualified
to pull all the date together etc. They use many graphics and are easy and fast to read.
In this post-Republic new reality, no Court will take a case in which Discovery reveals any sort of election fraud. The election is over and it's now verboten to revisit it. Don't be surprised if
archive.org is forced to delete thousands of articles about it. Orwellian times
Incumbent Donald Trump lost Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin by such extremely narrow margins that a swing of less than 22,000
votes in those crucial states would have gotten him reelected. With a record 158 million votes cast, this amounted to a
victory margin of around 0.01% . So if just one American voter in 7,000 had changed his mind, Trump might have received
another four years in office. One American voter in 7,000
Margins of general vote do not matter. Biden won Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin by much higher margins than 0.01%. In Arizona
Biden won by 0.3% of all votes in Arizona and in Georgia by 0.2%. These are small margins but probably comparable to margins in
swing states in 2016 where Trump won.
@Garliv It's for
your own good, of course. I once read an article written by someone who had a chance to hang out with the rich, powerful, famous,
etc. and gain some perspective on their thinking. They really do believe that it's their role to shape the future for the
proles. I know someone who's just like that.
If you like your bourgeois job and want to keep it, you will support the narrative.
All of the comments on here that analyze DJT's strengths and weaknesses miss the point. I personally think he made some very
poor choices; but, to inappropriately paraphrase Carville, it's the fraud, stupid.
Occam's Razor should be applied- instead of the nonsense of Chavez having an interest in voting software; voting machines being
manipulated; truckloads of paper ballots being moved across state lines- my favorite; etc.
The mail in ballots could be sent to a nursing home or to individuals, who are very old, and these individuals could be instructed
by a relative to sign their name.
I frequently explain to individuals, whose first language is not English, the papers, which they are signing. I explain their
401K and retirement plan withdrawals.
It would be very easy to have individuals in a nursing home or even an adult day care center for mentally (dementia) incapacitated
adults sign ballots. There are numerous day care centers in New York City, federally funded, where individuals could be coaxed
to sign ballots. Just say Trump will close the day care center -- especially where interpreters must be provided because the individuals
cannot understand English due to varying stages of mental incapacity.
The day care center is a racket. I believe the reimbursement rate under Medicaid-Medicare is $120 per day. Plus, the transportation
fee - approximately $40 per person each way. These centers flourish in cities, such as New York City, Newark, Philadelphia, etc. I have yet to hear anyone mention that Nancy Pelosi's father was Mayor of Baltimore, Thomas D'Alesandro Jr. And Baltimore is
one city that it totally devastated by drugs, prostitution, crime, etc.
Now for the important question. Did Nancy Pelosi have $12 pints of ice cream in her office?
But I wonder how many people have watched the twenty hours or so of state legislature hearings related to the election. Can
people just not be bothered? These were historic hearings of huge importance, but I assume they didn't get much coverage in the
MSM. I think most of them were livestreamed only by small right-wing networks.
Servant of Gla'aki 39, Hapalong 101 anent Willke: Willke sold a million books in less than two months. He was more of a media
phenom than Trump, much hotter at the time of the election. They were going to make a movie of One World. And his message was
more populist, too – basically, fuck your US national interest, we want peace and freedom. He just came out and said what everybody
thought, Oh boy, now that we won the war, we'll get the peace and freedom that we fought for! So he didn't need a Sheldon or a
Gina to rig elections and install him.
Dulles was squirming around under rocks at that time (he cut his teeth at the League of Nations founding,) even before he and
his ultras got their Gestapo in Foggy Bottom, and they arranged Hillary-style party machinations to push Willke aside.
Now of course there's a second line of defense, the CIA proprietaries that steal the election directly:
Diebold and its brass-plate acquirers. CIA set them up to ratfuck Kerry and Maduro and sheep-dipped them to ratfuck Trump.
The whole world knows the USA is a ridiculous fake democracy, a totalitarian CIA pariah state voting alone against peace, development
and human rights. (Just look at the 2nd Committee vote on A/C.2/75/L.4/Rev.1) The USA is North Korea with an ugly leisure squad.
It's the beltway that deserves our fire and fury. Just wipe it out with WMD and start again.
What were the results of the 2016 election? Billary received 65 million to Trumps 62 million. Gotcha. So we have roughly 127
million who showed up to vote that time. (Wonder how many of those were legit.) So ONLY 4 years later, Joe "I Look Like I'm Drugged"
Biden ALLEGEDLY received 80 million and Trump received 74 million. Okay, that is a turnout of 154 million votes. So if I believe
in this fairy tale, I was supposed to believe that in ONLY 4 years the vote count increased by an alleged 27 million. Hell, a
lot of our most populous states do not even have that many people.
Like I say, I concede that Biden might have had about 60-65 million LEGIT votes to Trump's MINIMUM of 74 million. Hmm, so that
means that total vote count would be 134-139 million. Hmm, sounds more reasonable to me. Numbers are not adding up folks.
...Laws don't say a little bit of fraud is OK, because the fraud committed on or by a business
didn't cause bankruptcy. Either there was fraud, or there wasn't. If there was, then the results of the election in those areas
are null and void. The certification of those results expands the fraud to the state level.
That several courts refused to hear cases for lack of standing, is patently ridiculous. If a candidate has no standing, who does?
In an election, everybody has standing because they are affected by the result, and by virtue of Citizens United , corporations
do as well.
In an ideal world, we would be discussing how we can ensure the integrity of our elections, so that both substantively and
the appearance of integrity is upheld. Instead, we are trying to get citizens jailed (right & left) for protesting the sanctity
of a system in which both sides know is corrupt. There is no question in Dems mind that Bush stole the election in 2000, so why
is it any different now that the shoe is on the other foot.
Our oligarch rulers know very well that they rig elections, it has been documented under LBJ, not to mention the long list
of coups all over the world organized by the intelligence agencies over the past 50 years, these are historical facts. But rather
than citizens being able to focus on the real problem, we are beating the crap out of our fellow citizens for something we know
all know is real; and pointing to the other side as the source of the corruption. This is exactly why the rich stay rich and the
poor stay poor.
Mr. Unz, who is always well informed, highly organized and impeccably lucid, gives a credible and succinct analysis of the
dumpster fire that is American politics, indeed of this country's leadership across the board. It creates mostly chaos and suffering
every time it meddles in our affairs these days, certainly over the long run but especially in its current crash program to impose
tyranny over the many so the few can take whatever they want whether they require it or not.
Watch this recent interview of Chris Hedges by Jimmy Dore about the root causes of our current woes. Hedges speaks off the
cuff in words that sound as polished, powerful and precise as the language in tracts considered to be classics. His Pulitzer clearly
was not found in a Cracker Jack box.
He ain't buying that Trump alone was the fount of all our sorrows or that a deceiving sycophantic
grifter like Joe Biden is the fix for anything. There were many bad actors, both GOPers and Dems, both office holders and offstage
string-pullers, who have contributed to the coming collapse of this country, which decapitating Trump will not prevent. Joe just
happens to be the useful idiot who will be left holding the bag when the end comes, which won't be long now. Factoring in Kamala's
possible ascension to the throne will change nothing. Like Joe, she's just a cluck there to take the same orders.
@Carroll Price
...Trump also flew on the Lolita express. If after all the broken promises that Trump made
to his Maga followers anyone still thinks that he is an outsider is, frankly, an idiot.
Trump is a lifetime actor and the entire election was just one big show.
One way we will know if Trump really was a threat to the swamp and an outsider will be what happens after Jan 20. If Trump
ends up dead or impoverished and in prison then we will know that he was a real threat. If he flies off into the sunset, perhaps
even starting a media company, then we will know that it was all one big vaudeville act.
Trump is engaging in the declassification of documents, one of which is the 2018
US Strategic
Framework for the Indo-Pacific that's provided at the top of Pepe Escobar's essay,
"Trump's not-so-secret plan for containing China," that was published yesterday:
"These are the Top 5 items – with no euphemistic softening:
•Maintain as sacrosanct US 'primacy,' code for uncontested military power
•Promote the Quad (US, Japan, India, Australia)
•Fully support the (failed) Hong Kong color revolution
•Demonize everything connected to Belt & Road
•Invest in 'the rise of India'
"On the military front, things get way trickier: The imperative is to prevent Beijing, by
all means necessary, from 'dominating the first island chain' – that is, the island
ring from the Japanese archipelago to Taiwan all the way to the northern Philippines and
Borneo. Moreover, 'primacy' should also be maintained in the 'area beyond.'
"So once again this is all about naval containment."
That's followed by an excellent graphic showing the first and second Island Chains. Of
course, China isn't really worried:
"The 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party falls next July 23. The day before
the declassification of Indo-Pacific, President Xi Jinping outlined his – and the CCP's
– vision for the almost three decades culminating in 2049, the hundredth anniversary of
the People's Republic of China.
"Here are Xi's Top Three – in a nutshell:
•Keep calm and carry on, despite the ravaging effects of Covid-19, unrelenting
Western – especially American – hostility, and the trials and tribulations of the
crumbling US Empire
•Focus on domestic development, in all areas
•Focus on China's priorities; then, whatever happens, the world outside will not be able
to interfere.
•Solidify its own 'primacy' in the South China Sea while diversifying trade and
development strategic options all along Belt and Road"
I tried to locate where Xi made this statement Pepe cites, but was unsuccessful, and Pepe
provided no link. The essay closes with an economic forecast for China that Biden won't be
able to do much about. Indeed, this article details how much
damage Trump's Trade War did to the US economy and how it would benefit from Biden's ending
it:
"The multi-year trade war with China under the Trump administration resulted in a peak
loss of 245,000 US jobs, Reuters reported Friday, citing a study commissioned by the US-China
Business Council, a business group representing major US firms with operations in China.
"In an escalated scenario, meaning a significant China-US decoupling, the US GDP could
shrink by $1.6 trillion over the next five years, resulting in up to 732,000 job losses in
the US by 2022 and 320,000 fewer jobs by 2025, according to the study. A gradual scaling back
of tariffs, however, is likely to boost growth, resulting in an additional 145,000 jobs by
2025."
As I wrote when Trump announced his Trade War, the Outlaw US Empire would be much better
off if it joined with China rather than trying to fight it, and now the results are in. Too
bad this report will likely be suppressed. The article looks at Biden's position and
concludes with an infographic detailing trade flows between China and the Outlaw US
Empire.
This is about the consolidation of power after questionable election; Capitol ransacking is
just a pretext for represssions. If it did not occur they would find another one.
Notable quotes:
"... (5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -- (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended -- (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. ..."
"... Why all the talk about "domestic terrorism"? I suspect it's because people can't stand the idea that the Trump mob could be guilty of nothing more than trespassing. Time reports sadly that there are no laws against domestic terrorism, but lists the charges it wants brought: seditious conspiracy, which carries a 20-year maximum sentence, homicide, assault, interstate travel in aid of racketeering, restricted-area violations, vandalism, and trespassing. ..."
"... The authorities promise to hunt the rioters -- many of whom just walked through an open door -- to the ends of the earth as if they were Osama bin Laden. The contrast with the handling of BLM and antifa rioters is stark. ..."
Joe Biden has the people who took over the Capitol on Jan. 6 figured out. In just two days,
he had them pegged for "a bunch of thugs, insurrectionists, white supremacists, and
anti-Semites, and it's not enough." Not enough? He also said they were "domestic terrorists."
Curiously, there is a federal definition of domestic terrorism, but it isn't a crime. There
is now tremendous pressure to change that, and depending on what kind of law takes shape, there
could be huge implications for dissidents.
For now, this
definition from 18 U.S. Code § 2331 is worth studying:
(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -- (A) involve acts dangerous to
human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -- (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to
influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the
conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur
primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Does this apply to the Capitol takeover? Domestic terrorism must be an illegal act
"dangerous to human life" and meant to influence policy. The Trump supporters wanted to
influence policy alright, but what does "dangerous to human life" mean? The
Michigan Penal Code says it is "that which causes a substantial likelihood of death or
serious injury."
That wouldn't include trespassing, breaking and entering, or even scuffling with the police.
Anyone who may have
killed Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick would meet the definition of a "domestic
terrorist," but the circumstances of his death are still not clear. It may be there wasn't a
single "textbook" domestic terrorist at the Capitol that day. Lefties are gloating
over the death of Ashli Babbitt, but the only thing she did that was "dangerous to human life"
was stop a bullet.
Why all the talk about "domestic terrorism"? I suspect it's because people can't stand the
idea that the Trump mob could be guilty of nothing more than trespassing. Time reports
sadly that there are no laws against domestic terrorism, but lists the charges it wants brought:
seditious conspiracy, which carries a 20-year maximum sentence, homicide, assault, interstate
travel in aid of racketeering, restricted-area violations, vandalism, and trespassing.
Sure enough, the Justice Department has set up a task force
to file sedition and conspiracy charges . The investigation is said to be "one of the most
expansive criminal investigations in the history of the Justice Department." The authorities
promise to hunt the rioters -- many of whom just walked through an open door -- to the ends of
the earth as if they were Osama bin Laden. The contrast with the
handling of BLM and
antifa rioters is stark.
Democrat Rep. Bennie Thompson, who chairs the House Committee on Homeland Security,
has another idea . "Given the heinous domestic terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol," he
wants everyone involved put on the No-Fly List. Rep. Jason Crow, a member of the House Armed
Services Committee, wants the US Army Secretary to track down and
court martial every soldier who entered the Capitol. A court
martial requires a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, usually for a serious
felony. Police departments in
Virginia ,
Washington , and
Pennsylvania are
scouring their rosters , looking for officers who went to the rally, whether they entered
the Capitol or not. Will they be fired?
Wikipedia describes John McCain's daughter Meghan as a
"columnist, author, and television personality." She wants the rioters sent to Guantanamo :
"They should be treated the same way we treat Al-Qaeda" -- yet another American frustrated by
the lack of a law against domestic terrorism.
... ... ...
... [neoliberal] Lefties were of course
pleased that "white supremacists" can
now officially be "terrorists." This is very important for any potential new law because
the occupation of the Capitol has unleashed a wave of vitriol against "white supremacy," even
though there is no evidence the Trump supporters had the slightest racial motivation. NBC News
ran this
headline : "'Vintage white rage': Why the riots were about the perceived loss of white
power." Politico
tells us "there's a term for what happened at the Capitol this week: 'whitelash'." The
Atlantic
explained that "the Capitol riot was an attack on multiracial democracy." The
Guardian 's
headline was "Insurrection Day: When White Supremacist Terror Came to the US Capitol."
Black Congressman Hank Johnson
told Al Sharpton that the black Capitol policeman who killed Ashli Babbitt had
singlehandedly put down a lynch mob: If he hadn't shot her, "I have no doubt that some of us
who look like me would've been hanging from the railings of the 3rd floor, onto the House
floor, swinging like . . . strange fruit." Nancy Pelosi said that
the people who entered the Capitol "have chosen their whiteness over democracy," whatever that
means.
This perfectly matches the views of Richard Durbin, ranking member on the Senate
Subcommittees for Defense and for the Constitution. In 2019, he introduced the Domestic Terrorism
Prevention Act , which called white supremacy "the most significant domestic terrorism
threat facing the United States." The act was only about 3,000 words but used "white
supremacist" 12 times, "neo-Nazi" six times, "far-right" eight times, and "hate crime" 10
times. It was silent on any other kind of domestic terrorism. Sen. Durbin says he will
reintroduce the bill right away in light of the Capitol takeover.
There is no telling what laws could pass in this fevered environment, but it's important to
note what Mr. Durbin's 2019 bill did and did not do. It did not make domestic terrorism a crime
or authorize the designation of "domestic terrorism organizations," which would mean jailing
Americans as if they were Al-Qaeda members and seizing assets without notice. What it
did
do was set up special offices in the FBI, Justice Department, and Homeland Security "to
analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and . . . take steps to prevent domestic
terrorism." It's anyone's guess what those "steps" were supposed to be.
The bill also required the three agencies to "review each hate crime incident reported
during the preceding year to determine whether the incident also constitutes a domestic
terrorism-related incident," though it didn't say to what end.
Sen. Durbin loves to quote FBI Director Christopher A. Wray's testimony
before Congress in 2019: "A majority of the domestic terrorism cases that we've investigated
are motivated by some version of what you might call white supremacy . . . ."
However, the bill used the definition of "domestic terrorism" from 18 U.S. Code § 2331
cited above, which is ideologically neutral. That means Black Lives Matter and antifa commit
vastly more "domestic terrorism" than all the "white supremacists," "neo-Nazis," and "far-right
extremists" combined. Anyone who shouts "Defund the police," "Justice for Breonna Taylor,"
"Black lives matter," or even "I can't breathe" is trying to "influence the policy of a
government." If, in that context, someone commits an illegal act "dangerous to human life," he
is a domestic terrorist. Since the
death of George Floyd , there have been countless dangerous-to-human-life acts of arson and
aggravated assault; even attempts to
stop ambulances from bringing wounded officers to emergency rooms. If "white supremacists"
were organizing freeway shutdowns, they would surely count as "dangerous to human
life."
The levels of hypocritical hysteria dominating the corporate airwaves and most electronic
media, together with an even more amplified level among the pro$titicians in the Di$trict of
Corruption means they are scared.
They suddenly feel vulnerable. Are they as vulnerable as the people of Yemen who are being
bombed daily and starvation blockaded by the $audi crime clan with the full. assistance of
those D.C. Pro$titician$? Are they as vulnerable as those half million!!! deliberately
starved Iraqi children whom Madelein Albrietstein declared to be "worth it" in forwarding the
I$raeli agenda?
Could it just simply be that they are themselves guilty of crimes against humanity and in
violation of their oaths to protect the Constitution of the United States from all enemies
foreign and DOMESTIC? The little gal under the streetlight with high heels, short skirt and
low-hanging purse in the midnight hour at least provides a desired service. Can the same be
said for the Pro$titicians on the Hill overlooking Urination'$ Capitol?
As for the media whores and pre$$titute$, being myself a recovering journalist; there is
good reason to believe that I have correctly identified them.
I don't see how it can't be recognized that Trump set-up his own supporters by luring them
to DC.
Going to Wash DC to protest wasn't going to change the vote outcome in Congress and any
fool could anticipate Antifa types would show up (apparently Pelosi, Schumer, McConnell and
DC Mayor were advised they were planning to come and riot. So Trump had to have known
too.)
Now, neither POTUS or Congress members will publicly identify the organized Antifa thug
element. So, Trump supporters, and by extension Repubs, are being widely labeled as "domestic
terrorists'. While Trump releases another video today lecturing about violence which
implicates HIS supporters by no mention of the other elements there.
Congressman Hank Johnson told Al Sharpton that the black Capitol policeman who killed
Ashli Babbitt had singlehandedly put down a lynch mob: If he hadn't shot her, "I have no
doubt that some of us who look like me would've been hanging from the railings of the 3rd
floor, onto the House floor, swinging like . . . strange fruit.
This statement is quite stupid but Johnson has said worse in the past:
During a House Armed Services Committee hearing on March 25, 2010[40] concerning the
U.S. military installation on the island of Guam, Johnson said to Admiral Robert F.
Willard, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, "My fear is that the whole island will become
so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize", to which Admiral Willard replied,
"We don't anticipate that."
The great thing about language in the 21st century is it means whatever you want it to
mean, sort of like Alice in wonderland. A terrorist is whatever they deem to be a terrorist;
anyone who does not go along with their agenda. "building back better" means repression and
censorship. "the new normal" means global corporate government and the great reset agenda.
"global pandemic" means a plandemic that kills one in a million healthy young people. etc.
Facts and information do not matter to these people; it is 1984. This struggle will be
decided by force, as logical arguments are useless to those who deny the basic axioms of
reality and existence (almost all libtards and most rinos). I think in a way it is a good
thing that things are getting worse for the average middle american. Things will need to get
much worse before they get better as more than half the people are still totally asleep. Of
the minority that are awake, most of us have too much to lose right now . But we need to
organize and prepare to take action soon or we will be bled to death by a thousand cuts as
they have been doing for a while now. What kind of a world will our children inherit if we
stay silent and apathetic?
O MY GOD!
All the discussions around Trump reminded me of Hitler after Stalingrad.
After the defeat at Stalingrad, the Germans waited 2 years for Hitler to use the secret
weapon and win the war. The German army suffered defeat after defeat, the Russian communists
were searching for Hitler's body through Bunkers and the Germans still waited for the
super-secret weapon to save them.
Two months after the election, Trump's team suffered defeat after defeat. Trump is waiting
for jail, but his supporters are convinced that Trump still has a secret weapon with which
will win the election.When you wake up to reality. Trump is a false Messiah and he he doesn't
have a super-secret-weapon.
You have to fight your self for justice and truth and not wait for someoneelse to fight for
you while you button porn, tiktok or chat smalltalk on Facebook.
I can't forget what Mother Teresa said 30 years ago: "Don't wait for a leader because he
won't come. Be your own leaders."
You all are for sure. I just changed my party registration and I'm now a proud Democrat. I
don't want to be denied jobs, loans, transportation, and possibly freedom and life itself for
the sake of a country that has collectively decided to destroy itself.
And that's what false flag with Capitol ransacking accomplished. It fives Clinton/Obama/Biden
clique card blank for suppressing the dissent
This false flag operation like shooting protesters by snipers during Ukrainian Maydan is a
logical end of American Maidan and pursued the same goals -- deposing the current president,
hijacking political power and consolidating it via repressions.
Notable quotes:
"... That is why we are witnessing the fussy, aggressive actions of the Democrats - a ridiculous re-impeachment of the president, who will leave the White House in a week, the most severe censorship and suppression of dissent. There is no need for the real winners of fair elections to behave like that, as they are aware of their legitimacy and are confident in themselves (relying on the real, not imaginary, support of the majority of the population). ..."
From the "Biden Exploits His Capitol Gains" article:
Joe Biden's own language certainly sounded less like a magnanimous winner uniting his
people than like that used by autocrats and dictators to hold onto power, argues Diana
Johnstone.
Diana Johnstone's opinion is quite reasonable. In fact, a "creeping"/"bureaucratic" coup
d'etat took place in the United States. And it wasn't Trump at all, but Biden & Co. The
fact that "Joe Biden's own language sounded like that used by autocrats and dictators to hold
onto power" is further confirmation of this.
If you are in the majority and you win the election honestly, then there is no need to act
the way the Democrats did. The current aggressive rhetoric of Biden (and other Democrats) is
evidence that the elections were stolen/falsified. Biden knows this very well, and therefore
his language is as cruel, irreconcilable and repressive as possible. After the illegitimate
elections, the task is to consolidate own's power and suppress all those who reject what
happened. In fact, this is what happened in Ukraine after the Maidan 2014.
That is why we are witnessing the fussy, aggressive actions of the Democrats - a
ridiculous re-impeachment of the president, who will leave the White House in a week, the
most severe censorship and suppression of dissent. There is no need for the real winners of
fair elections to behave like that, as they are aware of their legitimacy and are confident
in themselves (relying on the real, not imaginary, support of the majority of the
population).
Globalization has made the United States a hollow giant. It has produced an enormous
wealth gap, and this inequality is producing a breakdown in social cohesion. They have faced
crisis before in the form of political polarization, economic hardship and racial tensions,
but the situation now is a combination of every one of the mentioned before amplified by
orders of magnitude by the pandemic.
The power of the MIC, Wall Street and Big Tech along with their MSM minions acting in a
concerted way is the only thing preventing an implosion of the country. Either that or the
notion of "American Exceptionalism" is truly implanted in the hearts and minds of the people,
whether they realize it or not.
The 16th big press conference of Russian President Vladimir Putin has drawn a line. In the
history of the "concentration of Russia", a thirty-year period has come to an end,
characterized by successively advancing: fascination with the West, doubt in the West, and
disillusionment with Western "values". Russia has entered a new period.
During the final press conference of Putin, an incident occurred that caused a lot of funny
comments in Russian society and in the Russian press. BBC journalist Steven Rosenberg asked the
Russian President: "Is Vladimir Putin personally responsible for the deterioration of relations
with Western countries? Or is Russia all these 20 years of Putin's rule "white and fluffy"?
And, in addition, as expected, [he asked] "how is it going with the investigation into the
poisoning of Navalny?"
A dialogue ensued, during which the British journalist looked rather pathetic, to which
everyone paid attention. But the result of this conversation, although everyone quoted it, was
not appreciated by anyone. In the end [of the dialogue], it was said that Putin is responsible
for the people of Russia and before the people of Russia, and that yes, we are white and
fluffy, especially compared to you.
I can understand how the British journalist felt at this time. The world collapsed around
him. From his point of view, such an end to the conversation was simply impossible. He was not
taught this.
Recollection of the present
I know very well what I am saying. In 1993, together with another three dozen diplomats
representing all post-Soviet republics (including Russia) and all post-socialist countries of
Eastern Europe (then none of them were members of either NATO or the EU, although everyone
already dreamed of), I was at diplomatic internship in the UK. Among other things, we were
offered an educational format for communicating with the Western press, which (what a
coincidence) was represented by a rather elderly lady from the BBC. She explained to us for a
long time and tediously that we, as government officials, would have to listen carefully to the
position of journalists and if the journalist himself (especially a Western one) became
interested in some information or pointed out some political error, then the information should
be provided immediately, and the error should be corrected with an apology.
She talked for about forty minutes. I waited until she was exhausted and asked: "Why?" I
waited on purpose. Usually, in such cases, our Western friends simply repeat their monologue.
But the journalist was already quite second-hand, she had fizzled out over the previous hour
and, losing her guard, missed a hit. She answered with a question to the question: "What do you
mean why?".
It was then that I explained to her that in any country, Great Britain is no exception,
there are a lot of journalists from mass media. And each of them will be happy to interview a
government official and receive exclusive information on his (official's) terms. And such
"smart" ones as she won't even get into the waiting room. There are many ways to avoid
accreditation under a plausible pretext. And after her publication is given to understand that
no one will ever speak to this journalist in this country, she will simply be fired for
incompetence or sent to the Papuans, from where one report is published every ten years.
This dialogue took place in the summer of 1993. I was 27 then. I think that Steven Rosenberg
was then at the same (plus or minus a couple of years) age. I have long forgotten the name of
the BBC lady, but I will never forget her face. She looked at me as if the gates of hell had
opened behind me and the entire infernal army was about to rush at her. Rosenberg's face was
half hidden by a mask, but it could not hide his confusion, further emphasized by a stampede
from the press conference.
Let me stress again that I understand him well and sympathize with him. 27 years ago, when
the incident I described above happened, journalists already liked to speculate about the
"fourth power", but most of them themselves did not really believe in this thesis.
Nevertheless, open disregard for the "rights of the press" was not comme il faut even then.
Like "homophobia" about ten years later.
Since then, the young and then seasoned BBC journalist Steven Rosenberg was taught for 27
years that he was not just a "fourth power", but a representative of Western civilizers in a
semi-primitive world that dreams of becoming like the West. Stephen is the bearer of
civilization. Any of his statements is a priori true, and the authorities of the "wild tribes"
to whom he brings civilization must justify themselves to him and immediately rush to eliminate
the shortcomings he has noticed.
"Russia is disappointed with Europe's inability to defend its interests on its own"
And after all, for a long time it was so. Including in Russia. Not that the Kremlin believed
in the Western "mission of good offices", but they proceeded from the fact that compromise is
better than enmity and were ready to make reasonable concessions in anticipation of reciprocal
steps. It cannot be said that this strategy has completely failed to justify itself. Part of
the Western world, especially in the EU and especially in Germany and Italy, really strives to
build equal pragmatic relations with Russia on the basis of a mutually acceptable
compromise.
But the part is not the whole, and on the whole, the Western world retains its hostility
towards Russia, poorly hidden by unfounded arrogance. Moreover, it is clear that despite the
strengthening of the Western political circles sympathetic to our country, this trend will not
be broken in the coming years. But then it will be too late. The window of opportunity will
close.
Any political decision is possible and expedient within a certain time frame. If someone
does not have time to meet these deadlines, then they have to implement a different version of
the future. That is why not a single serious state works according to the principle of no
alternative. There are always fallbacks, maybe not as good, but not disastrous, usually just
less profitable. But those who are late for the joint train to the future remain at a broken
trough.
2020 was the year of summing up the results in Russian-European relations. At the level of
statements by politicians and press materials, at the level of visits, agreements and active
events, the fading of Russia's interest in the European vector and the redirection of the
dominant of its foreign policy to the Far and Middle East became noticeable.
The last warning was the autumn speeches of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in which
it was stated openly that Russia is disappointed with Europe's inability to defend its
interests on its own and, given this factor, does not expect anything else from cooperation
with the West and does not plan to unilaterally take into account the opinion and the interests
of the West.
Perhaps in the UK or specifically on the BBC, being immersed in their Brexit, Lavrov was not
heard. But that's their problem. Russia is not doing anything out of the blue. Before openly
telling the West that "We didn't actually want to work with them" a long-term (stretching over
a decade and a half) work was carried out to search for alternative markets, to import
substitution of critical products imported from the West, to strengthen the army, to recreate
the ocean-going fleet, gaining allies, creating military bases controlling trade routes that
are critical for Russia.
The West missed this entire era of "concentration of Russia" (the expression of Chancellor
Gorchakov). Already the second time the West misses (the first "concentration" in the XXI
century ended in 2008). In Europe and the United States they consoled themselves with the fact
that Russia is a "colossus with feet of clay", that it does not have sufficient resources even
to intervene in the situation in the post-Soviet space, that "Moscow is bluffing", that the
West is indispensable because it is a "civilizational choice" etc.
And suddenly, in 2020, the collective West saw that Russia's positioning towards it had
changed dramatically. If earlier [the West's] claims were heard, explanations were given,
Russia was trying to prove something, now Europe began to be ignored as an annoying mistress.
With some countries, the Kremlin has stopped talking altogether, with some it talks, but
"without respect."
"Yes, we are white and fluffy"! -- But only for ourselves. So what will you do to us?
Western journalists, especially BBC journalists, do not ask random questions at press
conferences of heads of state. BBC is a state corporation, its activities are aimed at
realizing the state interests of Great Britain, including collecting information using the
possibilities of journalism. By asking the question "Are you white and fluffy?" -- the leading
circles of the West probed the soil and were ready to hear anything in response, except what
sounded: "Yes, we are white and fluffy" -- and your opinion on this issue interests us least of
all.
This is the point, the end of the long-term flirtation between Russia and the West, which
the West hoped to start up in an absolute moral and material gain, and suddenly sees itself in
the role of "Ariadne abandoned." Given the Western vindictiveness, such public humiliation of
it became possible only following the results of a decade and a half of well-coordinated,
albeit invisible, work of all Russian state structures, including state-owned companies.
In 2014, the West was surprised to learn that Russia is able to ensure its food security
(over the next six years, Moscow has been steadily increasing its food exports). In 2015, the
West became convinced of the stability of the Russian financial system, which it never managed
to break. In 2016, the West still laughed at the "cartoons" and argued that in reality Russia
did not have demonstrated weapons systems, because it could never be. Since 2018, he has been
forced to admit his critical lag in the military sphere. In 2017-2018 the West suddenly learned
that Russia concentrates on itself the supply of liquefied gas, for which the West was a de
facto monopoly, one by one introducing the corresponding terminals in the North and the Far
East (which makes the fight against Nord Stream 2 and other flows senseless, since Russian gas
will come to Europe by a route alternative to the Ukrainian one, if not through gas pipelines,
then with the help of gas carriers). By 2020, the West learned that Russia is also able to
build gas carriers on its own (as well as other ships and vessels of any class).
In parallel, international systems of cooperation between Russia and China, Iran, Turkey and
Egypt were being built. If, until about 2014, Russia's priority was to ensure internal
stability and security in the context of a likely break with the West, then the emphasis in
domestic policy shifted to disavowing the ideological expansion of the West, and in foreign
policy to building alternative trade and economic ties, securing promising markets. and
partners.
All this, of course, is not as beautiful as the even ranks of the royal grenadiers, bravely
breaking the enemy's resistance under a hail of grapeshot. But for the latter to become
possible, many years of routine work are needed to create an independent economy capable of
meeting the needs of the army and the people in any conditions, for a period of time of any
length, as well as to provide the rear with reliable military-political alliances.
And only after many years of efforts of millions of people, someone alone can smile and say
to the unfortunate journalist, turning over his head to the collective West: "Yes, we are white
and fluffy!" -- So what will you do to us?
In the history of Russia, a thirty-year period has come to an end, characterized by
successively advancing: fascination with the West, doubt in the West, and disillusionment with
Western "values." The line has been drawn. Russia has entered a new period characterized by
indifference towards the West and a lack of illusions about all of its current partners and
allies. We leave ideals for home use, for external use we have only interests. Russia itself
has built its own well-being and is going to use it itself. And whoever doesn't like it, can
cry, or gnaw the earth, or bite his elbows. We are "white and fluffy", but only for
ourselves.
Mass protests generally have two distinct but intertwined goals: 1) to "make a statement,"
and 2) to inflict a cost. To state the obvious, mass protests occur because a group of people
are unhappy about something, and they want something to change. Change only occurs, in a large
bureaucratic nation like ours, if a loud "message" is conveyed, or if the price of non-change
becomes too high. If thousands of Trump voters are mad as hell because they believe the
election was stolen, and if they want to protest, they can either make their message heard and
then hope for the best (not much hope there), or they can attempt to punish the thieves
-- that is, make them incur some cost for their malfeasance.
What did the mob achieve on Wednesday? We already knew their message -- Trump won the
election, and it was stolen. We know they have support across the country; even our biased
media admit to some 74 million Trump voters, of whom 70% to 80% (depending on the poll) think
the election was stolen. But then what? "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it." And
then what? The message is impotent. It has no consequence.
If 'the message' was doomed to impotence, inflicting 'a cost' was much more tangible, and
much more achievable. By forcing their way into the Capitol building, a motivated and
reasonably prepared mob could have caused tremendous damage. If -- and I stress the conditional
here -- if they wanted to inflict damage, they had a golden opportunity. They had guns,
presumably hidden, and far outnumbered the handful of guards. Any firefight would have been
over quickly, with the mob victorious. Security guards, staffers, even congressmen would have
been easy prey, for kidnapping, injury, or worse. But this did not happen.
... ... ...
Notice how congressmen, left and right, responded to the event. All were indignant. All were
outraged. All condemned the "senseless violence" of the crazed mob and the "attempted
overthrow" of American democracy. All of them: left, right, and center; Democrat and
Republican; Trump supporter or not. All of them condemned it.
Again: Why? The answer here is clear: All congressmen, of all stripes, have a vested
interest in sustaining the system, more or less in its current form . This is obvious. They
are all 'winners' in the system. It has made them all rich, famous, and powerful. Yes, they
fight for relative power and relative influence, but this is largely a sham. The
Republican-Democrat battles are only there to give the impression of real competition. Instead,
in reality, we have a deep and radical monopoly -- a monopoly of pro-corporate, pro-capitalist,
pro-war, pro-Israel, and pro-Jewish individuals. On these things, they all agree. I've been
saying as much for many years: We should focus not on what divides the two parties, but on
what unites them . This is far more revealing.
... More than anything, Trump was a symbol: a symbol of resistance, of defiance, and of an
'in your face' attitude. But nothing more. The Trump presidency was all show, no substance. It
was, and is, hardly worth dying over.
And by 'media,' I mean all media. Consider what our beloved Tucker Carlson had
to say , speaking at the beginning of his show on the very first day after the protest:
Political violence begets political violence. That is an iron law that never changes. We
have to be against that, no matter who commits the violence or under what pretext, no matter
how many self-interested demagogues assure us the violence is justified or necessary. We have
a duty to oppose all of this, not simply because political violence kills other people's
children, but because in the end it doesn't work.
No good person will live a happier life because [Ashli Babbitt] was killed in a hallway of
the Capitol today. So our only option, as a practical matter, is to fix what is causing this
in the first place. You may have nothing in common with the people on the other side of the
country -- increasingly, you probably don't -- but you're stuck with them. The idea that
groups of Americans will somehow break off into separate peaceful nations of like-minded
citizens is a fantasy. That will not happen. There is no such thing as 'peaceful separation';
there never has been, and there won't be.
The two hemispheres of this country are inseparably intertwined, like conjoined twins.
Neither can leave without killing the other. As horrifying as this moment is, we have no
option but to make it better, to gut it out.
The entry of the Capitol building was spontaneous. Nobody saw it coming.
In the immediate aftermath, the media didn't know whether to promote it or bury it. It
took hours and days for the narrative to coalesce on orders from the top.
As it was happening, the media was gob-smacked. The 'insurrection' narrative didn't truly
get going until the protest was long over.
It's real tiresome to do this but people need to be reminded that Ziocorporate conman
fraud Trump and his MAGA brand are a product of the same lot that governs the Democrats, and
that he was never on his constituency's side:
And it's necessary because if there's a chance to unite even a small group of people after
realising how they're being had, then there's a chance for a small change to snowball into
something larger. And it should not stay on the white side of the divide, it's not like the
plandemic's been killing the economy for whites only. No "populist anti-Deep State patriot"
or national leader goes around endorsing other countries' politicians, much less Israel's,
the purest manifestation of corporate bankster power acting in unison with neocolonial
globalism, a trait shared by Biden and Trump.
Actions should be peaceful, because entities like the Pentagon and CIA have an absolute
monopoly on violent repression...
One Christian fellow I listened to said that Antifa were definitely there. He took video
of them walking down the street. That just proves to me that even Antifa knew they were no
threat, otherwise they wouldn't have been mingling among thousands and thousands of Trump
supporters.
The fellow said that from what he could see, the Trump protesters were unarmed, well
behaved, smiling, and content with waving their flags. He said they are proud patriots and
would never think of destroying art work or smashing up the Capitol Building.
He said on the 15 to 20 previous trips he's made to the Capitol Building, the pop-up metal
barriers have always been up, but no barriers were up on January 6th. He said on a previous
trip he had stepped onto the grass to take a picture and was quickly told by an officer to
"get off the grass". But on January 6th, the sidewalks were blocked off, forcing people onto
the grass.
We've seen the video of what looks to be an Antifa member breaking a window, only to be
stopped by a Trump supporter.
No, these were salt of the earth people who were no threat to Antifa OR the spineless
politicians. They knew this, but they've played it up for all it's worth.
Amazon includes a couple accurate blurbs on the product description page:
This short book is wicked, truthful, and entertaining. The author, after outlining a
step-by-step procedure for bringing about a coup, analyzes modern (post–Second World
War) coups, and points out why some succeeded and others failed. ( New Yorker )
An extraordinarily competent and well-written work, displaying very wide knowledge of
the ways in which coups, both successful and unsuccessful, have actually been organized. (
Times Literary Supplement )
You don't do a "coup" by invading the congressional discussion bunker in a nominal
democracy. You do a "coup" by ordering up CIA-organized troops to take over communication
centers as checkpoints secured by APCs go up everywhere as congresscritters are frogmarched
to a nearby stadium. The CEOs and salaried Wokers of the social meedja companies would swear
enthusiastic allegiance to the new powers. Antifa would be issued clean shirts, ties and
government-approved truncheons. Then a grand proclamation that there will be a convention to
work towards national unity. Ooops, that last part actually happened.
If there had been a coup, it would 100% evident.
If there had been fair elections, it would 100% evident.
The event was, variously, a "coup," an "insurrection," or at minimum, "a riot." Protesters
were "right-wing extremists" and even "domestic terrorists" who were attacking "the very
basis of American democracy."
A coup?
An insurrection?
Attacking the very basis of American democracy?
The only reason the crowd was there in the first place was to protest against the people
committing those crimes through election fraud. Hopefully at least the crowd has figured out
that the Republicans and Trump are not on their side...
Jazzhand McFeels of https://therightstuff.biz/ has written a very interesting
article on Dissident Mag about some sudden changes in the administration that could explain
this thing.
If the attack on the Capitol was already so clumsy and ineffective, how could those same
people succeed in the much more difficult task of seccession?
You're assuming that the phony attack was planned by the people who would be involved in a
secession movement. I haven't seen any evidence that it was.
Cui Bono? The Key to 6 January is what did NOT happen. The two houses of congress had gone
off to hear, separately, in public broadcast, evidence from objecting congressmen that there
was massive electoral fraud to criminally deliver the election to Biden. MSM transmitted the
opening statements to the debate by McConnell and Schumer. These two said that there was no
election fraud. MSM then pulled away when the other congressmen started presenting the view
that there WAS fraud. Although MSM was not going to carry what the people are not supposed to
know, and filled in instead with their own propagandists and the Party Line, the proceedings
examining election fraud would have been seen by some of the public through the internet
streams and C-Span. This was clear evidence which the courts should have heard, but refused to
hear. BUT, instead of Congress publicly hearing evidence, the hearings abruptly STOPPED. Why?
The Capitol police, following instructions, opened the barricades and waved the demonstrators
to come in. The demonstrators were guided to the spot where the Deep State assassin was
waiting. A person was shot. After that, there were NO MORE discussions of election fraud. Biden
was confirmed without the airing of evidence of fraud. 6 January was a simple, but elegant,
Deep State SETUP. A psyop. The American people have been, once again, deceived. Once everybody
submits to vaccination there will never again be disputed elections, just like in the third
world.
Correction: The media said that the policeman "collapsed when he got back to the Precinct.
.that he MAY have been hit with a fire extinguisher." It was not reported as fact. No other
subsequent report abouthow he died albeit it should have been established by now.
The second poilce officer who the media says was "killed" by the "riots" was a man who we
heard nothing about on the date of the event, but who, five days later, committed suicide. The
suicide story is not speculation. It was given as a fact. They call this suicide a "killing"
because of the riots. It is more likely a police officer shooting his mouth off about these
lies,who, five days later was suicided.
This summer and fall at least a dozen police officers were killed. Many more were injured.
One got his eye knocked out. Many were very gravely injured. The government officials applauded
their killers, posted bail for them, and every step of the way government officials "incited
the violence".
Trump made a speech in front of his supporters laying out the evidence of the election
fraud. He was complaining about the election fraud, a fraud that was never scutinized or
investigated by anyone except his own lawyers and a few other lawyers, like Sidney Powell. They
want to impeach him for publicly complaining about their stealing the election from him. It's
like someone getting their home stolen, and when the victim publicly complains, he is
threatened with arrest.
Again, they fundament their impeachment grounds on the "insurrection" of January 6, but
again, like the election fraud, no one has scrutinized or conducted the most cursory
investigation of it The fact that we still don't know how that policeman died is telling. The
speculations made about him getting hit by a fire extinguisher are still floating around when
at this point, it should be an established fact how he died. The dopiest doctor in this country
would be able to diagnose a trauma to the head or body, if there were any physical trauma of
that kind.
Two people died from natural causes. Yet, no details are given. One woman, age 34 and
overweight was said to have been "trampled by the mob." Minutes after her death her family and
closest friends were bad mouthing her, saying that she was mentally unstable, a conspiracy
theorist, and "had problems in the past." She just died shortly before, and that was their
public statements about their dearest friend and family member.
Ashli Babbits death was a provocative act that would have encouraged Trump supporters to
turn on the police. It is no coincidence that those around her breaking windows, and screaming
that she was dead when she was not, also provoked the crowds of Trump supporters. They are seen
clearly on the video near Ashli not only breaking windows but changing their clothes after they
had done so to hide their identification. This is clearly seen on the video. One guy provoking
the crowds, breaking windows and screaming that Ashli was dead when she was not, was clearly
Antifa, proven to be Antifa by video evidence. Yet, after January 6, he was interviewed by CNN.
Clearly, the Antifa provocateur was not arrested by the Washington police or the FBI, but at
least 6 Trump supporters were arrested for breaking curfew after 6 p.m. when all that happened
at the Capitol was over. Those six were the first arrested – for breaking curfew. I do
not find it a coincidence that both Ashli Babbitt and those breaking the windows around her,
and screaming that she was dead when she was not, all acted to provoke the crowds and were all
proven to be Antifa members. Was it coincidence that Ashli Babbitt's getting shot also acted as
an unwitting provocateur, along with the Antifa members around her in the Capitol that day? Or
was both Ashli and Antifa working for our security agencies that day, all playing their roles
as agents provocateurs.
Why wouldn't the DOJ and FBI investigate the election fraud? Was it because the government
did it? That would be a good reason not to investigate. Sidney Powell has produced an affidavit
from a Serb who said it was the CIA who oversaw the manipulation of the US voting machines from
Serbia, a country completely taken over by the CIA. He also writes about Hunter Biden's
clandestine trip there in August 2020 to meet with these people.
Whoever didn't develop a sense of humor with your Ziocorporate fraud reality TV show
president posing as patriot anti-deep maverick ain't gonna do it now.
Yes, the coup and insurrection had ALREADY happened.
The coup and insurrection happened when the Democrats AND Republicans rigged the election.
Democratic state courts and election officials changed voting laws, and Republican state
legislatures looked the other way.
You are wrong on so many counts. The event was not spontaneous, that is quite clear when the
guards let the protesters in and they mostly went inside peacefully while a handful of rioters
did minimal damage. Some Antifas, yeah, for sure. But someone stole Pelosi's computer or did
they? That smacks of a plan. It achieved the objectives of the groups on the inside. The
marchers that went inside had to have been, for the most part, surprised that they were
welcomed. Did you see how they walked in between the purple ropes? Took photographs and
selfies, some of these with the guards? Did you see the videos of some of the protesters
stopping the people trying to break the glass windows? ...
I see "anti-Semitism" has made it to the floor during these impeachment hearings. LMAO. I
would guess that 97% of Trump's base is the muh Israel crowd and Trump is as pro-Israel,
pro-Jewish as it gets.
Even more laughable is Maxine Waters standing up and decrying violence. I guess Maxine has a
very selective memory. All these demsheviks and the gay guys over at CNN who had no problem
with Antifa/BLM are now staunch advocates for the Constitution and have a problem with riots.
How in the hell do these cretins live with themselves? Have these hypocrites no shame? It can't
be said enuff that Antifa/BLM's and (((the leftoids))) fingerprints are all over these riots.
This is the new 9-11, folks, don't believe your lying eyes. Look at some of those scraggly
people busting windows and attacking cops? Do they look like the average Trump voter? Do these
young punks scaling the walls look like the average Trump voter?
The democratic party is now pretending to "call out" the "white supremacists" in Congress.
Even if there were "white supremacists" in Congress, they would be not one bit different from
"brown supremacists", "black supremacists","yellow supremaicsts", if by "supremacists" is meant
politicians that belong to the Hispanic caucus, Black caucus or Asian caucus , ALL of whom
claim to be looking out for the welfare of their respective group.
This is of course what is going on here. The democratic party politicians, Pelosi, Schumer,
Biden and the whole left has been race baiting against white people as a default manner of
doing politics for over sixty years now. It is the fault of the FAUX REPUBLICAN PARTY, that has
been posing as conservatives who many whites believe "have their backs", against the hate and
shenanigans the anti-white left perpetrates. THEY ARE WRONG. We see plainly now, that what the
U.S. has is a uni-party, that is left and far left and includes good old Republican RINO's, but
the left and far left is used by the elite to keep and gain control of the U.S. for their own
agenda. The idea now operating is to belittle, denigrate and cow white folks as never before,
because many of the protesters at the recent "event", scared the living bleep out of the
politicians who have simply not been representing them. The corporations and tech moguls,etc.
are not taking the side of the left because they are "better" citizens or politicians than
people on the right side of the political spectrum. They take the side of the left because that
is where these corporations know that the radical Americans are, the ones that burn, loot and
murder and therefore can be used to divide the nation for the big corporations and tech
moguls,etc. Any honest person that considers what happened at the so called violent
demonstration in D.C. knows that compared to the violence that ANTIFA, BLM and other groups
perpertrated on innocent Americans last summer, knows perfectly well that there is no
comparison. The anti-white left, enabled by the democratic party and the news media, IN SERVICE
OF THE U.S. ELITE. BURNED, LOOTED AND MURDERED THE CITIZENS OF AMERICA for months, WITHOUT A
SINGLE WORD FROM PELOSI, SCHUMER, BIDEN HARRIS, ETC.
The simple fact is that these D.C. politicians were scared shitless by some plain American
citizens, who finally felt they needed to meet these representatives that keep ignoring and
abusing them. The wrong people are being blamed here.
Before reading this article, the reader might consider the fact that there was NO COUP, by
the accepted meaning that the word "coup" denotes. Now, if the fake news media and the
democratic party want to explain the event by bending the facts and actual events to fit their
own interpretation of it, that's a problem due to their dishonesty.
FoxNews finally showed its true face during the election steal when it declared that
Trump had lost the election long before any evidence in support of this thesis
materialized.
For those that paid attention to Fox News, especially daytime and weekend Fox News its
true face has been obvious for some time.
It is now abundantly clear that with a few exceptions (notably Tucker Carlson), FoxNews
is very much on the same page as CNN and the rest of them.
While Carlson is not the worst on Fox News he is not a friend. His obsession with the
China bad narrative is over the top. He is playing the GOP Inc side of the Deep State
coin.
The A block last night was Carlson reiterating over and over, that he and Fox News were
against violence like that at the Capitol. He stated that violence from the left was also
wrong but that violence from the right was not the answer of course like most articles on
this blog, he didn't say what the answer was.
"... I have, for some time, been mis-naming the Nomenklatura as the Politburo, with the commune being the many tentacled international banking cartel. ..."
FoxNews finally showed its true face during the election steal when it declared that Trump
had lost the election long before any evidence in support of this thesis materialized. It is
now abundantly clear that with a few exceptions (notably Tucker Carlson), FoxNews is very much
on the same page as CNN and the rest of them. So what just happened and what is taking place
now?
Americans have been brainwashed into calling things they don't like, or don't understand, as
"Socialist" or even "Marxist". The sad reality is that most Americans sincerely believe that
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders are "socialists", and when they see modern movies
ridiculously filled with "minorities" and gender fluid freaks – this is a case of
"cultural Marxism" (a totally meaningless term, by the way!). This is all utter nonsense,
neither Marxism nor Socialism have anything to do with BLM, Antifa, Nancy Pelosi or Chuck
Schumer (in fact, Marxism places a premium on real law and order!). I can't take the time and
space here to discuss Marxism, but I do believe that there is one analytical tool which we can
borrow from Marxist thought to try to make sense of what just happened in the USA. Let's begin
by asking a simple question:
If "the mob" did not win, who did?
Most certainly not the abstract concept of "law and order". For one thing, it is now
abundantly clear that some cops deliberately let a (rather small) subset of protestors not only
across police lines but even inside the Capitol Building itself. That is not exactly law and
order, now is it? Furthermore, it is now also clear that Ashli Babbitt was very deliberately
shot by an (apparently black) cop who was then quickly hidden away from sight by the
authorities. Not exactly law and order either.
Neither did the abstract concept of "democracy" win anything that day. Many protesters were
recorded saying that the Capitol building belonged to the people, not to the people working in
it on behalf of the people. They are right. But even if we accept the notion that those who
entered the building were trespassing, the massive crackdown on free speech which immediately
followed the events at the Capitol is a clear sign that "democracy" did not win that day. More
about that later.
So who won?
Well, look who is celebrating and who is now demanding that punitive and even repressive
measures be taken against Trump supporters:
here
and
here ) The Russia-hating Lobby Antifa/BLM/etc The many freaks of nature leading
various "minorities" Big Tech megacorporations a la Google and Amazon
The list is longer, of course, and it includes pretty much all the folks afflicted with the
now famous Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).
Our list looks like a cocktail of very different actors, but is that really the case?
I submit that if we look closely at this list of possible "winners" we can quickly see that
we are dealing with a single social category /group whose "diversity" is only apparent.
Here is what all these groups have in common:
They are numerically small, definitely a
minority They are very wealthy They are very close to the real centers of power They share the
same narcissistic (Neocon) ideology of self-worship They are driven by the same hate-based
ideology of revenge They don't care about the people of the USA They want to dismantle the US
Constitutional order
On the basis of these common characteristics, I believe that we can speak about a social
class united by a common ideology .
Now, of course, in the plutocratic oligarchy (which the United States in reality is), the
notion of "class" has been declared heretical and it has been replaced by identity politics
– the best way for a ruling class to (a) hide behind a fake illusion of pluralism and (b)
to divide the people and rule over them.
I have already written about what I consider to be a US version of the Soviet Nomenklatura , a
special ruling class which was official in the (comparatively much more honest) Soviet system
but which is always hidden from sight by the rulers of the United States.
The actual word we use are not that important: Nomenklatura , class, caste,
establishment, powers that be, deep state, etc. – they all approximate the reality of a
small gang of self-declared "elites" (as opposed to the "deplorables") ruling with total
impunity and no checks and balances mitigating their de facto dictatorship. Some
well-intentioned people began speaking about the "1%" – which is not bad, even if the
actual figure is even smaller than just one percent. Others used "Wall Street" (as in the
"occupy WS" movement), again – not a bad attempt to describe the problem. Whatever the
terms you chose, what is certain is that this entity has what Marx would call a " class
consciousness " which produces a single " class ideology " characterized by an
extremely strong sense of "us versus them" .
By the way, while I disagree with any notion that the US Nomenklatura is Marxist or
Socialist in any way, I very much agree that these "elites" are displaying an ideological
zeal very similar to what Trotskysts or Nazis typically exhibit, especially when confronted
with the "deplorables" or, like FoxNews says, the "mob" (the Polish word " bydło " – cattle
– very accurately renders this contempt for the masses).
In fact, they see us all as their "class enemy" . And they are quite correct, by the
way.
Their ideology is messianic, racist, violent and hate filled while the members of this US
Nomenklatura see themselves as the cream of the crop, the "chosen people", whose
"destiny" is to rule over the "dark and primitive" "mob".
This contempt for the "mob" is something which self-described "liberals" always try to
conceal, but which always comes out, be it in 1917 Russia or in 2021 USA. There is a weird
logic to this, by the way. It goes something like this: " we are clearly superior to the
plebes, yet these plebes seem to reject that notion, these plebes are therefore a "dark mob"
which absolutely needs to be strictly ruled by us ". The underlying assumption is that
plebes are dangerous, they can always riot and threaten "us". Hence the need for a police
state. QED.
We all remember how the Clinton gang was mega-super-sure that Hillary would easily defeat
Trump. And just to make darn sure that the US "plebes" don't do anything stupid, the US legacy
corporate ziomedia engaged in probably the most hysterical candidate bashing propaganda
operation in history only to find out that the "deplorables" did not vote as they were told to,
they voted for "Trump The New Hitler" instead.
What a truly unforgivable affront of these serfs against the masters which God, or Manifest
Destiny, placed above them!
And just as their pseudo-liberal colleagues from the past, the US liberals decided that this
vote was a slap in their face which, of course, is quite correct (I still believe that most
votes for Trump where not votes for Trump, but votes against Hillary); it was, so to speak, a
gigantic "f**k you!" from the revolting serfs against their masters. And class consciousness
told the US Nomenklatura that this was an anti-masters pogrom , a US "
Jacquerie "
if you wish. This "revolt of the serfs" had to be put down, immediately, and it was: Trump
caved to the Neocons in less than a month (when he betrayed General Flynn) and ever since the
US Nomenklatura has been using Trump as a disposable President who would do all
the crazy nonsense imaginable to please Israel, and who would then be disposed off. And yet it
is now quite clear that the US "deplorables" voted for the "wrong" candidate again! Hence the
need for a (very poorly concealed) "election steal" followed by a "test of loyalty" (you better
side with us, or else ) which eventually resulted in the situation we have today.
What is that situation exactly?
Simply put, this time the USNomenklaturahas truly achieved total
power. Not only do they control all three of the official branches of government, they now
also fully control the 4th one, the "media space", courtesy of the US tech giants which now are
openly silencing anybody who disagrees with the One And Only Official Truth As Represented By
The Propaganda Outlets. This is the very first time in recent US history that a small cabal of
"deep insiders" have achieved such total control of all the real instruments of power. The bad
news is that they know that they are a small minority and they realize that they need to act
fast to secure their hold on power. But for that they needed a pretext.
It is hardly surprising that after successfully pulling off the 9/11 false flag
operation, the USNomenklaturahad no problems whatsoever pulling off the
"Capitol" false flag.
Think about it: the legally organized and scheduled protest of Trump supporters was
announced at least a week before it had to take place. How hard was it for those in charge of
security to make sure that the protesters stay in one specific location? At the very least,
those in charge of security could have done what Lukashenko eventually did in Mink: place
military and police forces around all the important symbolic buildings and monuments and say
"you are welcome to protest, but don't even think of trying to take over any government
property" (that approach worked much better than beating up protesters, which Lukashenko
initially had tried). Yet what we saw was the exact opposite: in DC protesters were invited
across police lines by cops. Not only that, but even those protesters which did enter the
Capitol were, apparently, not violent enough, so it had to be one of the cops to shoot an
unarmed and clearly non-dangerous woman, thereby providing the "sacrificial victim" needed to
justify the hysterics about "violence" and "rule of law".
And the worst part is that it worked, even Trump ended up condemning the "violence" and
denouncing those who, according to Trump, did not represent the people.
The hard truth is much simpler: the "stop the steal" protestors did not commit any real
violence! Yes, they broke some furniture, had some fights with cops (who initially were
inviting people in, only to then violently turn against them with batons, pepper sprays and
flash-bang grenades). Some reports say that one cop was hit by a fire extinguisher. If true,
that would be a case of assault with a deadly weapon (under US law any object capable of being
used to kill can be considered a deadly weapon when used for that purpose). But considering the
nonstop hysteria about guns, the NRA and "armed militias", this was clearly not a planned
murder. Finally, a few people died, apparently from natural causes, possibly made worse by the
people trampling over each other. In other words, the Trump supporters did not kill anybody
deliberately, at most they can be accused of creating the circumstances which resulted in
manslaughter. That was not murder. Not even close. Want to see what a planned murder looks
like? Just look at the footage of the Ashli Babbitt murder by some kind of armed official. That
is real murder, and it was committed by a armed official. So which side is most guilty of
violating laws and regulations?
Furthermore, no moral value can be respected unless it is universally and equally applied.
Which, considering that the US deep state has engaged in a full year of wanton mass violence
against hundreds of innocent US citizens makes it unbelievably hypocritical for the US liberals
to denounce "the mob" now. Frankly, the way I see it, all the US liberals should now "take a
knee" before the pro-Trump protestors and declare that this was a "mostly peaceful" event
which, objectively speaking, it was .
Won't happen. I know.
What will happen next is going to be a vicious crackdown on free speech in all its
forms . In fact, and just to use a Marxist notion, what comes next is class warfare
.
We have all seen Pelosi and the rest of them demanding that Trump either be removed by Pence
and the Cabinet (25th A.), or they will unleash another impeachment. First, if impeached, Trump
won't be able to run in 2024 (which the liberals fully realize is a major risk for them). But
even more important, is to humiliate him, make him pay, show him once and for all "who is
boss"! These people thrive on revenge and victory is never enough to appease them, they simply
hate anybody who dares oppose them and they want to make an example of any and every serf who
dares to disobey them. That is why they always send "messages", no matter how inchoate: they
want to bully all the deplorables on the planet into total subservience.
But they won't stop with just Trump. Oh no! They will also go after all those serfs who
dared defy this Nomenklatura and who objected to the wholesale repudiation of the US
Constitution. For example, in a truly Orwellian move, the NY State Bar now wants to disbar
Giuliani for acting as Trump's lawyer (not a joke, check here ). Which,
considering that Trump already lost several lawyers to such tactics should not come as a
surprise to anybody: apparently, in the "new 2021 Woke-USA", some are more entitled to legal
representation than others.
Don't expect the ACLU to protest, by the way – equal protection under the law is not a
topic of interest to them. Here are a few screenshots take off their website , so see for yourself.
Clearly, the priority for the folks at the ACLU is to destroy Trump and anybody daring to
take up his defense.
One one hand, this is truly an absolute disaster, because when the US ruling
Nomenklatura agrees to drop any past pretenses of objectivity, or even decency, things
will definitely get ugly. On the other hand, however, this immense "coming out" of the US
Nomenklatura is, of course, unsustainable (just look at history, every time these folks
thought that they had crushed the "plebes", the latter ended up rising and showing their
supposed "masters" to the door; this will happen here too).
Last, but not least, let's keep another crucial thing in mind: even if you absolutely hate
Trump, you really should realize that it is not just "the vote" which was stolen, it was the
entire US Constitutional order . While we often focus on the SCOTUS, we should not remember
the many lower courts which showed a total absence of courage or dignity and which caved in to
the hysterical demands of the US Nomenklatura . It is impossible to have a country under
the rule of law when the courts shy away from their obligation to uphold the said rule of law
and, instead, place political expediency above the letter and spirit of the law.
Furthermore, when concepts such as "legal" and "illegal" lose any objective meaning, how can
any action be considered illegal or punishable?
Here is, just as an example, the Oath of Office taken by all Supreme Court Justices:
(emphasis added)
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect
to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich , and that I will
faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE]
under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
And this is what each member of the US Armed Forces swears: (emphasis added)
"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ; that
I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the
President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to
regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God)."
It does not take a genius to figure out that the SCOTUS is now in the hands of a small cabal
of people who clearly are "domestic enemies" of the US Constitution.
Finally, here is what the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence states: (emphasis
added)
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it , and to institute new Government, laying its foundation
on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely
to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a
long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
I don't think that there is any need to further beat this dead horse and I will simply
summarize it as so:
The regime which will soon replace the Trump Administration is an illegal occupation
government, with strong ties to foreign interests (and I don't mean China or Russia here!),
which all those who served in the US military have taken an oath to oppose; this is precisely
the kind of occupation regime which the Founding Fathers foresaw in their Declaration of
Independence . Furthermore, the rule of law has clearly collapsed, at least on the
federal level, this should give the states more freedom of movement to resist the decrees of
this new regime (at least those states still willing and able to resist, I think of TX and FL
here). The leaders of this US Nomenklatura understand this, at least on some level, and we
should expect no decency from them; neither should we expect any mercy. Revenge is what
fuels these ideology- and hate-filled people who loathe and fear all the rest of humanity
because nobody is willing to worship them as our "lords and masters ". But this is also
the beginning of their end.
Conclusion: now we are all Palestinians!
True, no "mob" won on the Capitol, unless we refer to the (disgraced, hated and useless)
Congress as "the mob". And, of course, neither did "the people" or the protesters. The only
real winner in this entire operation was the US deep state and the US Nomenklatura . But
they did not win any war, only the opening battle of a war which will be much longer than what
they imagine in their ignorance.
I have said it many times, Trump really destroyed the USA externally, in terms of world
politics. The Dems have done the same thing, only internally. For example, Trump is the one who
most arrogantly ignored the rule of law in international affairs, but it was the Dems who
destroyed the rule of law inside the USA. It was Trump who with his antics and narcissistic
threats urbi et orbi who destroyed any credibility left for the USA as a country (or
even of the the AngloZionist Empire as a whole), but it was the Dems who really decided to
sabotage the very political system which allowed them to seize power in the first place.
What comes next is the illegal rule of an illegitimate regime which came to power by
violence (BLM, Antifa, Capitol false flag). This will be a Soviet-style gerontocracy with
senile figureheads pretending to be in power (think Biden vs Chernenko here). Looking at the
old, Obama-era, names which are circulated now for future Cabinet positions, we can bet on two
things: the new rulers will be as evil as they will be grossly incompetent, mostly due to their
crass lack of education (even Nuland and Psaki are back, it appears!). The Biden admin will be
similar to the rule of Kerensky in "democratic" Russia: chaos, violence, lots and lots of
speeches and total social and economic chaos. The next crucial, and even frightening, question
now is: what will replace this US version of a Kerensky regime?
It is way too early to reply to this question, but we should at least begin to think about
it, lest we be completely caught off guard.
But until then, "domestic terrorism" will, once again, become the boogeyman we will be told
to fear. And, as all good boys and girls know, the best way to deal with such a horrible
"domestic terrorism" threat is to dismantle the First and Second Amendments of the
Constitution. Having corrupt kangaroo courts on all levels, from the small claims level to the
Supreme court, will greatly help in this endeavor. Of course, there will be resistance from the
deplorables who still love their country and their Constitution.
But no matter how long this takes (might be decades) and how violent this confrontation
becomes (and, it will, if only because the regime vitally needs more false flags to survive!),
what will happen with this occupation regime is what happened to all of them throughout history
(could that be the reason why history is not taught anymore?).
As the Russian poet and bard, Vladimir Vissotski, wrote " it is impossible to trample
upon souls with boots " (сапогами
не вытоптать
душу). Now we are all Palestinians. And we, like they, will win!
"Americans have been brainwashed into calling things they don't like, or don't understand,
as "Socialist" or even "Marxist". The sad reality is that most Americans sincerely believe
that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders are "socialists", and when they see modern
movies ridiculously filled with "minorities" and gender fluid freaks – this is a case
of "cultural Marxism" (a totally meaningless term, by the way!). This is all utter nonsense,
neither Marxism nor Socialism have anything to do with BLM, Antifa, Nancy Pelosi or Chuck
Schumer (in fact, Marxism places a premium on real law and order!)."
"class" has been declared heretical and it has been replaced by identity politics
– the best way for a ruling class to (a) hide behind a fake illusion of pluralism and
(b) to divide the people and rule over them
It's a neat bait and switch scheme, identity being substituted for class. Billionaires can
now be hailed as people's champions by instituting 'gender-fluid' toilets and forcing their
peons to kneel. Who knows how much force they'll be willing to use against the deplorables
but probably it would know no limit. The shock and awe unleashed against foreign countries
could now be instituted domestically with things like the Phoenix Program being tried here,
among other things. Anything but relinquish power.
The old war-lovers are coming back in. Although he was considered belligerent the new
regime will be worse. War is probably part of the future agenda. Solidifying it's grip upon
the domestic population may be the precursor to embarking upon an unpopular and certain to be
costly war against Iran or perhaps even some clash with Russia.
From the I Ching: "Large ambitions coupled with meager talent will seldom escape
disaster."
The fervid machinations of the current crop of "self"-glorifying wannabes will not, as The
Saker reminds us here, be any exception to the rule, either. They're hardly the first bunch
of feckless opportunists to take a run at "full spectrum dominance" .aiming to trap Life
Herownself within the suffocating CONfines of their own little nut'shell.
The rampant insanity symptomatic of their virulent "self"-sickness, as it runs its
inevitable course, looks like being somewhat more than usually trying for the rest of us,
though .given all the electro-mechanical and institutional enhancement available to them, for
intensifying the degenerative effects of their folly. At the same time, our best response
will be just what we all know is always organically and in all Ways imperative for our Kind,
anyhow. All our precious attention is best devoted to taking care of the Earth and each
other. Our unconditional affection is best lavished on this Living Creation, all our
Relations, and The Great Spirit whose gift it is.
It is an Oligarchy of bond holders. I'm using the word bond as an stand-in for debt
instruments, or any sort of claim on productivity. Bond/Bondage/Debt are all closely related
concepts.
The entire Western World is inter-connected double-entry balance sheets.
One side of the balance sheet is "assets" and the other is "liabilities." One person's
liability is another persons asset.
It is best to view the western world as a balance sheet, especially as private bank credit
is the dominant money type of the west. Private banking and debt spreading has metastasized
like a cancer, and is now consuming the host. Debt instruments and finance paper are being
serviced in the finance sector with QE and 'CARES' act shenanigan's, which pays these finance
"assets."
If you want to call the bond holders in finance and elsewhere as a nomenklatura, go ahead
– but it obscures reality. These people are a class, a class of usurers, who are
"taking" wealth in sordid ways by gaming the system.
All through history, plutocracy has arisen out of the population because debts were not
annulled, or land was enclosed.
Oligarchs of various types are harvesting the world through various means, including the
growth of debt claims. These claims grow exponentially, and outside of nature's ability to
pay. The derivative bubble wants to be paid. What cannot go on, will not.
The balance sheet is not really balanced, one side (the debt instrument holder) is making
exponential claims on debtors.
Moritz Hinsch from Berlin collected what Socrates (470-399 BC) and other Athenians wrote
about debt, and the conference's organizer, Prof. John Weisweiler, presented the new view
of late imperial Rome as being still a long way from outright serfdom. The 99 Percent
were squeezed, but "the economy" grew – in a way that concentrated growth in the
hands of the One Percent . In due course this bred popular resentment that spread in
the form of debtor revolts, not only in the Roman Empire but that of Iran as well, leading
to religious reforms to limit the charging of interest and self-indulgent greed in
general.
By now Nazi references are getting thread-bare. We actually need to examine how the
national socialists operated because their situation is analogous to today.
I very much agree that these "elites" are displaying an ideological zeal very similar to
what Trotskysts or Nazis typically exhibit
National Socialism arose as a reaction to finance capitalism's excesses. The very things
we are seeing today, were present in Weimar Germany. The country was being bought up, and the
people were being denied their birthright. Self-indulgent greed of an arising Oligarchy was
smashed by the National Socialists to then re-balance German civilization.
Nazi zeal restoring civilizational balance is quite something different than leftist
bolshevism.
I have, for some time, been mis-naming the Nomenklatura as the Politburo, with the
commune being the many tentacled international banking cartel. It's the same crowd that
funded the original Bolsheviks.
IMO they are only "Neo" by virtue of the old ones having died, but I'm not going to split
hairs. We all know it is those whose loyalty is to a shitty little country on the
Mediterranean.
@Anonymous ties
extract, which makes politicians whores for their donor class. The donor class is the
"holders of debt instruments" as I explained earlier. Or, they can be part of the military
industrial complex, to then whore for more taxpayer dollars. In all cases it is for self
aggrandizement. By the same reasoning, press-titutes are whores for their paymasters.
The easy money is taken in by usury or other sordid schemes; then donated/recycled into
politicians, to then keep the game going. Average laboring people don't have this surplus
wealth to donate.
@84:
As sometimes said: don't sweat the small stuff.
This "We are all Taiwanese now" stunt is Pompeo's act of petty spite for getting outfoxed in
the Hong Kong colour revolution play.
Empire's useful idiots were let loose to trash the hapless city, fired up by the Western
propaganda machinery.
Now Beijing is putting the stock on those pompous minions with the National Security Law, and
their foreign masters can't do nuffin' except squeal human rights and apply some nuisance
sanctions.
The West fails because it looks at China through ideological lenses and sees Communists, who
can fall back on 5000 years of statecraft to push back at interlopers.
Beijing's moves can be likened to two classic strategies.
1. Zhuge Liang fools the enemy to fire all their arrows at straw men, which become ammunition
against them.
2. The Empty City strategy. Invaders take over an ostensibly abandoned city, only to be
trapped inside.
Global Times is cantankerous and sometimes risible, but even a broken clock is right, twice a
day.
So when it says that crossing Beijing's red line on the Taiwan issue is not in the island's
best interests, the incoming BiMala administration should take note.
"It's the height of hypocrisy for people who claim to be the champions of rights for women
to deny the very biological existence of women," former Democratic presidential candidate
Tulsi Gabbard, who just might be the last Democrat in DC with a functioning brain, told
Tucker Carlson. "Instead of doing something that could actually help save people's lives,
they are choosing instead to say 'You can't say mother or father.'"
I would ask for an 'Amen!' at this point, but, thanks to the clown work of lawmaker
Emanuel Cleaver, who ended his congressional prayer opening of the very unsexy 117th
Congress with the words "amen and awoman," even that simple gender-free term (which simply
means 'so be it') is now tainted with foul political intrigue.
With these sort of unforgivable stunts under the belt, the Democrats should be very
grateful they have perfected the art of 'winning' elections, otherwise they would probably
vanish from the political landscape simply out of lack of doing anything positive for the
nation. Indeed, the term 'Democrat' may be on the way out faster than that of 'male' and
'female.'
Definitely staged event, whether the protestors knew or didn't. Going forward, I'm
switching to Signal from WhatsApp and viber, have to rethink my use of Gmail as well. Don't
use faceborg or Jill Dorsey's twat. Enough is enough!
It's what I said would happen in the other thread:
Watching the spectacle from a far a couple of things stand out for me.
This event has really put the fear of God into the DC political class. When you see the
photos of the politicians during this event you see real fear. I bet not one of them ever
thought that the people would be so fed up with the DC political class that they would
storm the Capitol to show their frustration. Such behaviour was simply un-American. It was
things you saw on TV happening in far away places. Never would such scenes ever happen in
the good ole' USA.
The second thing that stands out for me is that the American people have reached their
wits end with the political class and are prepared to do what no-one ever thought they
would do. Storm the Capitol! Disorganised as it was. What can they achieve with real
organisation!
So now the people realise they have power in a collective and this power has put the
fear of God in the people they despise. This has truly been a transformative event both for
the political class and both for the people.
You can see this fear in the hysterical way the DC political class has reacted to this
event. I don't think this hysteria is fake. I think it is quite real. They are so desperate
to regain control of the "narrative" that they are flooding this forum (as pointed out
eloquently by William Gruff, and no doubt many other forums) with sock puppets to denounce
anyone who disagrees with the establishment view.
This hysteria is going to lead to an over reaction which will in turn spur these people
not just to lob a Molotov cocktail (politically speaking) at the DC political class but to
become one themselves.
There is nothing so dangerous as a person with nothing to lose and nothing so fearful as
a man with everything to lose.
How it will play out I don't know, but the old normal has been shattered.
That the USA is a single-party with two branches that play "good cop, bad cop" already
is consensus among serious historians, sociologists, political scientists etc. The news
here is that this system won't change with Biden.
The Vandal sack of Rome of 455 CE was a completely different scenario. By that time,
Rome had only symbolic importance to the Empire, and already was at an advanced stage of
economic decay. Indeed, that's the main factor that differentiates the High from the Late
Empire: the end of Italic hegemony, and the economic rise of the Eastern cities (Nicomedia,
Antioch, Constantinople, Nicephorum etc.). Or, on a second thought, is it? Is the USA in
really such advanced stage of economic decline? Only time will tell.
One last observation is that people usually confuse change with revolution. A given
society doesn't need to go through any revolution in order to change itself. On the
contrary: societal change is always happening, as we talk. What makes revolutions special
is the fact that the previously exploited class becomes the dominant class; they turn the
society upside down (hence the name).
But even a society that avoids any revolution will still change and eventually
degenerate and die. Personally, I like prof. Moniz Bandeira's "Mutazione dello Stato",
literally "mutation of the State", which describes a situation where the contradictions of
society (development of the productive forces and the relations of production) continues to
develop without a revolutionary situation or scenario. In this case, the USA is
"mutating".
We've been in this environment since 911. It's been one continual project, not something
new being being imposed. It's a continual tightening of society, including the
Pandemic.
It's all been allowed to happen for an obvious agenda of compliance and control. From
'riots' of BLM/Antifa to the 'insurrection' of Trumpeteers, the point is to narrow accepted
thought - to manufacture consent, which is much easier with an un or misinformed populace.
A social credit system is coming to the west - call it the Karen Revolution.
Democracy is not an option, and never has been. Time to network with slow-mail and smoke
signals, because as an organizing principle beyond sales and marketing, the internet's days
are numbered.
Yes, the only difference is that one side, the deplorables, are speaking truth to power.
The other side is conviently putting its head in the sand right now and begging for more
federal overreach.
I have tried to explain over the past while, that what we are seeing in the US is an
ongoing coup, This is a coup against the US people by the US corporate and financial
oligarchs. Clearly, they are benefiting by not simply enriching themselves at taxpayers
expense, but securing their own criminal amoral behaviour through the supression of human
rights and what is left of the freedom of speech in the US. This is accelaerating
exponentially and has been going on long before Trump came on the scene.
Avoid paying attention to the distractions, and keep your eye on the ball.
Stealing the election. Trying to remove Trump from office, with two weeks to go, and
'erase' him from the internet (and politics and whatelse?). Turning the U.S. into a
de-facto police state. And the rush to do this all very quickly.
This smacks of desperation.
What are their Dems (rather their Deep State and 'Globalist' bosses) afraid of?
I have tried to explain over the past while, that what we are seeing in the US is an
ongoing coup, This is a coup against the US people by the US corporate and financial
oligarchs. Clearly, they are benefiting by not simply enriching themselves at taxpayers
expense, but securing their own criminal amoral behaviour through the supression of human
rights and what is left of the freedom of speech in the US. This is accelaerating
exponentially and has been going on long before Trump came on the scene.
Avoid paying attention to the distractions, and keep your eye on the ball.
Actually Tucker Carlson is one of those people and props to the guy for telling us working
class Whites what "our elite white leader trash" have always thought about us. Of course
Tucker won't dare mention the Jew, but at least he clues us in on white traitor trash that
claim to be superior by avoid being seen near chain restaurants and hotels.
Of course we KNOW that the Jew and his elite shabbos goy only think of the common Black
and Brown foot soldiers as pets as well, these cats are the real Supremacists. These
(((elitists))) will dump the Black and Brown grunts for the Yellow ones, believe that as
well.
US Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is calling out her party for pushing through a
new code of conduct that essentially denies women exist by requiring gender-neutral language in
Congressional rules.
"It's the height of hypocrisy for people who claim to be the champions of rights for
women to deny the very biological existence of women," Gabbard said on Monday night in an
interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
New guidelines introduced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday and passed Monday by
Congress in a party-line vote endeavor to "honor all gender identities" by making all
pronouns and references to familial relationships gender-neutral. For instance, "seamen"
has been changed to "seafarers," and House rules have been scrubbed of such words as
"father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister.""Aunt" and "uncle" will be
replaced by "parent's sibling." Lawmakers also must inculcate such words as
"parent-in-law,""stepsibling" and "sibling's child" to replace
"mother-in-law,""stepsister" and "niece.""He" or "she" references to House
members are instead "such member,""delegate" or "resident commissioner."
"It's mind-blowing because it shows just how out of touch with reality and the struggles
of everyday Americans people in Congress are," Gabbard said. "Also, their first act as
this new Congress could have been to make sure that elderly Americans are able to get the COVID
vaccine now , but instead of doing something that could actually help save people's lives,
they're choosing instead to say, 'Well, you can't say mother of father in any of this
congressional language.' It's astounding."
Congress also has made permanent its Office of Diversity and now requires all committees to
discuss in their oversight plans how they will address "inequities on the basis of race,
color, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, age or
national origin." Committees also must "survey the diversity of witness panels at
committee hearings to ensure we are hearing from diverse groups of experts as we craft
legislation."
Gabbard has run afoul of Democratic Party orthodoxy repeatedly in the past two years,
opposing the impeachment of President Donald Trump, speaking out against election fraud,
opposing regime-change wars and blasting the controversial Netflix movie 'Cuties' as "
child porn ." She
embarrassed party favorite Kamala Harris, now vice president-elect, in a Democrat presidential
debate in 2019, and the Iraq War veteran called former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the
" queen of warmongers
" after Clinton suggested that she's a Russian asset.
Gabbard, who didn't seek a new term in Congress, was attacked as a "transphobe" and
"bigot" after introducing a bill last month to limit participation in women's sports to
biological females. The movement to "deny the existence of biological women – it
defies common sense, it defies basic, established science, it just doesn't make any sense,"
she told Carlson on Monday.
"No wonder they called you a Russian spy," Carlson replied. "It's dangerous to
have you in the Democratic Party. I'm sorry you're leaving [Congress]."
Republicans praised Gabbard's latest contradiction of Democrat talking points. "Can we
please trade Mitt Romney for her?" one Twitter user asked. Brazilian entrepreneur Daniel
Gonzalez called her "the best Democrat since JFK."
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) was among the many Republicans who
opposed Pelosi's rules changes. "This is stupid," he said. "Signed, a father, son and
brother."
"... It is difficult to know or to ensure that the ballots are actual ballots from registered voters. For example in the early hours of the morning of November 4 large ballot drops occurred in Michigan and Wisconsin that wiped out Trump's lead. State officials have reported that people not registered -- probably illegals -- were permitted to vote. Postal service workers have reported being ordered to backdate ballots that suddenly appeared in the middle of the night after the deadline. These techniques were used to erase Trump's substantial leads in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia. ..."
"... Digital technology has also made it easy to alter vote counts. US Air Force General Thomas McInerney is familiar with this technology. He says it was developed by the National Security Agency in order to interfere in foreign elections, but now is in the hands of the CIA and was used to defeat Trump. Trump is considered to be an enemy of the military/security complex because of his wish to normalize relations with Russia, thus taking away the enemy that justifies the CIA's budget and power. ..."
"... The military/security complex favors the disunity that the Democrat Party and media have fostered with their ideology of Identity Politics. ..."
"... I would take it a little further and say that voting by mail is a method of vote fraud. The supposed safeguards are easily circumvented, as some whistleblowers have illustrated with ballots being brought forth in large numbers after election day without postmarks and postal workers being ordered to stamp them with acceptable postmarks. ..."
"... Eisenhower is always lauded for his MIC warning. Frankly he ticks me off. Thanks for the warning AFTER you were in some position to mitigate. ..."
"... the most likely source of fraud that is hard to detect, is ballot harvesting. This should be outlawed as it violates the idea of a secret ballot. Somebody comes to the home of a disinterested voter and makes sure he votes (of course they will never admit to hounding the person) and "helps" them with the ballot. If the voter cannot be cajoled into voting the correct way, you merely throw his ballot in the trash. ..."
"... Living in an urban setting I often had to visit apartment buildings. Without fail, there was always a pile of undeliverable mail in the lobby under the mailboxes. ..."
"... His farewell address was just flapdoodle; it wasn't really dredged up till the 70s. Eisenhower spent eight years spreading tripwires and mines and then said "Watch out." Thanks buddy. ..."
"... As the German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte revealed in his book, Bought Journalism, the European and US media speak with one voice -- the voice of the CIA. The very profitable and powerful US military/security complex needs foreign enemies. ..."
"... inventive creative new ways to deceive.. first it was election machines, then mail in votes. ..."
"... The phrase "there's no evidence" is just a public commitment to ignore any evidence, no matter how blatant or obvious. ..."
"... Paper ballots as ascribed by Tulsi Gabbard legislation is the only safe option for elections. Kudos to Tulsi! ..."
"... Everyone knew about the potential for voter fraud to occur, but the entire system is corrupt, including Trump who has allowed the massive corruption within the system that was present when he entered office to persist and grow because he is a wimpy, spineless, coward, that was too afraid to make any waves and take the heat that he promised his voters. ..."
"... Why anyone voted for Trump in 2020 confounds me. I voted for him in 2016 and he has turned out to be one of the worst presidents in history. ..."
"... Trump in his cowardess and dishonesty knew that the ailing economy would harm his chances of being re-elected, so he allowed the health scare scamdemic to occur and destroy the livelihoods, lives, and businesses of hundreds of millions of Americans because he is a psychopath. Trump did not do what he promised. Trump made America worse than it has ever been since the end of slavery. ..."
"... Trump has also demanded the extradition of Assange after telling his voters that he loved wikileaks. Trump is a two-faced, lying, fraud. It has been his pattern. He consistently supports various groups and people like Wikileaks, Proud Boys, and others and panders to them and voters and tells people that he loves them, and then every time without fail when the heat is on, Trump says," I really don't know anything about them." ..."
"... "I know nothing." Trump saying "I know nothing." defines his presidency and who he is as a person, a spineless, pandering, corrupt, two-faced, narcissist, loser, and wimp! ..."
A few months ago it looked like the re-election of Trump was almost certain, but now there was a close race between Trump
and Biden? What happen during the last months?
In the months before the election, the Democrats used the "Covid pandemic" to put in place voting by mail. The argument was used
that people who safely go to supermarkets and restaurants could catch Covid if they stood in voting lines. Never before used on a
large scale, voting by mail is subject to massive vote fraud.
There are many credible reports of organized vote fraud committed by Democrats. The only question is whether the Republican establishment
will support challenging the documented fraud or whether Trump will be pressured to concede in order to protect the reputation of
American Democracy.
It is difficult to know or to ensure that the ballots are actual ballots from registered voters. For example in the early
hours of the morning of November 4 large ballot drops occurred in Michigan and Wisconsin that wiped out Trump's lead. State officials
have reported that people not registered -- probably illegals -- were permitted to vote. Postal service workers have reported being
ordered to backdate ballots that suddenly appeared in the middle of the night after the deadline. These techniques were used to erase
Trump's substantial leads in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.
Digital technology has also made it easy to alter vote counts. US Air Force General Thomas McInerney is familiar with this
technology. He says it was developed by the National Security Agency in order to interfere in foreign elections, but now is in the
hands of the CIA and was used to defeat Trump. Trump is considered to be an enemy of the military/security complex because of his
wish to normalize relations with Russia, thus taking away the enemy that justifies the CIA's budget and power.
People do not understand. They think an election has been held when in fact what has occurred is that massive vote fraud has been
used to effect a revolution against red state white America. Leaders of the revolution, such as Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
are demanding a list of Trump supporters who are "to be held accountable." Calls are being made for the arrest of Tucker Carlson,
the only mainstream journalist who supported President Trump.
In a recent column I wrote:
"Think what it means that the entirety of the US media, allegedly the 'watchdogs of democracy,' are openly involved in participating
in the theft of a presidential election.
"Think what it means that a large number of Democrat public and election officials are openly involved in the theft of a presidential
election.
"It means that the United States is split irredeemably. The hatred for white people that has been cultivated for many years,
portraying white Americans as "systemic racists," together with the Democrats' lust for power and money, has destroyed national
unity. The consequence will be the replacement of rules with force."
Mainstream media in Europe claim, that Trump had "divided" the United States. But isn`t it actually the other way around,
that his opponents have divided the country?
As the German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte revealed in his book, Bought Journalism , the European and US media speak with
one voice -- the voice of the CIA. The very profitable and powerful US military/security complex needs foreign enemies. Russiagate
was a CIA/FBI successful effort to block Trump from reducing tensions with Russia. In 1961 in his last address to the American people
President Dwight Eisenhower warned that the growing power of the military/industrial complex was a threat to American democracy.
We ignored his warning and now have security agencies more powerful than the President.
The military/security complex favors the disunity that the Democrat Party and media have fostered with their ideology of Identity
Politics. Identity politics replaced Marxist class war with race and gender war. White people, and especially white heterosexual
males, are the new oppressor class. This ideology causes race and gender disunity and prevents any unified opposition to the security
agencies ability to impose its agendas by controlling explanations. Opposition to Trump cemented the alliance between Democrats,
media, and the Deep State.
It is possible that the courts will decide who will be sworn into office at January 20, 2021. Do you except a phase of uncertainty
or even a constitutional crisis?
There is no doubt that numerous irregularities indicate that the election was stolen and that the ground was well laid in advance.
Trump intends to challenge the obvious theft. However, his challenges will be rejected in Democrat ruled states, as they were part
of the theft and will not indict themselves. This means Trump and his attorneys will have to have constitutional grounds for taking
their cases to the federal Supreme Court. The Republicans have a majority on the Court, but the Court is not always partisan.
Republicans tend to be more patriotic than Democrats, who denounce America as racist, fascist, sexist, imperialist. This patriotism
makes Republicans impotent when it comes to political warfare that could adversely affect America's reputation. The inclination of
Republicans is for Trump to protect America's reputation by conceding the election. Republicans fear the impact on America's reputation
of having it revealed that America's other major party plotted to steal a presidental election.
Red state Americans, on the other hand, have no such fear. They understand that they are the targets of the Democrats, having
been defined by Democrats as "racist white supremacist Trump deplorables."
The introduction of a report of the Heritage Foundation states that "the United States has a long and unfortunate history
of election fraud". Are the 2020 presidential elections another inglorious chapter in this long history?
This time the fraud is not local as in the past. It is the result of a well organized national effort to get rid of a president
that the Establishment does not accept.
Somehow you get the impression that in the USA – as in many European countries democracy is just a facade – or am I wrong?
You are correct. Trump is the first non-establishment president who became President without being vetted by the Establishment
since Ronald Reagan. Trump was able to be elected only because the Establishment thought he had no chance and took no measures to
prevent his election. A number of studies have concluded that in the US the people, despite democracy and voting, have zero input
into public policy.
Democracy cannot work in America because the money of the elite prevails. American democracy is organized in order to prevent
the people from having a voice. A political campaign is expensive. The money for candidates comes from interest groups, such as defense
contractors, Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the Israel Lobby. Consequently, the winning candidate is indebted to his funders,
and these are the people whom he serves.
European mainstream media are portraying Biden as a luminous figure. Should Biden become president, what can be expected
in terms of foreign and security policy, especially in regard to China, Russia and the Middle East? I mean, the deep state and the
military-industrial complex remain surely nearly unchanged.
Biden will be a puppet, one unlikely to be long in office. His obvious mental confusion will be used either to rule through him
or to remove him on grounds of mental incompetence. No one wants the nuclear button in the hands of a president who doesn't know
which day of the week it is or where he is.
The military/security complex needs enemies for its power and profit and will be certain to retain the list of desirable foreign
enemies -- Russia, Iran, China, and any independent-inclined country in Latin America. Being at war is also a way of distracting
the people of the war against their liberties.
What the military/security complex might not appreciate is that among its Democrat allies there are some, such as Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are ideological revolutionaries. Having demonized red state America and got rid of Trump (assuming
the electoral fraud is not overturned by the courts), Ocasio-Cortez and her allies intend to revolutionize the Democrat Party and
make it a non-establishment force. In her mind white people are the Establishment, which we already see from her demands for a list
of Trump supporters to be punished.
I think I'm not wrong in assuming that a Biden-presidency would mean more identity politics, more political correctness
etc. for the USA. How do you see this?
Identity politics turns races and genders against one another. As white people -- "systemic racists" -- are defined as the oppressor
class, white people are not protected from hate speech and hate crimes. Anything can be said or done to a white American and it is
not considered politically incorrect.
With Trump and his supporters demonized, under Democrat rule the transition of white Americans into second or third class citizens
will be completed.
How do you access Trump's first term in office? Where was he successful and where he failed?
Trump spent his entire term in office fighting off fake accusations -- Russiagate, Impeachgate, failure to bomb Russia for paying
Taliban to kill American occupiers of Afghanistan, causing Covid by not wearing a mask, and so on and on.
That Trump survived all the false charges shows that he is a real person, a powerful character. Who else could have survived what
Trump has been subjected to by the Establishment and their media prostitutes. In the United States the media is known as "presstitutes"
-- press prostitutes. That is what Udo Ulfkotte says they are in Europe. As a former Wall Street Journal editor, I say with complete
confidence that there is no one in the American media today I would have hired. The total absence of integrity in the Western media
is sufficient indication that the West is doomed.
Never before used on a large scale, voting by mail is subject to massive vote fraud.
I would take it a little further and say that voting by mail is a method of vote fraud. The supposed safeguards are easily
circumvented, as some whistleblowers have illustrated with ballots being brought forth in large numbers after election day without
postmarks and postal workers being ordered to stamp them with acceptable postmarks.
It really seems to me that there would be no democrat majorities in Congress or in so many state legislatures without vote
fraud.
Worse than the fraud available with vote by mail is the voting of people normally who don't bother to vote. Think of how stupid
and uninformed that average American voter is. Now realize how much more stupid and uninformed the non-voter is, only now he votes.
However, the most likely source of fraud that is hard to detect, is ballot harvesting. This should be outlawed as it violates
the idea of a secret ballot. Somebody comes to the home of a disinterested voter and makes sure he votes (of course they will
never admit to hounding the person) and "helps" them with the ballot. If the voter cannot be cajoled into voting the correct way,
you merely throw his ballot in the trash.
I have little doubt that there have been massive "irregularities", particularly in the so-called battleground states, that
are at play in "stealing" the election.
...The favourite phrase these days is "no evidence of wide spread voter fraud". Let's break that down. Only 6 states have been
challenged for vote fraud. In the big scheme of things, 6 states is not wide spread, even if there is massive vote fraud within
those 6 states. That the vote fraud is not widespread, implies that some vote fraud is acceptable, and that the listener should
ignore it. Last and most importantly, in the narrowest of legalistic terms, testimony or affidavits are not evidence. Testimony
and affidavits become evidence when supported by physical evidence. An affidavit with a photograph demonstrating the statement
would be evidence.
Another phrase is something like "election officials say they have seen no evidence of voter fraud". I have yet to hear a reporter
challenge the "seen no evidence of " part of the statement, regardless of the subject, by asking if the speaker had looked for
any evidence. They won't, because they know damn well no one has.
That is how the liars operate. Not so different from Rumsfeld's "plausible deniability".
Living in an urban setting I often had to visit apartment buildings. Without fail, there was always a pile of undeliverable
mail in the lobby under the mailboxes.
The envelopes were mostly addressed to people who had moved out or died. If ballots were sent to these people based on incorrect
voter rolls, then these too would likely have been left sitting on the floor or on a ledge for anyone to take.
It doesn't take a leap of faith to know what a Trump-hating leftist would do when no one is looking. This moral hazard was
intentionally created by Dems, who know that urban dwellers are transient and lean left politically.
Eisenhower is always lauded for his MIC warning. Frankly he ticks me off. Thanks for the warning AFTER you were in some
position to mitigate.
Ike's a mystery. Why did he NOT question Harry Truman's commitments to NATO, the UN, and all that rubbish? Ike was a WWII guy.
He knew Americans hated the UN in 1953 as much as they hated the League of Nations after WWI. But he let it all slide and get
bigger.
His farewell address was just flapdoodle; it wasn't really dredged up till the 70s. Eisenhower spent eight years spreading
tripwires and mines and then said "Watch out." Thanks buddy.
Well, agree on your points however, on the other side of the ledger, he never understood the stupidity of the Korean war (that
he could have ended) and majorly up-ramped CIA activities in all manner of regime change (bay of pigs anyone?). Almost a direct
path to our foreign policy now (and now domestic policy)
He did deploy the military assistance advisory group to Vietnam in 1955. This is considered the beginning of U.S. involvement
in the war. This allowed the French to moonwalk out the back door leaving us holding the bag. In fairness this was Johnson's war
however. Eisenhower did cut the military budget as a peace dividend to fund interstate system and other domestic projects. In
today political spectrum he would be considered a flaming liberal.
As the German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte revealed in his book, Bought Journalism, the European and US media speak
with one voice -- the voice of the CIA. The very profitable and powerful US military/security complex needs foreign enemies.
What intrigues me is the ultimate political goal of the UN and the WEF when they anticipate a single global government centered
at the UN and the absence of nation-states.
So what is the MIC going to do when there are no existential threats of competing nation-states? Or will the MIC re-engineer
religious wars between the various religious groups, secular and theological? It seems the aspirations of the WEF and its fellow
travellers preclude the occurrence of future armed conflicts.
Of course one needs capitalistic economies to produce the ordnance and materiels for the engineered social factions to war
with each other. Yet if the Greens have their way, there will be no mining period.
More likely is the possibility that none of them actually understand what they are doing. As Nassim Taleb is alleged to have
remarked, 99% of humans are stupid.
The total absence of integrity in the Western media is sufficient indication that the West is doomed.
It's because Western media is completely under the control of Jews, the world's foremost End Justifies Means people. The Fourth
Estate has become the world's most powerful Bully Pulpit. There are still a few good ones though, brave souls they are: Kim Strassel
of WSJ, Daniel Larison of The American Conservative , Neil Munro of Breitbart.
The rest are more or less lying scums, including everyone on NYTimes, WSJ, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, MSNBC, Fox News (minus
Tucker Carlson and Maria Bartiromo), The Economist , and let's not forget the new media: Google, Facebook, Twitter. The
world would be a much better place without any of them.
@Beavertales
-- with either vote flipping on machines or having the totals that paper ballot scanners tabulate adjust via a pre-programmed
algorithm. Many elections have already been stolen this way.
Nancy Pelosi claims that Biden's victory gives the Democrats a "MANDATE" to alter the economy as they see fit with 50.5%.
This proves that Biden will NOT represent everyone – only the left! I have warned that this has been their agenda from day one.
Now, three whistleblowers from the Democratic software company Dominion Voting Systems, alleging that the company's software stole
38 million votes from Trump. There are people claiming that Dominion Voting Systems is linked to Soros, Dianae Finesteing, Clintons,
and Pelosi's husband. I cannot verify any of these allegations so far.
We are at the Rubicon. Civil War is on the other side. There should NEVER be this type of drastic change to the economy
from Capitalism to Marxism on 50.5% of the popular vote. NOBODY should be able to restructure the government and the economy on
less than 2/3rds of the majority. That would be a mandate. Trying to change everything with a claim of 50.5% of the vote will
only signal, like the Dread Scot decision, that there is no solution by rule of law. This is the end of civilization and it will
turn ugly from here because there is no middle ground anymore. As I have warned, historically the left will never tolerate opposition.
Yes, the theft is blatant. But what are you, us, going to do about it? We really can't do much as the Office of the President
Elect requires us to wear masks. For our safety.
"in the narrowest of legalistic terms, testimony or affidavits are not evidence. Testimony and affidavits become evidence when
supported by physical evidence. " Correct – but they also can become evidence by verbal testimony. ie "I saw the defendant hit
the victim with a rock"
Not only have they stolen the election but when Joe Biden and other democrats claim that President Trump caused the deaths
of hundreds of thousands of Americans because of his handling of Covid 19, they are in sane. No world leader could stop the spread
of this respiratory virus. However, Joe Biden and democrats have caused the deaths of hundreds of white people, while whipping
up weak minded people to kill many whites. Biden and the democrats are criminals. Any one who is white, man or woman, that supports
the democratic party is enabling a criminal organization to perpetrate violence on white people, including murder.
Since the article was from a German magazine it's understandable that there is no mention of "the one who shall not be named".
No mention of the people behind the Lawfare group, the same people behind the impeachment, the same people providing financial
and ideological support for the BLM/Antifa, the same people that own the media that spewed lies for 5 years and censored any mention
of the Biden family corruption, no mention of the people behind this Color Revolution, the same people who promoted the mail in
voting and those that managed the narrative for the media on election night to stop Trump's momentum.
For the public consumption the election will be described in vague terms, like this article, blaming special interests and
institutions like the FBI, CIA and MIC without naming names as if an institution, not the oligarchs and chosen pulling the strings,
are somehow Marxist, anti-white or anti-Christian.
The interviewer quotes the Heritage Foundation does anyone even care what they say? The English Tavistock Institute by way
of the CIA which the British molded from the OSS created programs for the Heritage Foundation as well as the Hoover Institute,
MIT, Stanford University, Wharton, Rand etc. These "rightwing think tanks" were created to counter the CIA's "leftwing think tanks"
at Columbia, Berkeley etc. Thank you British Intelligence.
Steve Bannon was just interviewing someone (can't remember his name). Apparently there are about 200 to 300 IT professionals/engineers
working on these so-called "glitches" (not glitches at all) which mysteriously "disappeared" thousands of Trump votes. Then they'd
dump phony Biden votes into the mix. These IT professionals are going to follow the trail.
I've also heard that Dominion Voting Systems played a big part in this scam by using algorithms. One Trump lawyer said that
big revelations are coming.
We're going to have to be patient and just wait.
"The inclination of Republicans is for Trump to protect America's reputation by conceding the election."
I honestly think it's more like the old established Republicans (corporate bought) want Trump to lose because that is what
their campaign donors want (Big Pharma, Wall Street, etc.) They are part of the elite, and the elite (both the Democrats AND Republicans)
want Trump gone so they can continue their crony capitalist looting. They've got to appear like they're behind Trump, but I don't
think they are. Of course, that's not all Republican representatives.
Sounds like they've been rigging elections for awhile now. I bet they just messed up with Hillary. I think that's why she was
so upset. She had it, but they screwed up and didn't supply enough ballots.
@KenHinventive creative new ways to deceive.. first it was election machines, then mail in votes. next it will be magic carpet
voting. But the votes don't count, cause it is the electoral college that elects the President.
Trump also lost a significant number who did not understand Trump was an Israeli at heart, they thought he was a uncoothed
NYC red blooded American.
As far as white, black or pokadot color or any of the religions ganging up against Trump I don't think that happened, the fall
out into statistically discoverable categories is just that, fall out, not those categories conspiring to vote or not vote one
way or the other.
PCR seems to have trouble seeing a difference between the counting of perfectly proper votes which Pres Trump's post office
delivered late which may or may not be allowed by law which can be determined in court, and fraud like the dead voting or votes
being forged.
The fraud is all so transparent but no one in the power elite seems to give a crap whether the public catches on or not these
days. They know that the entire media which creates the false matrix of contrived "truth" that we all live in will back them to
the hilt because they are actually just one more working part in the grand conspiracy. We all know that when "O'Brian" says 2
+ 2 equals 5 we must all believe it, or at least say we do. We interface with "O'Brian's" minions on a daily basis but we don't
know the ultimate identity of "O'Brian" (in the singular or multiple). Many guesses are made, but they hide that from us fairly
well with the aid of their militaries and "intelligence" agencies (aka secret police in other times and places).
For example in the early hours of the morning of November 4 large ballot drops occurred in Michigan and Wisconsin that wiped
out Trump's lead.
In a very similar vein, it is the same thing that happened to Bernie Sanders during the primary's. Joe was down and out, and
Bernie was enjoying the lead and then "Bam!" Overnight Joe is back on top.
Well, fool me once,,,,,, .,and blah, blah whatever Bush said .
Dr Roberts has referenced in the interview a UR article that goes into considerable detail about the massive electoral fraud
by the Democrats and their partners. You've obviously not bothered to read it.
You're like one of those MSM hacks who denies electoral fraud without making any attempt to look at the evidence.
@Begemot
And it's almost always a closer race than anyone would have guessed beforehand -- which I also find suspicious. How likely is
it that the majority of presidential elections over the last century were decided by more or less even numbers of voters from
each party, between more or less evenly matched candidates?
Really seems like they've perfected the art of putting on rigged political shows that you can't quite believe in, but don't
have anything really solid to back up your suspicions. It's like the "no evidence of fraud" canard -- anything solid enough to
show obvious manipulation is explained away as the exception, rather than the tip of a very deep iceberg
Like the false accusations about Russia, delegitimizing the presidential election as fraud is turning out to be much ado
about nothing.
Let's review. The Democrats perpetrated the phony 2016 Russian influence fraud, and now the Democrats are perpetrating the
phony 2020 election victory.
The common elements are Democrats perpetrate fraud.
IMO this is a simple remedy to settle the election fraud mess or we will be arguing about this 20 years from now .from the
American Thinker.
The candidates on the ballot must have an opportunity to have observers whom they choose to oversee the entire process so
the candidates are satisfied that they won or lost a free and fair election.
That is not what happened in the 2020 election. That is the single most important and simple fact that needs to be understood
and communicated. The 2020 election was not a free and fair election, because poll-watchers were not allowed to do their essential
job. The 2020 election can still be a free and fair election with a clear winner, whoever that may be, but time is running
out.
In every instance where poll-watchers were not allowed to observe the process, those votes must be recounted. They must
be recounted with poll-watchers from both sides present. If there are votes that cannot be recounted because the envelops were
discarded, those votes must be discarded. Put the blame for this on the officials who decided to count the votes in secret.
Consider it a way to discourage secret vote counts in the future.
The pandemic has not been fearful enough to close liquor stores, and it in should not be used as excuse to remove the poll-watchers
who are essential to a free and fair election. If we must have social distancing, then use cameras.
Certainly, there are other issues with the 2020 election. There may be problems with software, and there are issues like
signature verification and dead people voting. Everything should be considered and examined, but no other issue should distract
from the simple fact that both sides must be able to view the entire process. If one side is not allowed to view the vote-counting,
then that side should be calling it a fraud. We should all be calling it a fraud.
...Trump had control of the Senate, the House and of course the Executive between his inauguration in January of 2017 and the
Midterm Elections of 2018, a total time period of 1 year and 10 months. What did he do during this time? He deregulated financial
services and passed corporate tax cuts.
At the end of the day, being emotionally invested in US elections is no different to being emotionally invested in Keeping
up with the Kardashians , that is to say your life wouldn't be that different if your don't follow either.
The Democrats Have Stolen the Presidential Election
The Deep State Has Stolen the Presidential Election. FIFY. But they have been in control for decades they just don't care who
knows now. They are taking final steps to make their control impervious to attack.
This is the reason that the establishment latched on to the Eisenhowerian bon mot but entirely memory hole Trumman's
far more explicit warning a freaking month after a sitting president is shot like a turkey in Dallas: it white washes CIA and
NSC .
The place to begin, and it's mind-blowing when you think about it this way, is that nothing was resolved on election night.
Not who will take the oath on January 20th. Nor which party will control the Senate. Nor even who will be Speaker and which party
will control the House.
Suffice it to say, a still raging factional struggle has simply moved to a greater degree behind the curtain.
I noted this movie reference on another thread here:
If your father dies, you'll make the deal, Sonny.
-- "The Godfather"
My point being, you're foolish if you ascribe certainty as to outcome at this point.
Being rid of Trump has been as close to a dues ex machina for the establishment as imaginable since he took the oath. This
ineluctable observation elicits no end of foot-stomping by those who assume it necessarily says anything positive about the man.
With every persistent revision of the script they wrote for him, all ending with his political demise at least, Trump has not
just survived but grown stronger. While the Democrats turned our elections into something only seen in a third-world shit hole,
Trump legitimately drew 71M votes from Americans.
That's a lot of air in the balloon. Believe me, filth like Russian mole Brennan may think everything is finished once they
get rid of terrible, awful Trump, but those above his pay grade know better.
Like him or hate him, Trump is the only principal not wholly or largely discredited. He was saved from destruction during his
first term by the Republican base moving to protect him. That was the import of his 90-95% approval among them, destroy him and
you destroy the Republican Party.
Now, despite -- or perhaps, because of -- everything they've done, that base now includes a significant number of Democrats
and independents. Trump is merely a vessel for an American majority attached to this constitutional republic thingie we've got
going.
Don't get lost in the details. This isn't a puzzle you can solve by internet sleuthing. The plan they executed -- to steal
sufficiently to make the outcome inevitable by the morning after the election at the latest -- failed. This was evident early
on Election Day (e.g. fake water main breaks in Atlanta) and necessitated their playing their Fox/AZ card and shutting down the
count at least until they had removed Republican monitors.
"In 22 states, Republicans will hold unified control over the governor's office and both houses of the legislature, giving
the party wide political latitude -- including in states like Florida and Georgia."
"Eleven states will have divided governments in 2021, unchanged from this year: Democratic governors will need to work with
Republican legislators in eight states, and Republican governors will contend with Democratic lawmakers in three."
The Democrats have: Joe Biden, and a slim majority in the House of Representatives which they are almost certain to lose in
two years.
What the Republicans are going to do is everything we hate, but they will pretend they were "forced" to do it by the Democrats
– the Democrats being the minority party.
Who else could have survived what Trump has been subjected to by the Establishment and their media prostitutes. In the United
States the media is known as "presstitutes" -- press prostitutes. That is what Udo Ulfkotte says they are in Europe.
Left and right.
(What you small brains do not understand is this.)
Democrats enabling the elite to invest in far east (lower wage costs, higher profits) did abandon the working class in America.
Democrats by this act did throw away the working class as a dirty rug.
Democrats with their TPP exporting most of the production to far east would totally destroy working class in USA. Trump's first
act was to cancel this insanity. Democrats are insanely delusional.
Democrats were left. Left is a party that supports the working people.
So here switch occurred. Democratic party now represent the elite, and Republicans now represent the working people.
(The irony of the fate)
The headline for PCR's article is a prediction, not yet established, and incomplete.
There is an ongoing massive attempt to steal the Presidential election as well as to steal an unknown number of House and Senate
seats, and who knows what else.
The 'game' is still on. Many tens of millions of citizens – actual total unknown but possibly in numbers unprecedented in American
history – voted for Trump. Republican candidates for office generally had strong support, but again, the actual percentage of
support is unknown but presumably larger than now 'recorded'.
There are also the many millions who ardently supported Trump, know that Biden is illegitimate, deeply corrupt, and the precursor
to perils unknown. Their determination and backbone and intelligence will now be tested.
There is the electoral college process; there are the state legislators that have a say in the process; there is the Supreme
Court.
There is also the possibility of pertinent executive orders that mandate transparent processes in the face of, say, apprehended
insurrection via fraudulent voting processes.
There is also the matter of how millions of 'deplorables' with trucks and tractors and firearms and other means to make their
point will react to obvious massive election travesty.
The conjunction of the COVID global scamdemic/plandemic, with crazed Bill Gates and kin lurking in the background with needles,
'peaceful' protesters in many cities setting fires and looting with near impunity, and a mass media that is clearly comprehensively
committed to a demonic degree of dishonesty and manipulation, and lunatic levels of 'identity politics' ideology, are among the
elements setting the stage for what may be an historical watershed.
The American Revolution in the 18th century, against the British Crown's authority, came about after years of simmering anger
and sporadic resistance against British injustice. At some point there was a 'tipping point'. When Germany invaded and occupied
Norway early in the 2nd WW, an effective resistance quickly formed in reaction, where death and torture were the known willing
risk. Two years before, those forming the resistance would have been just going on with their lives.
Who's Afraid of an Open Debate? The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the
major party candidates to draft secret agreements about debate arrangements including moderators, debate format and even participants.
Ben Swann explains how the new coalition of EndPartisanship org is working to break the 2 party hold on primary elections,
which currently lock around 50% of voters out of the process.
I am currently watching an interview with SD Governor Kristi Noem, who went on ABC to challenge George Stenopolosus' claim
that there is no fraud in this election. She pointed out that there has been many allegations, including dead people voting in
PA and GA, she says we don't know how widespread this is, but we owe it to the 70+ million people who voted for Trump to investigate
and ensure a clean and fair election. She said we gave Al Gore 37 days to investigate the result in 2000, why aren't we giving
the same to Trump?
She is extremely articulate and sounds intelligent and honest, and what's more courageous to come forward like this. I hope
she runs for president in 2024, I'd vote for her.
Am I the only one who sees something profoundly spiritual happening in front of our eyes?
Yes. In reality, 5% of White men sent Trump packing. That doesn't match the GOP negrophile narrative where "based" Hindustanis
join the emerging conservative coalition to make sure White people can't get affordable healthcare in their own countries, though.
So we'll have to watch you parasites spool up this pedantic "fraud" nonsense until the fat orange zioclown gracelessly gets dragged
out.
Good post. You will gain more insight from this background on the speech and drafting.
Jan 19, 2011 Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial Complex" Speech Origins and Significance US National Archives
President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address, known for its warnings about the growing power of the "military-industrial
complex," was nearly two years in the making. This Inside the Vaults video short follows newly discovered papers revealing that
Eisenhower was deeply involved in crafting the speech.
Great article. Thanks. Agree with you about the big stealing being electronic. Trump tweeted out yesterday that over 2 million
votes were stolen this way. For him to say this, they must have evidence.
Dinesh D'Souza said he hopes that when this matter comes before the Supreme Court that they will tackle once and for all what
constitutes a legal vote.
Some pretty big names are involved with this Dominion Voting. It will be interesting to see what Trump's team of IT experts
discover re the use of algorithms to swing the vote.
Why (Oh, why) did Trump had to go? Because Trump is an enema to the Deep State. He was threatening to expose the biggest lie
of the last 100 years – the supposed "liberalism" of US...
The author refers to a body of overwhelmingly persuasive evidence of voter fraud that can be specified and quantified to provide
proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, not to mention hands down proof in civil cases requiring only a preponderance
of the evidence to establish guilt. Furthermore, the Democrats' easily documented, elaborate efforts at concealing the vote counting
process by shutting down the counting prior to sneaking truckloads of ballots in the back door is by itself powerful circumstantial
evidence of their guilt. You have no idea what "evidence" means, either in general usage or in its strictly legal sense.
The election cannot be trusted at all, just based on the insane entitled emotional state of the Globalist establishment alone.
The system as-a-whole cannot be trusted, for the same reason. They are actively corrupting it in every way they can, and fully
believe (as a matter of religious conviction) that they are right to do so.
That's one of the Jew/Anglo Puritan Establishment's new catch-phrases. There's also "no evidence" that Joe Biden acted in a
corrupt manner in Ukraine, even though he admitted to it on tape. There's "no evidence" that Big Tech is biased against conservative
plebians, despite their removing conservative plebians' published content arbitrarily and with no State compulsion to do so.
The phrase "there's no evidence" is just a public commitment to ignore any evidence, no matter how blatant or obvious.
This newly discovered legal standard goes beyond "preponderance of the evidence" or even "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"
to establish absolute certainty as the standard.
Just the obvious and necessary complement of the Bob Mueller standard for Russian collusion, don't you think -- "could not
(quite) exonerate"? /s
They went for a softer approach in KY in 2019. The first-term Repub Gov had a Yankee's forthrightness so they just latched
onto comments he made regarding the underfunded teachers pension program and amped-it to high heaven getting teachers all in a
frightful frenzy.
In that solidly Red state, with all other prominent offices on the ballot (AG, SoS, etc.) going overwhelmingly Repub
, somehow the Repub Gov loses to the Dem by around 5000 votes. The "teachers pension" narrative was rolled-out as the reason.
(Btw, it seems that Dominion, or another type, software was used to switch the votes in that race. I've seen video about it.)
@Orville
H. Larson out how the winds are blowing. There is nothing good about it.
Why not this:
-- ONLY in-person voting over a 2-day period, a Sat and Sun, with polls being open from 6AM to 9PM both days.
-- Exceptions are the traditional requested absentee ballot where the voter can be authenticated.
-- Paper ballots must be used at the polls and no single box of 'Straight Vote by Party' is offered.
-- Some kind of SIMPLE scanning tabulator could be used of the ballots and with it NOT being connected to the internet.
There is far too much cheating opportunity built into our current system. That's intended, of course. It needs to end!
Because you don't get it. You are missing the big picture. It was well known that these systems had the ability to be hacked
as soon as they were implemented. It is also a well known fact that massive mail in ballots increases the likelihood that corrupt
individuals are more likely to get away with election fraud.
Everyone knew about the potential for voter fraud to occur, but the entire system is corrupt, including Trump who has allowed
the massive corruption within the system that was present when he entered office to persist and grow because he is a wimpy, spineless,
coward, that was too afraid to make any waves and take the heat that he promised his voters.
Why anyone voted for Trump in 2020 confounds me. I voted for him in 2016 and he has turned out to be one of the worst presidents
in history.
Trump in his cowardess and dishonesty knew that the ailing economy would harm his chances of being re-elected, so he allowed
the health scare scamdemic to occur and destroy the livelihoods, lives, and businesses of hundreds of millions of Americans
because he is a psychopath. Trump did not do what he promised. Trump made America worse than it has ever been since the end of
slavery. Jeremy Powell said today that the economy is dead and will never recover.
The only injustices that Trump gave a damn about were the injustices against himself and his family, and has committed countless
injustices against the entire country and world during his term. Trump is a corrupt narcissist. The facts prove it. Trump is such
a corrupt narcissist that he was willing to destroy the entire economy based on scientific fraud, high crimes, and treason to
use as political cover for his own incompetency which is the most offensive and disgusting diabolical act ever perpetrated on
the entire country.
Trump has also demanded the extradition of Assange after telling his voters that he loved wikileaks. Trump is a two-faced,
lying, fraud. It has been his pattern. He consistently supports various groups and people like Wikileaks, Proud Boys, and others
and panders to them and voters and tells people that he loves them, and then every time without fail when the heat is on, Trump
says," I really don't know anything about them."
"I know nothing." Trump saying "I know nothing." defines his presidency and who he is as a person, a spineless, pandering,
corrupt, two-faced, narcissist, loser, and wimp!
Why would anyone vote for him the second time around after a record of pathological incompetency and pathological corruption?
What's to approve of about him? Go ahead, investigate voter fraud it if is permitted, and if it isn't then ask yourselves why
it is that a system that enables election fraud is in place, and ask yourselves who had the ability to change it and, who had
the ability to benefit from it!
"... The Biden administration, staffed with Obama veterans , may be in effect a third Obama term. Biden may seek a détente with China on some issues. But Democratic foreign policy elites as well as Republicans view China more harshly than they did four years ago. The most likely scenario, then, is an attempt to restore Obama's trilateral strategy of building the biggest possible coalition of allies against China. ..."
"... Democratic foreign policy elites are much more Europhile and Russophobic than their Republican counterparts. ..."
Under Barack Obama, the containment of
China -- the "pivot to Asia" -- took the form of what might be called trilateralism, after
the old Trilateral Commission of the 1970s. According to this strategy, while balancing China
militarily, the United States would create trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic trade blocs with
rules favorable to the United States that China would be forced to beg to join in the future.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was intended as an anti-Chinese, American-dominated Pacific
trade bloc, while the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) sought to create a
NATO for trade from which China would be excluded.
Obama's grand strategy collapsed even before the election of 2016. TTIP died, chiefly
because of hostility from European economic interests. In the United States, the fact that the
TPP treaty was little more than a wish-list of giveaways to U.S. finance and pharma interests
and other special-interest lobbies made it so unpopular that both Hillary Clinton and
Trump
renounced it during the 2016 presidential election season.
Trump, like Obama,
sought to contain China , but by unilateral rather than trilateral measures. The Trump
administration emphasized reshoring strategic supply chains like that of steel in the United
States, unwilling to offshore critical supplies even to allies in Asia and Europe and North
America. This break with prior tradition would have been difficult to pull off even under a
popular president who was a good bureaucratic operator, unlike the
erratic and inconsistent Trump.
The Biden administration,
staffed with Obama veterans , may be in effect a third Obama term. Biden may seek a
détente with China on some issues. But Democratic foreign policy elites as well as
Republicans view China more harshly than they did four years ago. The most likely scenario,
then, is an attempt to restore Obama's trilateral strategy of building the biggest possible
coalition of allies against China.
An emphasis by the Biden administration on alliances may succeed in the case of the
U.S.-Japan-Australia-India "Quad" (Quadrilateral alliance). The UK may support America's East
Asian policy as well. But Germany and France, the dominant powers in Europe, view China as a
vast market, not a threat, so Biden will fail if he seeks to repeat Obama's grand strategy of
trilateral containment of China.
Democratic foreign policy elites are much more Europhile and Russophobic than their
Republican counterparts. In part this is a projection of domestic politics. In the
demonology of the Democratic Party, Putin stands for nationalism, social conservatism, and
everything that elite Democrats despise about the "deplorables" in the United States who live
outside of major metro areas and vote for Republicans. The irrational hostility of America's
Democratic establishment extends beyond Russia to socially-conservative democratic governments
in Poland and Hungary, two countries that Biden has denounced as "totalitarian."
In the Middle East, unlike Eastern Europe, a Biden administration is likely to sacrifice
left-liberal ideology to the project of
maximizing American power and consolidating the U.S. military presence, with the help of
autocracies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Any hint of retrenchment will be denounced by the
bipartisan foreign policy establishment that lined up behind Biden, so do not expect an end to
any of the forever wars under Biden. Quite the contrary.
Michael Lind is Professor of Practice at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of the University of
Texas at Austin and the author of The American Way of Strategy. His most recent book is The New
Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite.
The only way really to understand Brexit is as the outcome of a civil war within
capitalism. There are two dominant forms of capitalism. One you could describe as house
trained capitalism. This is corporations and rich people who are prepared to more or less
go along with democracy, as long as democracy doesn't get out of hand and actually
represent the interests of the people, but as long as it's a sort of thin and narrow form
of democracy, they'll go with it. What they want is stability. They want regulations
which protect their market position from rougher and dirtier companies who would
otherwise wipe them out. They're happy with the administrative state.
And then there's another faction who could be described as capitalism's warlords. These
are people who don't want any constraints in their way at all. They see taxation as
illegitimate, they see regulation as illegitimate. In their unguarded moments, they
reveal that they see democracy as illegitimate. People such as Peter Thiel, the guy who
founded PayPal says actually democracy and market freedom are incompatible. The conflict
should be resolved in favor of this thing he calls the market. Τhe market is an
euphemism for the power of money. And they believe that that power should be unmediated,
that it should be able to do whatever it wants without anyone standing in its way. And
they see as their enemy house trained capitalism. And this is really where the power lies
within.
The whole Brexit debate, is on the one side, the august institutions of capitalism,
like the Confederation of British Industry, saying this is terrible, we don't want this
to happen at all. And on the other side, the oligarchs from the City, very powerful
people who are funding dark money think tanks and other lobby groups, saying we want to
clear it all out of the way. In Steve Bannon's words, " we want the deconstruction of
the administrative state ". And it's a second group, the warlords of money who have
won.
First of all, both capitalist factions in this civil war seek the " deconstruction
of the administrative state. " And actually, the administrative state could be
deconstructed much more efficiently through super-national formations like the European Union.
The European Union institutions have been taken over by powerful banking and corporate lobbies.
And these are taking advantage of the legislative power of those institutions in order to
promote more deregulation and destroy the administrative power of nation-states. As the
Corporate Europe Observatory reported
in 2016: Since Jean-Claude Juncker took office as President of the European Commission in November
2014, there has been an even greater deregulation push, not just on specific rules and laws
which should be scrapped, but on how decisions are made about future laws. Under Juncker,
fundamental changes in policy-making are being introduced which will put major obstacles in the
way of new regulations aimed at protecting the environment or improving social conditions.When David Cameron was renegotiating the terms of the UK's membership of the EU with
European Council President Donald Tusk, a greater European emphasis on deregulation was one of
the four priority areas. To pile on the pressure, Cameron and the UK government spearheaded an
appeal from 18 other member states, demanding quantitative targets, meaning that for every new
regulation put in place, a certain number of other regulations should be removed. [...] As
presented here, Cameron and the European Commission – together with big business - share
a common approach on the deregulation agenda.
That's why the "house trained capitalism", as Monbiot describes it, wants the UK to remain
member of the EU. And, in fact, it's rather contradictory to say that this capitalist faction
is "happy with the administrative state" when at the same time supports a super-national
organization whose ultimate goal is to eliminate the administrative power of the
nation-states.
Monbiot describes the pro-Brexit capitalist faction as " capitalism's warlords ... people
who don't want any constraints in their way at all. They see taxation as illegitimate, they see
regulation as illegitimate. In their unguarded moments, they reveal that they see democracy as
illegitimate. " Yet, these are common characteristics with the "house trained capitalism"
faction. That's because both capitalist factions in previous decades were functioning as a
united force through the complete domination of neoliberalism. A domination which was evident
not only in an economic and a political level, but also in a cultural level, especially in the
Western world. And that's why, as we
wrote recently, both the liberal elites and the far right (as representatives of
the capitalist factions), are seeing the real Left as the primary threat which must be dealt at
all costs, after all.
We need to understand that this civil war between the capitalist factions does not come out of
any substantially different ideological or political approach. Essentially, it's only a tough
bargain. Capitalists just pick sides to negotiate terms and secure their position in the
post-capitalist era, which already looks like a kind of 21st century corporate feudalism. Yet,
we would completely agree with Monbiot's remark that " What happens to us, to the citizens
of the UK, is of very little interest. We're just the grass that gets trampled in this civil
war. "
As we already
pointed out , the level of ruthlessness of this capitalist war can also be
identified in the behavior of the US political class against the American people. It's
astonishing that, inside this terrible situation, where thousands die from the pandemic,
millions lose their jobs and live under extreme insecurity, no one is willing to offer
anything. Both Democrats and Republicans have turned the oncoming election into a political
bargain and they don't even try to hide it.
Inside this ruthless capitalist war, people have become almost irrelevant. What only matters
for the political puppets is to secure the interests of the capitalist faction they represent.
The
rampageous bulls of capitalism are fighting each other in an arena in which
democracy has now turned into dust under their violent clatters. Therefore, we would also
certainly agree with Monbiot's conclusion: We need a political economy which is good for the
people, the people who live today, the people of future generations, good for the rest of the
living world and is actually governed by the people themselves. Not by this kind of capitalism
or that kind of capitalism. These corporations or those oligarchs. A democracy which responds
to people not just once every four or five years, but every day, when we have participation as
well as representation. We need a system that transcends both of these warring factions, and
puts the people in charge.
In fact it is exactly like the last civil war englanders had, the local big fish in a
small pond don't want any outsiders making decisions or competing with them.
In 1642 ancestors of the current englander ruling elite became concerned that James
Stuart, then Charles Stuart were not only encouraging types established in that ever so
provincial Scots Court to compete for valuable contracts, they were taking instruction from
some eyetalian in Rome when there was perfectly good advice available from the Archbishop
of Canterbury. They knew that the archbish would give sound advice because they, the
englander elite had selected & promoted him themselves.
The EU is the stuarts with the pope, and england's established hierarchy realised pretty
soon after entry into the old EC that 'johnny foreigner' who they assumed would bow to the
englander elite's superior insight & worth was doing no such thing. Often, they
believed the rejection was just pure spite done out of envy of england's 'success' lol.
Once it became certain that neither the french or the germans would kowtow, the strategy
to extricate england from the eu was begun. Types like johnson the tele's man in Brussels
filled englander media up with lies & beatups - all horror stories about eurocrats
etc.
Why wouldn't the mugs believe this tosh? They had swallowed some fantastic yarns spread
by the media which kept conservative control of england for decades, eu= evil would be no
different and it wasn't.
There are sound reasons for leaving the eu but this brexit business addresses none of
them, if anything it exacerbates things like sweatshop labour as Poles expect pay and
conditions that people in some commonwealth states will not. Plus they will be easier to
control with no 'schengan nonsense' as they'll all be on temporary work visas and can be
sent home if they are troublemakers supporting organised labour or the like.
On Sept. 15, Tucker Carlson brought onto his show Darren Beattie, a former Trump
speechwriter. Beattie explained to viewers that the same networks promoting color revolutions
overseas are now training their sights on President Donald Trump: "What's unfolding before our
eyes is a very specific type of coup called the 'color revolution.' "
Similarly,
Revolver website posted a multi-part series on the color revolution against Trump, with its
Sept. 9 installment taking up Norm Eisen, one of the participants in the Transition Integrity
Project's war gaming of the 2020 election. Eisen was Obama's White House ethics czar and was
hired by the Democratic leadership of the House Judiciary Committee in 2019, where he prepared
ten articles of impeachment against Trump a month before Pelosi announced an official
impeachment inquiry. He himself took part in the impeachment proceedings.
But his involvement in ousting Trump began even before the nomination. Eisen ran Citizens
for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), financed amongst others by George Soros's
Open Society, which partnered with David Brock to put forward a blueprint -- issued before the
inauguration -- for attacking Trump through such means as policing social media, getting tech
companies to censor content (media platforms ... will no longer uncritically and without
consequence host and enrich fake news), impeachment itself, fake news (a steady flow of
damaging information, new revelations), and other techniques.
Eisen co-authored "The Democracy Playbook: Preventing and Reversing Democratic
Backsliding," a Brookings guide to the perplexed seeking to institute policies through frankly
undemocratic means. Eisen named Gene Sharp's From Dictatorship to Democracy as an inspiration
for his document.
Consider another color revolutionary. Michael McFaul, former U.S. Ambassador to Russia
and a supporter of the Ukraine color revolution, realized that "color revolution" was taking on
a negative connotation. In August he tweeted a revised nomenclature: "Autocrats have demonized
the phrase, 'color revolutions.' (& revolution generally has a negative connotation for
many.) Instead, I use the term 'democratic breakthroughs.' "
What kind of democratic breakthrough? Consider McFaul's Sept. 4 tweet:
"Trump has lost the Intelligence Community. He has lost the State Department. He has lost
the military. How can he continue to serve as our Commander in Chief?"
Astute readers will note that neither the IC, State Department, or military appoint the
President, who takes that office by means that are actually democratic -- an election!
Eisen also heads the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group, whose website announces that
it is "a bipartisan and transatlantic platform for discourse and coordination to address
democratic backsliding in Europe." What is "democratic backsliding"? Naturally, it's when the
plebes get uppity and vote for their favored candidates, as in, you know, elections.
"... I'm still stunned that the paper did a study that confirmed what people have suspected, namely that a high cycle threshold used on PCR testing was creating the appearance of a pandemic that might have long receded. The testing mania was generating wild illusions of millions of "asymptomatic" carriers and spreaders. How severe was the problem? Read this and weep ..."
"... up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found. ..."
"... A major reason for the ongoing lockdowns are due to the pouring in of positive case numbers from massive testing. If 90% of these positive tests are false, we have a major problem. The whole basis of the panic disappears. All credit to the Times for running the article but why no follow up and why no change in its editorial stance? ..."
"... I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near total meltdown of normal life -- schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned -- will be long lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself. ..."
"... During the Covid-19 pandemic, the world is unwittingly conducting what amounts to the largest immunological experiment in history on our own children. We have been keeping children inside, relentlessly sanitizing their living spaces and their hands and largely isolating them ..."
"... in the course of social distancing to mitigate the spread, we may also be unintentionally inhibiting the proper development of children's immune systems. ..."
"... The psychological effects of loneliness are a health risk comparable with risk obesity or smoking. Anxiety and depression have spiked since lockdown orders went into effect. ..."
The paper of record in 2020 shifted dramatically to the most illiberal stance possible on
the virus, pushing for full lockdowns, and ignoring or burying any information that might
contradict the case for this unprecedented experiment in social and economic control. This
article highlights the exceptions.
...
Even within the blatant and aggressive pro-lockdown bias, and consistent with the way the
New York Times does its work, the paper has not been entirely barren of truth about Covid and
lockdowns. Below I list five times that the news section of the paper, however inadvertently
and however buried deep within the paper, actually told the truth.
I'm still stunned that the paper did a study that confirmed what people have suspected,
namely that a high cycle threshold used on PCR testing was creating the appearance of a
pandemic that might have long receded. The testing mania was generating wild illusions of
millions of "asymptomatic" carriers and spreaders. How severe was the problem? Read this and
weep:
In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in
Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried
barely any virus, a review by The Times found.
On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a
database maintained by The Times . If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New
York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to
isolate and submit to contact tracing.
The implications of this revelation are incredible. A major reason for the ongoing lockdowns
are due to the pouring in of positive case numbers from massive testing. If 90% of these
positive tests are false, we have a major problem. The whole basis of the panic disappears. All
credit to the Times for running the article but why no follow up and why no change in its
editorial stance?
Gone missing this year in public commentary has been much at all about naturally acquired
immunities from the virus, even though the immune system deserves credit for why human kind has
lasted this long even in the presence of pathogens. That the Times ran this piece was another
exception in otherwise exceptionally bad coverage. It said in part:
Scientists who have been monitoring immune responses to the virus are now starting to see
encouraging signs of strong, lasting immunity, even in people who developed only mild
symptoms of Covid-19, a flurry of new studies suggests. Disease-fighting antibodies, as well
as immune cells called B cells and T cells that are capable of recognizing the virus, appear
to persist months after infections have resolved -- an encouraging echo of the body's
enduring response to other viruses .
Researchers
have yet to
find unambiguous evidence that coronavirus reinfections are occurring, especially within
the few months that the virus has been rippling through the human population. The prospect of
immune memory "helps to explain that," Dr. Pepper said.
Data from monkeys suggests that even low levels of antibodies can prevent serious illness
from the virus, if not a re-infection. Even if circulating antibody levels are undetectable,
the body retains the memory of the pathogen. If it crosses paths with the virus again,
balloon-like cells that live in the bone marrow can mass-produce antibodies within hours.
It's still a shock that so many schools closed their doors this year, partly from disease
panic but also from compliance with orders from public health officials. Nothing like this has
happened, and the kids have been brutalized as a result, not to mention the families who found
themselves unable to cope at home. For millions of students, a whole year of schooling is gone.
And they have been taught to treat their fellow human beings as nothing more than disease
vectors. So it was amazing to read this story in the Times :
So far, schools do not seem to be stoking community transmission of the coronavirus,
according to data emerging from random testing in the United States and Britain. Elementary
schools especially seem to seed remarkably few infections.
Byline Karen Yourish, K.K. Rebecca Lai, Danielle Ivory and Mitch Smith
Another strangely missing part of mainstream coverage has been honesty about the risk
gradient in the population. It is admitted even by the World Health Organization that the case
fatality rate for Covid-19 from people under the age of 70 is 0.05%. The serious danger is for
people with low life expectancy and broken immune systems. Knowing that, as we have since
February, we should have expected the need for special protection for nursing homes. It was
incredibly obvious. Instead of doing that, some governors shoved Covid patients into nursing
homes. Astonishing. In any case, the above article (and
this one
too) was one of the few times this year that the Times actually spelled out the many thousands
times risk to the aged and sick as versus the young and healthy.
Notable Opinion
columns
The op-ed page of the paper mirrored the news coverage, with only a handful of exceptions.
Those are noted below.
I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this
near total meltdown of normal life -- schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned --
will be long lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus
itself. The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never will. The
unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will be public health scourges of
the first order.
Worse, I fear our efforts will do little to contain the virus, because we have a
resource-constrained, fragmented, perennially underfunded public health system. Distributing
such limited resources so widely, so shallowly and so haphazardly is a formula for failure.
How certain are you of the best ways to protect your most vulnerable loved ones? How readily
can you get tested?
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the world is unwittingly conducting what amounts to the
largest immunological experiment in history on our own children. We have been keeping
children inside, relentlessly sanitizing their living spaces and their hands and largely
isolating them. In doing so, we have prevented large numbers of them from becoming infected
or transmitting the virus. But in the course of social distancing to mitigate the spread, we
may also be unintentionally inhibiting the proper development of children's immune
systems.
Our mental health suffers, too. The psychological effects of loneliness are a health risk
comparable with risk obesity or smoking. Anxiety and depression have spiked since lockdown
orders went into effect. The weeks immediately following them saw nearly an 18 percent jump
in overdose deaths and, as of last month, more than 40 states had reported increases. One in
four young adults age 18 to 25 reported seriously considering suicide within the 30-day
window of a recent study. Experts fear that suicides may increase; for young Americans, these
concerns are even more acute. Calls to domestic violence hotlines have soared. America's
elderly are dying from the isolation that was meant to keep them safe.
"... "We are more and more disoriented. There is a little good news, but at the same time there are new dimensions to the virus, and new variations that might turn out to be more dangerous. We now have this fake return to normal. The really frustrating thing is this lack of basic orientation. It's the absence of what [the philosopher and literary critic] Fredric Jameson calls 'cognitive mapping' – having a general idea of the situation, where it is moving and so on. Our desire to function requires some kind of clear coordinates, but we simply, to a large extent, don't know where we are." ..."
"... In his book, Zizek recalls the warnings of scientists after the SARS and Ebola epidemics. Persistently, we were told that the outbreak of a new epidemic was only a matter of time, but instead of preparing for the various scenarios we escaped into apocalypse movies. Zizek enumerates different scenarios of looming catastrophes, most of them consequences of the climate crisis, and calls for tough decisions to be made now. ..."
"... he coronavirus crisis is just a dress rehearsal for future problems that await us in the form of global warming, epidemics and other troubles. I don't think this is necessarily a pessimistic view, it's simply realistic. ..."
"... Now is a great time for politics, because the world in its current form is disappearing. Scientists will just tell us, 'If you want to play it safe, keep this level of quarantine,' or whatever. But we have a political decision to make, and we are offered different options." ..."
"... What if we will need another lockdown, even longer? Or multiple lockdowns? It's a sad prospect, but we should get ready to live in some kind of permanent state of emergency. ..."
"... The coronavirus epidemic is a universal crisis. In the long term, states cannot preserve themselves in a safe bubble while the epidemic rages all around ..."
"... It's tragic, I know, that all kinds of big companies are in deep shit, but are they worth saving? ..."
"... My formula is much more brutal, and darker. The state should simply guarantee that nobody actually starves, and perhaps this even needs to be done on an international scale, because otherwise you will get refugees. ..."
"... "I'm talking about what Naomi Klein calls the 'Screen New Deal.' The big technology companies like Google and Microsoft, which enjoy vast government support, will enable people to maintain Telexistence. You undergo a medical examination via the web, you do your job digitally from your apartment, your apartment becomes your world. I find this vision horrific." ..."
"... "First, it's class distinction at its purest. Maybe half the population, not even that, could live in this secluded way, but others will have to ensure that this digital machinery is functioning properly. Today, apart from the old working class, we have a 'welfare working class,' all those caregivers, educators, social workers, farmers. The dream of this program, the Screen New Deal, is that physically, at least, this class of caregivers disappears, they become as invisible as possible. Interaction with them will be increasingly reduced and be digital." ..."
"... "The irony here is that those who are privileged, those who, in this scenario, will be able to live in this perfect, secluded way, will also be totally controlled digitally. Their morning urine will be examined, and so on with every aspect of their life. Take the new analysis capabilities that can test you and provide results [for the coronavirus] in 10-15 minutes. I can imagine a new form of sexuality in this totally isolated world, in which I flirt with someone virtually, and then we say, 'Okay, let's meet in real life and test each other – if we're both negative, we can do it.'" ..."
"... As Julian Assange wrote, we will get a privately controlled combination of Google and something like the NSA ..."
"... Zizek divides workers during the crisis into those who encounter the virus and its consequences as part of their daily reality – medical staff, welfare-service people, farmers, the food industry – and those who are secluded in their homes, for whom the epidemic remains in the realm of the Lacanian spectral and omnipresent. ..."
Slavoj Zizek's 'Brutal, Dark' Formula for Saving the World
The pandemic is liable to worsen, ecological disasters loom and technological surveillance will terminate democracy.
Salvation will come only by reorganizing human society. A conversation with the radical – and anxious – philosopher
Slavoj Zizek
Share in Facebook
Share in Twitter
Send in e-mail
Send
in e-mail
Go to comments
Print article
Zen Read
Open gallery view
Slavoj Zizek.
This is not an easy time for Slavoj Zizek. Quite the opposite, and he's the first to admit it. Reoccurring panic attacks
incapacitate him for hours at a time and, unlike in the past, the nights have stopped providing him with an easy escape.
His sleep is wracked by nightmares of what the future holds for humanity. There are days when he fantasizes about being
infected by the coronavirus. At least, that way all of the uncertainty would come to an end, or so he imagines. Finally, he
would be able to cope with the virus concretely, instead of continuously being haunted by it, as some sort of a spectral
entity.
... ... ...
At age 71, Zizek is currently closeted in his home in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, with his fourth wife, the Slovene
writer and journalist Jela Krecic, who is three decades younger than him. During the past couple of weeks the epidemic
seems to have faded in his country, with only two or three new cases being reported daily. But Zizek, who spoke to Haaretz
via Skype, is in no hurry to breathe a sigh of relief.
Looks like Sidney Powell overplayed her hand with her Hugo Chavez claims and might pay the
price... They also attack her penchant for self-promotion.
This is a solid legal document that attack exaggerations and false claims and as such it puts
Sydney Power on the defensive. But at the same time it opens the possibility to analyze Dominion
machines and see to what extent votes can be manipulated, for example by lowest sensitivity of
the scanner for mail-in ballots and then manually assigning votes to desirable candidate. This
avenue is not excluded.
It also does not address the claim of inherent vulnerabilities of any Windows based computer
used in election, irrespective whether they were produced by Dominion or any other company due to
the known vulnerability of windows OS especially to the intelligence agencies attacks. As
well as the most fundamental question: whether the use of computers in election represents step
forward or the step back in election security? Especially Internet connected voting machines and
centralized tabulation centers deployed in 2020 elections.
So the success here depends whether they can narrow the scope tot ht claims made and avid
discovery of the voting machines themselves.
The weak point is that the letter references the testimony of Chris Krebs, who is a former
Microsoft employee and as such has a conflict of interests in accessing the security of Windows
based election machines produced by Dominion and other companies. Moreover he is now a computer
science processional but a lawyer, who does not has any independent opinion on the subject matter
due to the absence of fundamental CS knowledge required.
Notable quotes:
"... For example, you falsely claimed that Dominion and its software were created in Venezuela for the purpose of rigging elections for the now-deceased Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, that Dominion paid kickbacks to Georgia officials in return for a "no-bid" contract to use Dominion systems in the 2020 election, and that Dominion rigged the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election by manipulating votes, shifting votes, installing and using an algorithm to modify or "weight" votes such that a vote for Biden counted more than a vote for Trump, trashing Trump votes, adding Biden votes, and training election workers to dispose of Trump votes and to add Biden votes. ..."
"... Fifth, you had a financial incentive in making the defamatory accusations. Your own conduct and statements at the press conference, media tour, and on your websites make it clear that you were publicizing your wild accusations as part of a fundraising scheme and in order to drum up additional business and notoriety for yourself. ..."
Sidney Powell Defending the Republic 10130 Northlake Blvd. #214342 West Palm Beach, Florida
34412
Re: Defamatory Falsehoods About Dominion
Dear Ms. Powell:
We represent US Dominion Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Dominion Voting Systems,
Inc. and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation (collectively, "Dominion"). We write regarding
your wild, knowingly baseless, and false accusations about Dominion, which you made on behalf
of the Trump Campaign as part of a coordinated media circus and fundraising scheme featuring
your November 19 press conference in Washington, D.C. and including your "Stop the Steal" rally
and numerous television and radio appearances on -- and statements to -- Fox News, Fox
Business, Newsmax, and the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show, among others.
... ... ...
I. Your reckless disinformation campaign is predicated on lies that have endangered
Dominion's business and the lives of its employees.
Given the sheer volume and ever-expanding set of lies that you have told and are continuing
to tell about Dominion as part of your multi-media disinformation "Kraken" fundraising
campaign, it would be impractical to address every one of your falsehoods in this letter.
Without conceding the truth of any of your claims about Dominion, we write to demand that you
retract your most serious false accusations, which have put Dominion's employees' lives at risk
and caused enormous harm to the company.
For example, you falsely claimed that Dominion and its software were created in
Venezuela for the purpose of rigging elections for the now-deceased Venezuelan dictator Hugo
Chavez, that Dominion paid kickbacks to Georgia officials in return for a "no-bid" contract to
use Dominion systems in the 2020 election, and that Dominion rigged the 2020 U.S. Presidential
Election by manipulating votes, shifting votes, installing and using an algorithm to modify or
"weight" votes such that a vote for Biden counted more than a vote for Trump, trashing Trump
votes, adding Biden votes, and training election workers to dispose of Trump votes and to add
Biden votes.
By way of example only, just last week, you made the following false assertions about
Dominion to Jan Jekielek at The Epoch Times:'
Effectively what they did with the machine fraud was to, they did everything from
injecting massive quantities of votes into the system that they just made up, to running
counterfeit ballots through multiple times in multiple batches to create the appearance of
votes that weren't really there. They trashed votes.
These statements are just the tip of the iceberg, which includes similar and other false
claims you made at your Washington, D.C. press conference and to other media outlets with
global internet audiences. Your outlandish accusations are demonstrably fake. While soliciting
people to send you "millions of dollars"2 and holding yourself out as a beacon of truth, you
have purposefully avoided naming Dominion as a defendant in your sham litigations-effectively
denying Dominion the opportunity to disprove your false accusations in court. Dominion values
freedom of speech and respects the right of all Americans-of all political persuasions -- to
exercise their First Amendment rights and to disagree with each other. But while you are
entitled to your own opinions, Ms. Powell, you are not entitled to your own facts. Defamatory
falsehoods are actionable in court and the U.S.
Supreme Court has made clear that "there is no constitutional value in false statements of
fact." Gertz v. Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 340 (1974). Dominion welcomes transparency and a
full investigation of the relevant facts in a court of law, where it is confident the truth
will prevail. Here are the facts:
1. Dominion's vote counts have been repeatedly verified by paper ballot recounts and
independent audits.
Dominion is a non-partisan company that has proudly partnered with public officials from
both parties in accurately tabulating the votes of the American people in both "red" and "blue"
states and counties. Far from being created to rig elections for a now-deceased Venezuelan
dictator, Dominion's voting systems are certified under standards promulgated by the U.S.
Election Assistance Commission ("EAC"), reviewed and tested by independent testing laboratories
accredited by the EAC, and were designed to be auditable and include a paper ballot backup to
verify results. Indeed, paper ballot recounts and independent audits have repeatedly and
conclusively debunked your election-rigging claims, and on November 12, 2020, the Elections
Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council and the Election Infrastructure Sector
Coordinating Executive Committees released a joint statement confirming that there is "no
evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way
compromised" and that the 2020 election was the most secure in American history.3 The Joint
Statement was signed and endorsed by, among others, the National Association of State Election
Directors, National Association of Secretaries of State, and the U.S. Cybersecurity &
Infrastructure Security Agency ("CISA") -- then led by a Trump appointee, Chris Krebs.
In addition, your false accusation that Dominion rigged the 2020 election is based on a
demonstrably false premise that wildly overstates Dominion's very limited role in elections.
Dominion provides tools such as voting machines that accurately tabulate votes for the
bipartisan poll workers, poll watchers, and local election officials who work tirelessly to run
elections and ensure accurate results. Dominion's machines count votes from county-verified
voters using a durable paper ballot. Those paper ballots are the hard evidence proving the
accuracy of the vote counts from Dominion's machines. If Dominion had manipulated the votes,
the paper ballots would not match the machine totals. In fact, they do match. Recounts and
audits have proven that Dominion did what it was designed and hired to do: accurately tabulate
votes.
2. Dominion has no connection to Hugo Chavez. Venezuela, or China.
As you are well aware from documents in the public domain and attached to your court
filings, Hugo Chavez's elections were not handled by Dominion, but by an entirely different
company -- Smartmatic. This is a critical fact because you have premised your defamatory
falsehoods on your intentionally false claim that Dominion and Smartmatic are the same company
even though you know that they are entirely separate companies who compete with each other.
Dominion was not created in or for Venezuela, has never been located there, and is not owned by
Smartmatic or Venezuelan or Chinese investors. Dominion has never provided machines or any of
its software or technology to Venezuela, nor has it ever participated in any elections in
Venezuela. It did not receive $400 million from the Chinese in the weeks before the 2020
election or otherwise. It has no ties to the Chinese government, the Venezuelan government,
Hugo Chavez, Malloch Brown, George Soros, Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster. Dominion does not
use Smartmatic's software or machines, and there was no Smartmatic technology in any of
Dominion's voting machines in the 2020 election.
3. You falsely claimed that Dominion's founder admitted he "can change a million votes,
no problem at all" and that you would "tweet out the video later''-- but you never did so
because no such video exists.
During at least one of your many media appearances, you promised to "tweet out [a] video" of
Dominion's founder admitting that he "can change a million votes, no problem at all." Your
assertion -- to a global internet audience -- that you had such damning video evidence
bolstered your false accusations that Dominion had rigged the election. Yet you have never
produced that video because, as you know, it does not exist. Dominion's founder never made such
a claim because Dominion cannot change votes. Its machines simply tabulate the paper ballots
that remain the custody of the local election officials -- nothing more, nothing less. 4. You
falsely claimed that you have a Dominion employee "on tape" saving he "rigged the election for
Biden''-- but you know that no such tape exists. In peddling your defamatory accusations, you
also falsely told a national audience that you had a Dominion employee "on tape" saying that
"he rigged the election for Biden." Your own court filings prove that no such tape exists. In
them, you cited an interview of Joe Oltmann, a Twitter- banned "political activist" who -- far
from claiming he had that shocking alleged confession "on tape"-claimed he took "notes" during
a conference call he supposedly joined after "infiltrating Antifa." This is a facially
ludicrous claim for a number of reasons, including the fact that he lives in Colorado, where it
would have been perfectly legal to record such a call if it had actually happened. As a result
of your false accusations, that Dominion employee received death threats.
II. Because there is no reliable evidence supporting your defamatory falsehoods, you
actively manufactured and misrepresented evidence to support them.
Despite repeatedly touting the overwhelming "evidence" of your assertions during your media
campaign, every court to which you submitted that socalled "evidence" has dismissed each of
your sham litigations, and even Trump appointees and supporters have acknowledged -- including
after you filed your "evidence" in court, posted it on your fundraising website, and touted it
in the media -- that there is no evidence that actually supports your assertions about
Dominion. Indeed:
One federal judge observed that you submitted "nothing but speculation and conjecture
that votes for President Trump were destroyed, discarded or switched to votes for Vice
President Biden." Op. & Order Den. Pl.'s Emer. Motion, for Deck, Emer., and Inj. Relief
at 34, Whitmer v. City of Detroit, No. 20-cv-12134 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020) [Dkt. 62].
Another federal judge commented that the attachments to your complaint were "only
impressive for their volume," are "largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and
irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections," and include "expert reports" that "reach
implausible conclusions, often because they are derived from wholly unreliable sources."
Order at 24-25, Bowyerv. Ducey, No. 2-20-cv-02321 (D. Ariz. Dec. 9, 2020) [Dkt. 84].
Despite your claim that you have so much "evidence" that it feels as if you are drinking
from a "fire hose," when asked by your interviewers and other media outlets to provide that
evidence, you have failed to do so each and every time. Conservative television host Tucker
Carlson even called you out for failing to provide any evidence to support your
assertions.4
After you put the purported "evidence" in your court filings, Trump loyalist and U.S.
Attorney General Bill Barr stated, "There's been one assertion that would be systemic fraud
and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election
results. And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven't seen anything to
substantiate that."
... ... ...
Fifth, you had a financial incentive in making the defamatory accusations. Your own
conduct and statements at the press conference, media tour, and on your websites make it clear
that you were publicizing your wild accusations as part of a fundraising scheme and in order to
drum up additional business and notoriety for yourself. Your financial incentive and
motive to make the defamatory accusations is further evidence of actual malice. See Brown v.
Petrolite Corp., 965 F.2d 38, 47 (5th Cir. 1992); Enigma Software Grp. USA, LLC v. Bleeping
Computer LLC, 194 F. Supp. 3d 263, 288 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
Sixth, you cannot simply claim ignorance of the facts. As a licensed attorney, you were
obligated to investigate the factual basis for your claims before making them in court.
31 There is no factual basis for your defamatory accusations against Dominion and
numerous reliable sources and documents in the public domain have repeatedly debunked your
accusations. As such, you either conducted the inquiry required of you as a licensed attorney
and violated your ethical obligations by knowingly making false assertions rebutted by the
information you found, or you violated your ethical obligations by purposefully avoiding
undertaking the reasonable inquiry required of you as a member of the bar. Either is additional
evidence of actual malice.
Taken together, your deliberate misrepresentation and manufacturing of evidence, the
inherent improbability of your accusations, your reliance on facially unreliable sources, your
intentional disregard of reliable sources, your preconceived storyline, your financial
incentive, and your ethical violations are clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. See
Eramo v. Rolling Stone, 209 F. Supp. 3d 862,872 (W.D. Va. 2016) (denying defendant's motion for
summary judgment and finding "[ajlthough failure to adequately investigate, a departure from
journalistic standards, or ill
I would'nt have thought that a socialist sympathizer would be an enthusiast for the "level
playing field". The neo-liberal Thatcherite freedoms of the single market have led to much
unemployment in Europe. Freedom of capital and freedom of labour work to the benefit of
transnational corporations and much to the detriment of ordinary working people. Much of the
liberal left in Britain now insists that we must remain locked in to this neo-liberal
straight jacket. https://www.thefullbrexit.com/quit-single-market
@ james | Dec 22 2020 19:58 utc | 80 who wrote
"
@ Maff | Dec 22 2020 16:05 utc | 68.. thanks maff.. i stand corrected... i thought the city
wanted brexit.. it appears that is wrong...
"
Maff qualified their claim with the "almost" adverb "all" and provided no linked backing or
specifying the "corporation, bank, financial institution and media outlet" camps. I still
believe that The City of London Corp wanted Brexit, but silly me, I still think those that
own global private finance run the West/world.
I'd say you're both correct. Several banker types have profited nicely on Brexit so far.
Others clearly have not or stand to lose out. Rees Mogg is an excellent example of the Brexit
disaster capitalist lackey.
For long time I viewed the city as homogeneous, but the last five years have taught me
otherwise.
The question I have is was it always like this (well concealed), or is it another side
effect of the west turning in on itself?
James it was a very large majority that wished to leave.
And this is entirely consistent with the history of the EU and its predecessors (The Common
Market): the Irish also voted to leave, then, after great pressure and an almost unanimous
front including almost all the political parties and fire threats of retribution, the vote
was reversed.
In France and the Netherlands where the EU's neo-liberal constitution was put to a vote it
was defeated in both countries. In this case though, as I recollect, the matter of approving
the Constitution was simply taken out of the electorate's hands. The barely revised rejected
constitution was then approved in the form of a treaty which of course was not put before the
electorate.
The reality is that the EU is both a stalking horse for Washington and a hedge against
democracy. It is a neo-liberal project established to ensure that private property should not
be threatened by a potentially egalitarian electorate. It is essentially anti-democratic a
recreation of the Hapsburg empire complete with parliaments/talking shops without sovereign
power and directed by unelected commissioners.
This month's New Left Review has a marvelous article-some 19000 words long, by Perry
Anderson which reveals the EU's nature in great detail. I gave a link a week or so ago.
The problem with much discussion of this matter is that it is a subject on which a radical
socialist and a conservative banker can both agree that the EU is a bad thing. I, a radical
socialist, because I believe that the state must take control over the commanding heights of
the economy and ensure that such horrors as homelessness and poverty are ended. The
conservative financier because he believes that the City of London, which he and his class
have defended from socialist regulation over the years, ought not to be controlled by
bureaucrats in Brussels or the European Central Bank.
The millions of working class Englishmen and women who voted to leave the EU anticipated
that the procedure of doing so would be orderly, sensible and transparent. They were not
voting for Boris and his banker friends but for a revival of manufacturing, progressive
taxation, nationalised, rather than profit taking, utilities and natural monopolies and a
restoration of trade union and civil rights, the right to strike for example.
The truth is that the world is a very big place and there are plenty of countries who
would eagerly embrace offers from the UK to enter into trade agreements formal or informal:
Venezuela, Cuba and Iran all spring to mind. But Russia and China are also obvious potential
partners. And what such countries have in common is that they would not seek to interfere in
the UK's internal politics and to dictate the limits within which political parties there can
operate. In this they differ from the EU, joined at the hip with NATO which is always under
US command. We have just seen in the surgical defenestration of Jeremy Corbyn and his
replacement by a Zionist member of the Trilateral Commission how the EU/US axis, acting
through the tame media and employing the agency of the swollen security establishment (where
the first loyalty is to the Empire and Washington), arrogates to itself the right to decide
just how far the British people will be allowed to go.
In this matter that means that they will, at a pinch, be allowed to leave the EU but that
the Special Relationship (US Occupation) is sacrosanct and NATO is forever.
We need to abstract from pro-China propaganda here. The critique of the USA handing of the
epidemic is a better part of the article. It is true, that the US neoliberal elite was more
conserved about the health on military-industrial complex then about the health and well-being of
the American people.
Writes Margaret Kimberley (in "Opposing War Propaganda Against China," Jan. 25, 2020):
"Now whenever we see a reference to China in the corporate media we always see the words
communist party attached. This silly redundancy is war propaganda along with every other
smear and slur. We are told that 1 million Uighurs are imprisoned when there is quite
literally no proof of any such thing. China, the country which first experienced the COVID-19
virus, was the first to vanquish it, and has a low death rate of less than 5,000 people to
prove it. We depend here in America on China to produce masks and other protective equipment
but China is declared the villain. The country that within one month of realizing there was a
new communicable disease gave the world the keys to conquering it.
"Instead the country which fails where China succeeds, in providing for the needs of its
people and their health, is an international pariah, with most of the world barring Americans
from travel and turning us into a giant leper colony. Trump speaks of the "kung flu" and the
"Wuhan virus," but it is China which conquered the disease that has killed 130,000 Americans
and forced a quarantine which has caused economic devastation to millions of people here.
"But Americans get nothing but war propaganda. Trump and Joe Biden outdo one another
bragging about who will be tougher to China. This week we saw the U.S. government violate
international law again and close the Chinese consulate in Houston, Texas."
Writes Roxana Baspineiro in "Solidarity vs. Sanctions in Times of a Global Pandemic":
"Chinese and Cuban doctors have been providing support in Iran, Italy, Spain and have
offered their services and expertise to the most vulnerable countries in Latin America,
Africa, and Europe. They have developed medicines and medical treatments such as Interferon
Alpha 2B in Cuba, one of the potential medicines to combat the virus, which reduces the
mortality rate of people affected by COVID19. But above all, they have offered their interest
in distributing them to the peoples of the world without any patent or benefit
whatsoever."
Regardless of whether citizens of the US know about Chinese efforts, people in other nations
have noticed, according to Stansfield Smith, who writes:
"From the responses to the coronavirus pandemic, the world has seen the model of public
health efficiency China presented in controlling the problem at home. It has seen China's
world leadership in offering international aid and care. It has seen the abdication of
leadership by the US and even its obstruction in working to find solutions. Now the US still
cannot control the virus, and remains mired in economic crisis, while China is rebounding. In
sum, the pandemic has made the world look at both China and the US in a new light. And it has
dealt a serious blow to the US rulers' two decade long effort to counter the rise of
China."
... ... ...
The final section of the book, "Escalating anti-China campaign," is a diverse collection of
essays on subjects such as: US accusations of Chinese repression of Uyghurs; NATO exercises
that threatened to exacerbate COVID spread even while China was bringing aid to Europe; COVID
in the US armed forces; US military belligerence toward China; the color revolution in Hong
Kong; Vietnam's response to COVID; and a call from Margaret Flowers and the recently deceased
Kevin Zeese to replace the US pivot to Asia with a "Pivot to Peace."
Ajamu Baraka writes:
"The psychopathology of white supremacy blinds U.S. policy- makers to the political,
economic, and geopolitical reality that the U.S. is in irreversible decline as a global
power. The deep structural contradictions of the U.S. economy and state was exposed by the
weak and confused response to COVID-19 and the inability of the state to provide minimum
protections for its citizens and residents.
"But even in decline, the U.S. has a vast military structure that it can use to threaten
and cause massive death and destruction. This makes the U.S. a threat to the planet and
collective humanity because U.S policy-makers appear to be in the grip of a deathwish in
which they are prepared to destroy the world before voluntarily relinquishing power,
especially to a non-European power like China.
"For example, when Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo declared in public that the United
States and its Western European allies must put China in "its proper place," this represents
a white supremacist mindset that inevitably will lead to monumental errors of judgment."
So COVID-19 is, to put it mildly, a teachable moment. Looking around the world right now, we
can see who is learning and who isn't. As "Capitalism on a Ventilator" vividly illustrates,
China is leading the way, and the United States is slipping into obsolescence. Those who hope
to survive the coming travails can see who to follow and who to avoid.
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume is a writer living on the West Coast of the U.S.A. More of
Kollibri's writing and photos can be found at Macska Moksha Press .
I love America and its non-stop CIA psyop cyclops social media television.
The New Year will bring renewed police crackdown on private assembly, people's homes, the
continued destruction of employment, $40 checks from Uncle Joe to "tide you over," hysterical
harpies physically assaulting anyone without a mask in blue states, and a full-out propaganda
assault to destroy the defenseless minds of your friends and family.
You're going to lose a lot in the New Year. 2020 was just the beginning. Wait until summer
2021 and BLM/Antifa chaos. Conservative politicians like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul will be crying
"insurrection act!" and Tucker Carlson will launch into Season Two of 30-minute cracking-voice
monologues "this is your America!" while nothing and no one does a goddamn thing to protect
you.
We are on our own. Doctors, schools, cops, families, people you work with -- all are slowly
being sucked into the vortex of this simulacrum of hell being broadcast on their "smart"
phones. Compared to what's being sold to them, your voice sounds positively insane...
" Correspondence between Hunter
Biden and CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming from 2017 shows President-elect Joe Biden's son
extending "best wishes from the entire Biden family ," and urging the chairman to "quickly"
send a $10 million wire to "properly fund and operate" the Biden joint venture with the
now-bankrupt Chinese energy company.
The $10 million transfer to the joint venture was never completed.
Fox News obtained an email Hunter Biden sent on June 18, 2017, to Zhao Run Long at CEFC,
asking that they please "translate my letter to Chairman Ye, please extend my warmest best
wishes and that I hope to see the Chairman soon.""
Biden went on to note that Bobulinski had "sent a request to Dong Gongwen [Gongwen Dong] and
Director Zang for the funding of the $10 MM USD wire."
"I would appreciate if you will send that quickly so we can properly fund and operate
Sinohawk," Biden wrote.
"I am sure you have been well briefed by our dear friend Director Zan g on the political and
economic connections we have established in countries where you are interested in expanding
during the coming months and years, " he continued. "I look forward to our next meeting."
"Fox News also obtained the response from Ye as part of an email, dated Sept. 6, 2017, from
Biden business associate James Gilliar to Bobulinski. That email forwarded Ye's letter
responding to Biden. The letter is dated July 10, 2017.
Ye stated that he had arranged for Zang and Dong to "expedite the charter capital input to
SinoHawk."
"I am glad to hear from you! Time flies and it has been months since we met in the US. It
seems that we were always on a rush when we were together," Ye wrote to Biden, adding that "the
consensus we made last time has been materialized in a timely manner."
Ye also recommended Biden "arrange your people to coordinate with Director Zang and Gongwen
Dong for specific work."
"I will continue to pay attention and give my support," Ye stated. "I have arranged Director
Zang and Gongwen Dong to expedite the charter capital input to SinoHawk."
"I look forward to meeting you in the near future and discussing our joint undertaking. If
there is anything I could do please do not hesitate to write to me," Ye wrote. "Please accept
my best regards to you and your family."" foxnews
------------
Well, pilgrims, the Ron Johnson hearing today was fun. The best part for me was former
Director Krebs' (election security guy for DHS) repeated statements that the election was
secure, "the most secure in history." Pilgrims, the distinction betwixt "secure" and "honest"
seems to have escaped him as he ignored questions about actual evidence of fraud, a swampie to
the end.
And then, there is Chairman Joe. He knows that nothing will be easier than to kill off
prosecution of his creepy son, or to "suggest" to the Delaware federal prosecutor that a minor
indictment would be appropriate, something resulting in a suspended sentence.
I have watched Tucker debrief Bobulinski twice about that payment. The way Bobulinski tells
it (with documentation) the Bidens were loaned $5 million by MEFC to pay their side of the
capitalization and then actually pocketed the other $5 million as a direct payment to La
Familia from FEMC (Oh Danny Boy!) from - equal opportunity! That was too much for the Bobster
(former naval Lt., man of world finance, patriot, self-abnegator, etc.) Besides, where was his
share?
Pistols at dawn? Good! Tucker can act as his second. Where are my cased flintlock
smoothbores? They are somewhere around here, the English 18th Century ones in the fitted blue
velvet case. pl
If you still believe that America's Sickcare is "the finest in the world" and is endlessly
sustainable, please study these three charts and extend the trendlines.
I've long been making the distinction between healthcare and sickcare : healthcare is the
service provided by frontline operational caregivers (doctors, nurses, aides, technicians,
etc.) and sickcare is the financialized system of Big Hospital Corporations, Big Insurers, Big
Pharma, etc. and their lobbyists that keep the federal money spigots wide open.
This financialized sickcare system is being consumed by the cancer of greedy profiteering
pursued by self-serving insiders. The delivery of healthcare is secondary to maximizing
revenues and profits by any means available .
To believe such a corrupt system is sustainable is magical thinking at its most
destructive.
Covid-19 is revealing this cancerous underbelly. Knowledge of the inner workings of
corporate administration is not evenly distributed, so every participants' experience of the
systemic dysfunction will vary.
Here is one MD's observations of the system's priorities. Others may have different views
but the maxim follow the money is clearly the correct place to start any inquiry of how
America's financialized sickcare functions in the real world.
From what I'm hearing from the front line, a not insignificant number of admissions are of
folks who would not have been admitted in March when there was fear of both the unknown and
systemic failure and, not coincidently, when COVID diagnoses didn't pay as much.
Today, the admission criteria for COVID is so much more flexible than for standard
diagnoses like CHF, and pays so much better than other diagnoses that our 'healthcare' system
is rapidly becoming a 'COVID care' system.
The surge in hospitalizations and subsequent COVID-identified deaths may be driven, in
part, to health systems adapting to new COVID revenue streams.
This would seemingly be good news, after all if it's the hospital administrator's desire
to fill empty beds that's driving admissions rather than infection rates, then systemic
failure can be averted through moderating those admission rates based on system capacity.
If your hospital fills up, just start sending the marginal cases
home--inpatient/outpatient; the outcome for the patient will be pretty much the same and
you've made as much money as your capacity will allow.
Unfortunately, our healthcare 'system' doesn't work like that.
Health systems are in the business of generating revenue, not value. Recent COVID-related
demand destruction has crushed that revenue so they're hungry for more.
Those in health-system operations and those in leadership live in two different worlds.
Leadership will push COVID admissions far beyond any operational limits in their quest for
short term performance. One cannot overstate their mendacity and drive for lucre.
Hospitals are becoming 'COVID factories' with all other admissions (which pay far less)
relegated to second tier status.
Health systems are evolving into an 'all COVID, all the time' format with the emphasis on
testing and (soon) vaccination, at the expense of all else.
Not a few systems of my acquaintance are laying off outpatient medical staff because their
supporting personnel have quit and are not replaced--those resources are being re-directed to
COVID testing and in preparation for mass vaccination.
For the health system in the business of generating revenue, it's an excellent tactic.
They save themselves significant overhead by not paying the clinicians and they make up the
revenue through high-margin COVID services and government bailout payments.
For patients who actually need healthcare, though, this tactic is deadly.
The perversion is end-stage, the health systems pretend to deliver healthcare and the
government pays them to continue the pretense.
There is no long term thinking here, no empathy for the workforce, no thought to the
mission beyond window-dressing--just a relentless, risk-adverse financialization machine.
Think of COVID as a new widget for which the customer will pay 2.5 times the going price
with no quality control, but only for a limited amount of time. Add in talentless,
rent-seeking leadership and all becomes clear.
Of course the real risk is that maxed out hospitals could find themselves in a situation
where admissions suddenly become driven by demand rather than the business model, with a true
non-linear path to failure laying beyond.
The longer daily national hospital occupancy stays above the approximate pre-COVID
capacity of 100k, the more likely you'll see systemic breakdowns--local at first, then
regional.
You won't see it in the press, the healthcare cartels have a pretty good lock on the local
media. Once news starts getting censored on social media, though, then you know it's
happening.
Hold me to that, And call me out in three months if I'm not right.
If you still believe that America's sickcare is "the finest in the world" and is endlessly
sustainable, please study these three charts and extend the trendlines.
Zucker – who now presides over one of the most fervently anti-Trump media outlets in
the American corporate press – hatched the idea to give then-candidate Trump a weekly
slot on CNN during a March 2016 phone call with Micheal Cohen, a lawyer for Trump at the time,
according to audio obtained by Fox News' Tucker Carlson.
Speaking with Cohen hours before the final Republican primary debate in the 2016 race,
Zucker said that while the Trump campaign had shown "great instincts, great guts and great
understanding of everything," he insisted victory would be impossible without CNN's
backing.
"Here's the thing you cannot be elected president of the United States without CNN,"
Zucker boasted. "Fox and MSNBC are irrelevant – irrelevant – in electing a
general election candidate."
When Cohen suggested the CNN chief relay his thoughts to Trump himself, Zucker demurred,
saying he is "very conscious of not putting too much in email," as Trump – "the
boss" – might go blabbing about it on the campaign trail.
You know, as fond as I am of the boss, he also has a tendency if I call him or I email
him, he then is capable of going out at his next rally and saying that we just talked, and I
can't have that, if you know what I'm saying.
Zucker soon talked himself back into contacting Trump, however, committing to "give him a
call right now" to "wish him luck in the debate tonight" – hosted by none
other than CNN – adding "I have all these proposals for him, like I want to do a
weekly show with him and all this stuff."
He went on to lavish praise on Trump, saying he had "never lost a debate" and would
do "great" during the CNN event later that night, even offering detailed advice for how
the president-to-be could deflect allegations that he is a "con man" from other
candidates.
While the source of the recording is unclear, the leak has made waves online, given that
Zucker has since made himself into Trump's "
cable news nemesis ." The network itself, meanwhile, has fielded an endless stream of
negative coverage of the president, heavily pushing the discredited 'Russiagate' conspiracy
theory for years and throwing full weight behind the Democrats' failed impeachment effort.
Some netizens have already suggested the "damning" revelation could soon result in
Zucker's ouster from his high perch at CNN.
"You think Jeff Zucker will be fired? I actually think there's a decent chance he will
be. Trying to kiss up to Trump is on par with murder in CNN world,"wrote filmmaker and
conservative pundit Robby Starbuck.
Others were less taken aback by the audio, as many pointed to the fact that Zucker and Trump
have a lengthy history together, both working on 'The Apprentice,' the hit reality show that
helped to solidify Trump's status as a pop culture icon. In 2012, Trump even hailed Zucker's
takeover as CNN president, saying the network made a
"great move," and that Zucker "was responsible for me and The Apprentice on NBC
– became #1 show!"
"Everyone knows Zucker made Trump, it's 100% true," one user said . "Trump was down and out.
Zucker pitched him a reality TV show called the Apprentice. Why? Because he likes his New
Yorkers, he likes Trump."
Sir,
Pretty sure you're trolling us a little with this post. That said, it is 2020.
I am 100% convinced that covid is a political conspiracy based on personal knowledge and
other info. Tonight Tucker Carlson reports that blood samples taken in early Jan 2020 tested
positive for covid - all of the samples. In other countries there is evidence of covid in the
population going back to Fall 2019; yet no overwhelmed hospitals and spiking death counts
from those early months. The internet fact checkers are clearly arrayed against information
seekers and forcing conformity to the state's message.
Clearly there was malfeasance in the election as well as a general Charlie Foxtrot created
by implementing mail in voting without sufficient time and resources for infrastructure
development; a no brainer that everyone should have foreseen and avoided - except for the
covid hysteria.
We saw the the Russia collusion hoax, Steele Dossier nonsense, idiotic impeachment and
slandering filthy lie campaign against of Justice Kavanaugh.
The list goes on. However, it stretches my credulity that the US military (Army SOF unit?)
would be shooting it out with the CIA in Germany and that Haskel would be there to be wounded
in the action; or was arrested and whisked off to some secret detention facility.
Would you please consider sharing what you really think?
That's wishful thinking. While Chinese are making progress, the USA still is the only
technological superpower and can cut oxygen to China companies in one minute.
Increasingly America does not compete with China, but strongarms it because it cannot
compete. For example, in Five G China is ahead in technology, manufacturing capacity, and
turnkey systems. Unable to produce an equivalent product, Washington banned Huawei Five G in
the US and has twisted arms to keep countries that it controls from using Huawei. Seeing that
Huawei had very attractive smartphones that would have competed with Apple, it banned these
also. What America can't do, it seeks to keep anybody else from doing.
WSJ:
"US vs. China in Five G: The Battle Isn't Even Close
HONG KONG -- By most measures, China is no longer just leading the U.S. when it comes to
5G. It is running away with the game. China has more 5G subscribers than the U.S., not just
in total but per capita. It has more 5G smartphones for sale, and at lower prices, and it has
more-widespread 5G coverage. Connections in China are, on average, faster than in the U.S.,
too By year's end, China will have an estimated 690,000 5G base stations -- boxes that blast
5G signals to consumers -- up and running across the country ."
Techies can argue C band versus millimeter waves but I will bet that the Chinese, nothing if
not commercially agile, will have Five G up and running in factories and the IoT and everywhere
else while American pols rattle on about how China is an Existential Threat and the Pentagon
needs more money for Space Command and diversity is more important than schooling anyway.
The shifting balance may already be visible. For example, America used to make superb
aircraft such as the SR-71 and the F-16. Now it has the F-35, an engineering horror. The Boeing
737 MAX, its flagship product, has been grounded internationally because of poor engineering,
second-rate software, and corporate lying about both.
America invented the microcircuit, and once dominated its manufacture. Today, American
companies cannot make the seven nanometer chips now used in high-end telephones, and certainly
not the five nanometer chips now coming online. Neither can China. Both countries buy them from
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC, Interestingly, the Taiwanese are genetically
and culturally Chinese. Washington has strongarmed TSMC into ceasing to sell to Huawei -- the
US still can't make high end chips. Recently it strongarmed TSMC into agreeing to build a
semiconductor fab in Arizona. Because America can't.
Then there is TikTok, a hugely popular Chinese video app that threatened to break America's
lock on social media. Unable to compete, Washington decided simply to confiscate it on grounds
that it might be used to spy on Americans. (Chinese intelligence is deeply interested in your
daughter's video of her cat.)
Parenthetically, technology seems to be shifting toward East Asia, with America being less
ahead in things in which it is ahead and behind in others. Did I mention demographics?
You can't argue with the real engineering going on over there, especially the Civil
Engineering. When you don't have a thousand tax-payer-supported bureaucrats from a hundred
different agencies and even "Non-Governmental Organizations" blocking every thought you have,
it's hard to get things done. There's no doubt that the huge military spending on "democracy
for the world" and the squandering of the huge amount of goodwill and power accumulated at
the end of the Cold War is part of America's problem (thanks NotSoFast). Mr. Reed never
mentioned the increase in regulation and taxation by the Feral Beast that has turned America
into a Can't-Do country.
It's a great photo essay on the amazing engineering advances out of China, but, as usual,
Fred gets major things wrong.
I don't know what the deal is with Mr. Reed's repetitive harping on Americans' concern for
intellectual property rights. The Chinese will do fine without our help now, but it's the
theft of the IP of American engineering that has gotten them this far so fast. Why would you
not be concerned with your ideas being stolen? Not giving your stuff away for free is not the
same as trying to "cripple development. That's water under the bridge now but stupidity by
Mr. Reed nonetheless.
considering cuomo was responsible for spreading the virus exponentially in the early days, he probably has had more
influence on all of our lives than the others
Story about Fauci, at least at the time was that it was so hospitals wouldn't be liable for deaths among medical
staff. But I think it was completely bad what both Cuomo and Fauci
Dr. Fauci was the trusted expert who intentionally lied to the American people and made things far worse. Cuomo is
directly responsible for why New York's response to the virus was so bad and cost many lives. Bullshit award.
I will henceforth refer to the MSM as the regime media or RM.
We reluctantly turned off Tucker last week. I felt bad about it as after watching him for
a few years my wife slowly left behind her liberal north eastern views and came around to the
right side of things. I'll thank him for that.
On the issue of voter fraud, the right has sullied real concerns with ballot legitimacy in
highly mismanaged black cities with Bircherist bufoonery. The last of the MAGA faithful -- Alex
Jones, Steve Bannon, Q-Anon, Mike Cernovich, Dinesh D'Souza, Nick Fuentes, Ali Alexander, One
America News, and the Zionist opportunists at Newsmax -- have been trying to cancel more
sensible right-wing populists like Tucker Carlson, Ryan Gidursky, Pedro Gonzalez and others for
expressing skepticism about some of the Trump campaign's narratives on the election.
Like him or not, Tucker is a serious political commentator that has tried and failed to
provide coherence and principles to Trumpism for the last four years. When Tucker asked Sidney
Powell for evidence regarding her claim that Castro, Hugo Chavez, Nicolas Maduro and the
Chinese Communist Party stole millions of votes from Trump in an international Marxist coup, he
was subjected to insults, boycotts and unhinged shrieking in response. "THANK YOU SEAN HANNITY
FOR HOLDING THE LINE. THANK YOU TUCKER FOR THROWING US UNDER THE BUS," wrote Nick Fuentes.
Tucker was
vindicated when Trump's team abruptly severed ties with Powell and shelved her circus act.
But that hasn't stopped online Trumpistanis from speculating that Tucker's red bracelet is a
sign that he is a secret kabbalah
practitioner or that he's been a double agent for the satanic pedophile cartel led by Tom
Hanks put in place just for this moment. For Jews concerned that Tucker has been promoting the
potent combination of nationalism and economic populism to deplorables since 2016, it is a
welcome
amusement to see him being sacrificed on the alter of Orange Man Good and traded in for a
harmless lapdog like Hannity.
30 of 31 voter fraud lawsuits filed by Team Trump have been tossed. The whole thing is
starting to look like a Birther-style publicity stunt to help Trump monetize his following
after January. The
most recent defeat , a lawsuit demanding 7,000,000 votes be invalidated in Pennsylvania,
did not provide any compelling evidence for fraud or malfeasance.
Four years ago, Bernie expressed skepticism about mass immigration while Trump's original
campaign hinted at a public health care option and a war against Wall Street. These real world
issues impact real world people, and it allowed for a cross-front alliance of ordinary citizens
against the elite. The two candidates traded disenfranchised and largely white working class
voters throughout the primary, then the general.
But now there are actors on both sides trying to drag things back to personalities,
political tribalism and inanity. The COVID issue has drawn out the petty tyrants on the left
but also the UN-world-government conspiracy theorists of the right, with actual state relief
for desperate working people suffering from the lockdown being drowned out.
For Jewish gatekeepers of the phony right like Ezra Levant , "The Great Reset"
is much more palatable and less dangerous than the real issue of the Great Replacement. Former
Never
Trumper Mark Levin has worked with Sean Hannity to scrub 2020 Trumpism of its
anti-establishment and anti-globalist soul to try and transform it into another
Tea Party style Reaganite collection point for false consciousness held together by fumes
of Trump's personality cult.
There is a silver lining. As niches suffering from the two types of TDS -- Trump Derangement
Syndrome and Trump Delusion Syndrome -- duke it out, the liberal kleptocracy is still having
trouble restoring "normalcy."
The Biden Democrats are eager to betray and start purging the Bernie wing of their party on
economic and foreign policy matters. The GOP, whose establishment has no organic support and
never will, has decided to fake it until they make it and pretend like Trump was never
born.
This forced reboot is bound to meet challenges in an era of high unemployment and social
chaos. People are sick of voting for a "lesser of two evils."
There is lots of talk on the left and right about starting new parties to challenge the Wall
Street uniparty. The Movement for
a People's Party , an endeavor that has recruited big names like Jimmy Dore and Cornell
West, is looking to establish itself and begin attacking the Democratic party from the
left.
Meanwhile, right-populists who aren't hung up on Trump are beginning to talk of an
"America First Party."
The National Justice Party, a political construct that isn't afraid to appeal to white workers
or transcend traditional ideas of left and right, is also starting to gain momentum.
In the battle of corn syrup vs soy, of stupid vs gay, we the people deserve better. The
populi in populist can be described as being part of the radical center: left on economics and
right on social issues. A white worker should not have to vote for the anti-white Democrats
just to have a shot at affordable health care, nor should a rural family have to vote for the
Paul Singer funded Zionist GOP in hopes of being treated with dignity. A grounded and united
movement that explicitly rejects both parties and can obtain what we want must arise from the
ashes of back-stabbed Trumpists and Bernie fans.
The populi in populist can be described as being part of the radical center: left on
economics and right on social issues. A white worker should not have to vote for the
anti-white Democrats just to have a shot at affordable health care, nor should a rural family
have to vote for the Paul Singer funded Zionist GOP in hopes of being treated with dignity. A
grounded and united movement that explicitly rejects both parties and can obtain what we want
must arise from the ashes of back-stabbed Trumpists and Bernie fans.
The median wage in the USA in 2019 was $34,000 / year. If Trumpstein had done even one
tiny little, teensy weensy, itsy bitsy thing for the under $34k working poor .he would have
easily retained enough votes to keep his job. Instead, his domestic policy goals centered
around taking basic health insurance away from the working poor (even during a pandemic),
while giving billions away to his wall street pals, his relatives, giant corporations, and of
course his yid sponsors. Example: Fed Ex paid zero income tax in 2017, 2018, 2019. Let's see
how long a modern society can function when the top 0.1% are worth more than the bottom
80%.
The First World is leaving the "sweet spot" of its capitalist development stage, marked by
a relatively inflated petit-bourgeois middle class, and is reentering a proletarianization
phase. Call it the reproletarianization of the First World.
You seem quite convinced that it was Tucker Carlson's version of events that was true
concerning this phone call to Sidney Powell. You know she disputes this version. Also I read
that Carlson did not make the call himself, but rather had a staffer do it.
One might be a little suspicious that perhaps a staffer put a little too much effort into
getting Ms. Powell to appear on the show, and perhaps embellished or 'interpreted' the phone
call out of concern for their job.
One might also consider it a bit petty and unprofessional to immediately report a rude
phone call on the Carlson news program, and not once but twice.
Are we to believe that Sidney Powell is the only source who has ever been rude on a phone
call with a staffer from the news media? Is it good journalism to publicly attack potential
sources because they said no the first time you asked?
In my opinion it seems a bit hard to believe that Ms. Powell had a meltdown with either
Carlson or a staffer on a phone call. She seems much more the type to just politely say
goodbye and hang up.
But let's assume that she did have a meltdown. Given the circumstances and time crunch
she's under, wouldn't a reasonable person assume she was acting badly because of stress and
she probably didn't mean it?
Carlson couldn't wait longer than the next morning before he planned to publicly shame her
for it? And in the middle of what must be, for her, the biggest and most important thing
she's ever done?
What happened to Tucker Carlson's philosophy of kindness towards one another? And do you
put any stock in the fact that so many people who watch (or watched) Tucker Carlson on a
regular basis were genuinely shocked by what he did? I know I was.
Everything about this seems very strange. If a normally reasonable person like Powell made
crazy sounding claims, why respond with such hostility? Does anybody remember the guy who
built his own rocket so he could prove the Earth was flat? All we had to do was wait.
And as for these voting machine companies having ties to Venezuela in the past, well
that's true. None other than Lou Dobbs on CNN reported this and the whole thing ended up in
congressional hearings iirc.
I have no opinion about Sidney Powell's claims. She seems respectable enough to withhold
judgement until she shows us what she's got. And if even a part of what she claims is true, I
for one will be pretty concerned.
38. Sadly, some "are attracted by Western culture, sometimes with unrealistic expectations
that expose them to grave disappointments. Unscrupulous traffickers, frequently linked to drug
cartels or arms cartels, exploit the weakness of migrants, who too often experience violence,
trafficking, psychological and physical abuse and untold sufferings on their journey".
[37] Those who emigrate "experience separation from their place of origin, and often a
cultural and religious uprooting as well. Fragmentation is also felt by the communities they
leave behind, which lose their most vigorous and enterprising elements, and by families,
especially when one or both of the parents migrates, leaving the children in the country of
origin".
[38] For this reason, "there is also a need to reaffirm the right not to emigrate, that is,
to remain in one's homeland".
[39]
39. Then too, "in some host countries, migration causes fear and alarm, often fomented and
exploited for political purposes. This can lead to a xenophobic mentality, as people close in
on themselves, and it needs to be addressed decisively".
[40] Migrants are not seen as entitled like others to participate in the life of society,
and it is forgotten that they possess the same intrinsic dignity as any person. Hence they
ought to be "agents in their own redemption".
[41] No one will ever openly deny that they are human beings, yet in practice, by our
decisions and the way we treat them, we can show that we consider them less worthy, less
important, less human. For Christians, this way of thinking and acting is unacceptable, since
it sets certain political preferences above deep convictions of our faith: the inalienable
dignity of each human person regardless of origin, race or religion, and the supreme law of
fraternal love.
40. "Migrations, more than ever before, will play a pivotal role in the future of our
world".
[42] At present, however, migration is affected by the "loss of that sense of
responsibility for our brothers and sisters on which every civil society is based".
[43] Europe, for example, seriously risks taking this path. Nonetheless, "aided by its
great cultural and religious heritage, it has the means to defend the centrality of the human
person and to find the right balance between its twofold moral responsibility to protect the
rights of its citizens and to assure assistance and acceptance to migrants".
[44]
41. I realize that some people are hesitant and fearful with regard to migrants. I consider
this part of our natural instinct of self-defence. Yet it is also true that an individual and a
people are only fruitful and productive if they are able to develop a creative openness to
others. I ask everyone to move beyond those primal reactions because "there is a problem when
doubts and fears condition our way of thinking and acting to the point of making us intolerant,
closed and perhaps even – without realizing it – racist. In this way, fear deprives
us of the desire and the ability to encounter the other".
[45]
42. Oddly enough, while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the rise,
distances are otherwise shrinking or disappearing to the point that the right to privacy
scarcely exists. Everything has become a kind of spectacle to be examined and inspected, and
people's lives are now under constant surveillance. Digital communication wants to bring
everything out into the open; people's lives are combed over, laid bare and bandied about,
often anonymously. Respect for others disintegrates, and even as we dismiss, ignore or keep
others distant, we can shamelessly peer into every detail of their lives.
43. Digital campaigns of hatred and destruction, for their part, are not – as some
would have us believe – a positive form of mutual support, but simply an association of
individuals united against a perceived common enemy. "Digital media can also expose people to
the risk of addiction, isolation and a gradual loss of contact with concrete reality, blocking
the development of authentic interpersonal relationships".
[46] They lack the physical gestures, facial expressions, moments of silence, body language
and even the smells, the trembling of hands, the blushes and perspiration that speak to us and
are a part of human communication. Digital relationships, which do not demand the slow and
gradual cultivation of friendships, stable interaction or the building of a consensus that
matures over time, have the appearance of sociability. Yet they do not really build community;
instead, they tend to disguise and expand the very individualism that finds expression in
xenophobia and in contempt for the vulnerable. Digital connectivity is not enough to build
bridges. It is not capable of uniting humanity.
44. Even as individuals maintain their comfortable consumerist isolation, they can choose a
form of constant and febrile bonding that encourages remarkable hostility, insults, abuse,
defamation and verbal violence destructive of others, and this with a lack of restraint that
could not exist in physical contact without tearing us all apart. Social aggression has found
unparalleled room for expansion through computers and mobile devices.
45. This has now given free rein to ideologies. Things that until a few years ago could not
be said by anyone without risking the loss of universal respect can now be said with impunity,
and in the crudest of terms, even by some political figures. Nor should we forget that "there
are huge economic interests operating in the digital world, capable of exercising forms of
control as subtle as they are invasive, creating mechanisms for the manipulation of consciences
and of the democratic process. The way many platforms work often ends up favouring encounter
between persons who think alike, shielding them from debate. These closed circuits facilitate
the spread of fake news and false information, fomenting prejudice and hate".
[47]
46. We should also recognize that destructive forms of fanaticism are at times found among
religious believers, including Christians; they too "can be caught up in networks of verbal
violence through the internet and the various forums of digital communication. Even in Catholic
media, limits can be overstepped, defamation and slander can become commonplace, and all
ethical standards and respect for the good name of others can be abandoned".
[48] How can this contribute to the fraternity that our common Father asks of us?
47. True wisdom demands an encounter with reality. Today, however, everything can be
created, disguised and altered. A direct encounter even with the fringes of reality can thus
prove intolerable. A mechanism of selection then comes into play, whereby I can immediately
separate likes from dislikes, what I consider attractive from what I deem distasteful. In the
same way, we can choose the people with whom we wish to share our world. Persons or situations
we find unpleasant or disagreeable are simply deleted in today's virtual networks; a virtual
circle is then created, isolating us from the real world in which we are living.
48. The ability to sit down and listen to others, typical of interpersonal encounters, is
paradigmatic of the welcoming attitude shown by those who transcend narcissism and accept
others, caring for them and welcoming them into their lives. Yet "today's world is largely a
deaf world At times, the frantic pace of the modern world prevents us from listening
attentively to what another person is saying. Halfway through, we interrupt him and want to
contradict what he has not even finished saying. We must not lose our ability to listen". Saint
Francis "heard the voice of God, he heard the voice of the poor, he heard the voice of the
infirm and he heard the voice of nature. He made of them a way of life. My desire is that the
seed that Saint Francis planted may grow in the hearts of many".
[49]
49. As silence and careful listening disappear, replaced by a frenzy of texting, this basic
structure of sage human communication is at risk. A new lifestyle is emerging, where we create
only what we want and exclude all that we cannot control or know instantly and superficially.
This process, by its intrinsic logic, blocks the kind of serene reflection that could lead us
to a shared wisdom.
50. Together, we can seek the truth in dialogue, in relaxed conversation or in passionate
debate. To do so calls for perseverance; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it
can patiently embrace the broader experience of individuals and peoples. The flood of
information at our fingertips does not make for greater wisdom. Wisdom is not born of quick
searches on the internet nor is it a mass of unverified data. That is not the way to mature in
the encounter with truth. Conversations revolve only around the latest data; they become merely
horizontal and cumulative. We fail to keep our attention focused, to penetrate to the heart of
matters, and to recognize what is essential to give meaning to our lives. Freedom thus becomes
an illusion that we are peddled, easily confused with the ability to navigate the internet. The
process of building fraternity, be it local or universal, can only be undertaken by spirits
that are free and open to authentic encounters.
51. Certain economically prosperous countries tend to be proposed as cultural models for
less developed countries; instead, each of those countries should be helped to grow in its own
distinct way and to develop its capacity for innovation while respecting the values of its
proper culture. A shallow and pathetic desire to imitate others leads to copying and consuming
in place of creating, and fosters low national self-esteem. In the affluent sectors of many
poor countries, and at times in those who have recently emerged from poverty, there is a
resistance to native ways of thinking and acting, and a tendency to look down on one's own
cultural identity, as if it were the sole cause of every ill.
52. Destroying self-esteem is an easy way to dominate others. Behind these trends that tend
to level our world, there flourish powerful interests that take advantage of such low
self-esteem, while attempting, through the media and networks, to create a new culture in the
service of the elite. This plays into the opportunism of financial speculators and raiders, and
the poor always end up the losers. Then too, ignoring the culture of their people has led to
the inability of many political leaders to devise an effective development plan that could be
freely accepted and sustained over time.
53. We forget that "there is no worse form of alienation than to feel uprooted, belonging to
no one. A land will be fruitful, and its people bear fruit and give birth to the future, only
to the extent that it can foster a sense of belonging among its members, create bonds of
integration between generations and different communities, and avoid all that makes us
insensitive to others and leads to further alienation".
[50]
Earlier this year, our friend and colleague
Stephen Cohen passed away. His contributions to the field of Russian, East European, and
Eurasian Studies will be felt for years to come. Professor Cohen was a historian, but his
legacy extends far beyond his scholarly work. Every year, the Stephen Cohen
Fellowship -- established on Professor Cohen's initiative and supported by Katrina vanden Heuvel
and the Kat Foundation -- funds the graduate education for master's students in the Department
of Russian & Slavic Studies at NYU. Professor Cohen has also helped enable doctoral
students to conduct dissertation research in Russia through the Cohen-Tucker Fellowship .
As we prepare to celebrate Thanksgiving in the United States, we give thanks to Stephen
Cohen for not only his work in the REEES field but for the generosity he, Katrina vanden
Heuvel, and the Kat Foundation have shown to budding Russia scholars. We honor him today by
publishing the testimonials of some of current and former students who have benefitted from
Cohen Fellowships.
Natasha Bluth (Cohen Fellowship)
The Stephen Cohen Fellowship enabled me to continue my studies of the former Soviet Union,
not only easing the financial burden of graduate school, but also providing the opportunity to
merge journalistic training with area studies, engage with a wide range of scholars and
regional specialists, and conduct field research in Ukraine. The support and encouragement
Stephen Cohen offered at our annual fellowship alumni dinners also inspired me to pursue a PhD
in sociology in order to explore post-Soviet civil society, nationalism, and gender from a
social-scientific perspective.
Michael Coates (Cohen-Tucker Fellowship)
During the 2018-19 academic year, I held a Cohen-Tucker Dissertation Fellowship, which I
used to fund over a year of archival research in Russia on the history of the Great Soviet
Encyclopedia. The fellowship allowed me to visit more than a dozen archives in Moscow and Saint
Petersburg, and to copy thousands of pages of original documents. Had I not been able to carry
out this archival work, I would not have been able to write my dissertation. The travel that
the Fellowship enabled was also personally significant to me, because I had never been to
Russia before I arrived in Moscow for my research year, even though I had already been studying
the country and its language for several years. It is one thing to read books about a
particular place, but actually experiencing life there first-hand is quite another, and has
been essential to the development of my understanding of the region. I am extremely grateful to
Prof. Cohen and Ms. vanden Heuvel for their generosity in funding the next generation of Russia
specialists.
Stephen F. Cohen performed a great service in the last four years as he relentlessly
refuted the great Russiagate hoax which not only distorted our political life but seriously
wounded US-Russia relations for years to come. That hoax is a threat to world peace and Prof.
Cohen from the very first saw through it. Both in his writings for The Nation and his near
weekly conversations with John Batchelor of ABC radio rebutted it clearly, eloquently and at
times with good humor. How very much he is missed.
Ms. Powell did not have much of a reputation in conservative legal circles until last year
when she took on the case of Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump's first national security adviser,
who had pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. but later sought to withdraw his plea. The case
became something of a cause célèbre among many Trump loyalists, who have long
insisted that the president and his allies were the target of nefarious "deep state" law
enforcement and intelligence officials.
Ms. Powell, a native North Carolinian who began her legal career as an assistant federal
prosecutor in Texas, certainly believed that. And through her aggressive defense of Mr. Flynn
-- she often used incendiary rhetoric, accusing the F.B.I. of committing "atrocities" against
her client -- she became an admired figure on the right and a frequent guest on conservative
radio and television programs.
... ... ...
In a statement to The New York Times earlier this year, Ms. Powell said she had long
considered "prosecutorial misconduct and overreach" a problem. Conspiracies within the
American government have been a preoccupation of hers for some time: In 2014 she
self-published a book that purports to be a seminal work in "exposing 'the Deep State.'"
The book arose from her work in private practice, where she spent years representing
defendants in the Enron financial scandal, including the accounting firm Arthur Andersen and
James A. Brown, a former executive at Merrill Lynch. During that time she began to impugn the
motives of one of the federal prosecutors on the case, Andrew Weissmann, who went on to be a
member of the special counsel team under Robert S. Mueller III, who led the investigation
into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia.
... ... ...
In an interview last week on the top-rated "Rush Limbaugh Show" -- in which she spoke for
nearly 20 minutes and faced no skepticism from the guest host, Mark Steyn -- Ms. Powell
claimed that the voting machines in question had been designed to rig elections for the
former ruler of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, who died in 2013. They were "so hackable a
15-year-old could do it," she said. And she cited unnamed "math experts" she had supposedly
consulted who told her how an algorithm added votes for President Trump to Joseph R. Biden
Jr.'s totals.
In an interview the day before on Fox Business, Ms. Powell also said the conspiracy
involved "dead people" who voted "in massive numbers" -- again offering no proof -- and
described how fraudulent paper ballots were also part of the scheme.
Speaking early last week to the right-wing radio host Mark Levin, who has the
fourth-largest audience in talk radio, Ms. Powell said she had obtained an affidavit from
someone purportedly present when the scheme was hatched by pro-Chávez forces in
Venezuela to rig his elections.
Because of her involvement in the Flynn case, the pro-Trump media often presented her as
an expert with unimpeachable credentials.
"Sidney Powell is no joke," declared one Breitbart article published last week, which
mentioned her early career as a federal prosecutor and her work for Mr. Flynn. Mr. Limbaugh,
too, told his audience last week that he seriously doubts she would be putting her
credibility on the line if she hadn't uncovered serious wrongdoing.
Other Trump allies were less convinced that her claims should be taken seriously. Tucker
Carlson of Fox News said last week that when he pressed Ms. Powell, she failed to produce any
evidence to support the elaborate conspiracy she purported to have uncovered. His dissent was
not appreciated by the president's defenders, or by Ms. Powell, who said Mr. Carlson had been
"very insulting, demanding and rude" to her.
Despite initial praise from the president, who announced less than two weeks ago that she
had been added to his team of "wonderful lawyers," it was never clear during her brief time
with the campaign what her job was supposed to be. Her efforts on behalf of the Trump
campaign appeared to be largely limited to public relations She has defended the president
and attacked the integrity of the vote solely on Twitter, on television and at news
conferences, acting more as a publicity agent than a lawyer.
She has said she plans to file a suit in Georgia but hasn't yet. It is unclear whether
that work will continue now that the Trump campaign has cut her loose.
Jeremy W. Peters covers national politics. His other assignments in his decade at
The Times have included covering the financial markets, the media, New York politics and two
presidential campaigns. He is also an MSNBC contributor.
This is highly relevant critique of Trump legal team. But what the author misses is the
systematic campaign of promoting mail-in ballots and enabling ballot harvesting fraud, which is
quite provable and which violated constitutions os several states in which it was practiced. For
example in Georgia the agreement was reached between the Secretary of State and Tracy Abrams, but
the secretary of State has no legal authority to change the state election laws, COVID or no
COVID.
Is not interruption in vote counting qualify as brazen interference? It was never explained.
Just swiped under the carpet. Does neoliberal Dems manipulations with mail-in ballots quality as
"brazen interference" ? i would say yes, it does, This is replica of Pendergast Political Machine
methods. Please note that I am not a Trump supporter. I actually consider both Trump and Biden to
be very similar abominations.
There is a lot of bad reporting in the media, but a lot of the blame rests on Trump, his
legal team and the magnitude, complexity and implausibility of their claims
Trump's lawyers spent a lot of time at the podium lecturing the media on their "fake"
reporting on the fraud claims. No doubt, after four years of mainstream media malpractice, they
have reason for making this claim.
However, the moralistic lecturing was myopic and counterproductive, simply because even
honest journalists (if there are any left) have been left with their heads spinning by the
quantity and magnitude of the claims the Trump administration is putting out there right
now.
Any honest person approaching the fraud claims without a pre-determined position on their
validity (something that is, unfortunately, all too rare) has inevitably been left feeling
overwhelmed and confused. There's just too much information. There are too many conflicting
claims. There isn't enough time to adjudicate each one of them properly. Not only is some
degree of media skepticism to be expected, it's actually the only responsible thing to
do , given the complexity and magnitude of the fraud claims, and the stakes at play.
One of the central claims being made by Trump's legal team is that there exists a vast
national and global conspiracy involving a network of shadowy electronic voting companies,
communist regimes, foreign dictators, vote routing, switching and deleting involving complex
algorithms, and the complicity of numerous Democratic governors and election officials. The
evidence proffered so far to support this claim is a single affidavit by an unnamed Venezuelan
official, and a number of non-specific allegations of data anomalies on election night.
Should we -- should the media -- simply assent to these claims, based solely upon the
heat of Sidney Powell's rhetoric, and a single affidavit? How seriously should we even take
them, given that the clock is ticking, and it is hard to imagine the Trump team actually
proving these allegations by the safe harbor deadlines, whether they are true or not?
How much effort should they expend chasing every new bone Sidney Powell and MAGA surrogates
throw their way?
"Dianne Feinstein's husband! George Soros! Scytl! German servers! Raids by U.S. military!
Spain! Hugo Chavez! Nancy Pelosi's chief of staff! Bill Gates! Cuba!" And so on and so
forth.
It's exhausting just trying to keep up. However you look at it, much of it is
extraordinarily confusing and, frankly, prima facie unbelievable. Of course, truth is
sometimes stranger than fiction. Powell could be right. But how likely is it that all
her increasingly wild allegations should come together just as she has laid them out? And how
surprised should we be that people outside the MAGA camp are skeptical?
3) The whole thing feels like intellectual blackmail
Rudy Giuliani complained that his team is preparing and presenting cases that would normally
take months, if not years to prepare and argue in normal circumstances. The media should give
them time to make their case, and wait for the evidence, he said.
But who's fault is this? The Trump administration had four years to investigate Dominion,
Smartmatic, and the dangers of electronic voting in general. They could have convened
bipartisan committees to investigate voter fraud and the vulnerabilities of these voting
machines.
In 2016, even after he won, Trump claimed that there were millions of fraudulent
votes. If he really believed that, why didn't he do something meaningful about it while he was
in office? Posting about it on Twitter doesn't count.
Sidney Powell has raised some good questions about electronic voting, if only that people
will readily believe wild claims of fraud using it. These questions should be pursued, however,
a few days ago, most of us had never even heard of Dominion, Smartmatic and Scytl, etc.
Now we're being told that we must simply believe Powell's theory that these companies stole the
election. Countless MAGA followers are posting that they are absolutely sure , without
the slightest shadow of a doubt, that Dominion is behind the electoral theft. This feels
mad.
"She's a competent lawyer!" her supporters say. "She's brilliant, she's honest! She's a
patriot!" Maybe she is all of these things, but I'm not going to make a judgment about the
outcome of a presidential election, or assent to a vast, complex, and highly implausible
theory, based upon such thin gruel.
I need time. I need evidence. I need witnesses and counter-witnesses, examined and
cross-examined. And being told by the MAGA crowd that I must assent to the theory, and to
declare certainty that an election is invalid and that a coup has been perpetrated,
without any of these, feels like intellectual blackmail.
The simple fact is, this process should not be happening under the gun like this. And
that's on Trump, not the media.
4) Trump's legal team is making an amateur error in its approach to convincing the
public
A thousand doubts does not constitute proof. Amateur debaters often fall into the trap of
trying to win a debate by listing as many arguments as they can come up with. The mistake is in
thinking that people are convinced by sheer quantities of evidence.
In reality, this almost always backfires. When you pound people over the head with argument
after argument, they tend to become confused, bewildered, and, in the end, resentful. They
resent not having the chance to really think through any one claim or argument in detail.
Inevitably they begin to suspect that you're just trying to pull a fast one on them. Usually,
they're right.
Trump and his legal team have fallen into this trap. At the press conference, they made
repeated reference to the "hundreds" of sworn affidavits they have gathered, and the large
number of their lawsuits. However, while hundreds of affidavits may be "evidence," in the legal
sense of the term, they do not amount to proof.
A journalist for The Blaze reviewed the affidavits filed in Michigan and noted that many of
them do not actually contain allegations of fraud. Instead, they often have to do with
circumstantial things, such as how GOP challengers felt they were being "treated" by election
officials, or described "fraudulent" behavior that could plausibly be interpreted as election
officials following normal procedures that GOP challengers simply failed to understand.
Maybe some of the affidavits obtained by Trump's legal team contain slam-dunk proof of
widespread fraud, but if they do, they are being lost in the noise.
Expert debaters know that the best way to win an argument is to select only the very
best arguments, and to focus on those. If you go for quantity of evidence, inevitably you
will include low quality evidence in your arguments. Your audience, which is not so much
weighing each piece of evidence (an impossible task), as whether you are the sort of person who
should be trusted, will often only remember your bad or weak arguments. The result is
that they will write off everything else you say, as coming from a fundamentally unreliable
source.
Trump and his surrogates have raised important questions about election integrity.
Unfortunately, however, they have also repeated and promoted numerous false claims. Starting on
election night, Trump began retweeting every claim of fraud that came across his Twitter feed,
without any effort to fact check them. Many of them have subsequently been proven to be
baseless.
It should come as no surprise that those who are not already on board the Trump Train are
reacting to each new claim made by Trump with deep skepticism. The tragedy is that some
of these claims may be valid. However, Trump's carelessness with the truth has fatally undercut
his ability to lead a productive inquiry into voter fraud.
5) The fraud 'investigation' is being conducted ass-backwards
Trump, his legal team, and MAGA supporters all began with the conviction that the
election was stolen. Then, they went in search of the proof.
People are skeptical of the effort, because that's the worst possible way to go about an
investigation. The point of conducting an investigation is that you do not know the answer. You
have a hypothesis or a suspicion, but not proof.
The Trump admin has, from the very beginning, claimed absolute certitude. Unfortunately,
this isn't just bad epistemology, it's also insanely reckless, since, by definition, the very
claim calls into doubt the very existence of democracy in America.
The word " coup " is being tossed around by MAGA followers carelessly. To say that's
a loaded word is an understatement. But Trump and his team have left themselves no escape
route. Even if incontrovertible evidence shows up at some point that the election was not
stolen, a significant portion of the MAGA crowd will always believe that it was. At this point,
there is nothing that could convince them otherwise.
Clearly, having a large body of citizens who believe that their government is illegitimate
comes with potentially catastrophic unforeseen consequences. Nobody in the Trump administration
or MAGA crowd seems to be giving any thought to this. Damn the torpedoes.
Given that it's Trump, we can expect him to throw out outrageous claims without making any
real effort to determine if they're really true. However, it is our responsibility to
prioritize truth over political expediency. Whatever our political affiliations, our duty is to
investigate with indifference to the outcome, rather than seeking ways to substantiate
our personal preferences. When faced with a choice between truth and winning, choose truth,
every time.
6) The U.S. electoral system is a mess
Rudy Giuliani has at least this much right. The evidence Giuliani and his team have
collected of conflicting processes and procedures around the country, the reports of
irregularities, the evidence of actual fraud, and the ongoing efforts of Democrats to push less
secure voting methods, may not be sufficient to actually overturn the result. But it absolutely
is sufficient to suggest that the whole system is a mess, and vulnerable to
exploitation.
While I believe the odds of Trump's fraud claims leading to the election being overturned
are slim (although I am keeping an open mind on the question), we can at least hope that the
whole sordid episode leads to some serious and much-needed bipartisan electoral reform, so that
this does not happen again.
But in the end, that's only going to happen if cooler heads prevail, and reckless rhetoric
only leads the country down a dark road of further division and strife.
John Jalsevac is
currently working towards a PhD in philosophy. Prior to grad school, he worked for over a
decade as a journalist, editor, and pro-life activist. His previous journalism and creative
writing have appeared in The Public Discourse, Gilbert! Magazine, Dappled Thing, LifeSiteNews,
and others.
The "conspiracy" gets more interesting the more deeply you look into it. For
instance :
A government body exists that certifies voting machines and software as being 'okay to
use' by individual states. There's a voluntary aspect to this, I believe -- states can choose
to ignore the certification, yeah? But that doesn't matter, because the conspiracy is about
Dominion , and Dominion was certified safe.
And this means that potentially complicit in the communist/globalist/Soros conspiracy to
overthrow Trump are:
* Dominion, obvs.
* Those heads of state that okayed the use of Dominion machines (possibly)
* Those members of that government body most directly responsible for repeatedly certifying
Dominion products
* The laboratory (Wyle, almost always) which repeatedly tested and cleared Dominion
products
And if Wyle is itself on the take from communists/globalists/Soros, shouldn't we
reasonably assume that every other voting product they've tested and cleared is
therefore suspect?
And if that election commission is on the take from communists/globalists/Soros, mustn't
we assume that they are only certifying voting products which serve their agenda?
And should we not question those most responsible for advancing the responsible parties in
that commission to their present exalted state?
And what of Wyle's owners? (National Technical Systems) Should we not be
particularly concerned by their voluntary acquisition of a laboratory group that
exists as a tool of communists/globalists/Soros and sways elections on their behalf?
We need a public hearing all right. Like Watergate. Reminds me of when Sam Ervin said the
telephone is the instrument of the devil. Wiser words I cannot think of.
Every precinct in the United States uses a paper trail to ensure results can be audited.
Every single vote cast involves a piece of paper with voter selections on it. In Georgia,
where Dominion systems were used, the hand audit produced virtually identical results. That
was a full hand recount. If the tally machines were switching votes, even a partial audit
would pick up on that immediately.
Very good article here, and does a good job explaining why so many of us have trouble
taking the claims of fraud seriously. Especially given Trump's long estrangement with truth
generally, and his tendency to promote conspiracy theories, especially those which stand to
benefit him if believed (see QAnon.)
The issues with electronic voting machines have been known for years, and I've seen the
case made convincingly by commentators left, right, and center. I'm certainly glad to have
cast a paper ballot in the last election, as everyone in my state does. Hopefully a silver
lining from this mess will be the adoption of more robust paper balloting systems
nationwide.
Everybody casts a paper ballot in one way or another. In the few places that have voting
machines (and I think it's very few honestly), a paper ballot is generated for auditing
purposes.
Per my understanding, electronic voting machines are fairly widespread and fall into
several categories. While some states do require a paper ballot to be generated for auditing
purposes, there are some states like Kentucky and Indiana that have direct electronic voting
without that capability. It is worth noting that none of those states are the swing states
now in contention though, and that they are invariably red states.
My jurisdiction briefly switched to all-electronic machines, then quickly returned to the
paper ballots read by optical scanning device . . . a much better system.
"The mistake is in thinking that people are convinced by sheer quantities of
evidence."
It works for the democrats, that all they ever do is 'level charges without evidence' in the
MSM, and where Tucker was attempting to take Ms. Powell and it seems your on board like all
the other conservatives tell us, we have to accept Biden, while we look into voting
irregularities and fraud, sometime in the future [post GA's Jan 5th 2nd electronic vote
steal].
I am going to eschew the question about Mr. Carlson and Ms Powell ----
But your observations about what works is accurate. It's a tactic that does work. It works
for prosecutors How do you get 50 million people to believe the Russians actually invaded
election boards and their processes across the country.
And yet, here we have vast irregularities in differing parts of the country. I think there
is a case for fraud, but whether or not that is demonstrated, there is clearly a case for an
audit on both machines and mail in ballots. and there absolutely needs to be an audit of
votes to registered voters and no one needs to a HS diploma to comprehend that it's near
impossible for all mail in ballots to be for x candidate and less than a 6th grade education
to know that if you have 2000 registered voters or even a population of 2000 that the total
number of votes is never going to exceed 100% -- if it does, there's serious problem.
What, no comment forthcoming from you about the terrible, awful, totally crooked election
that happened in 2016, with millions and millions of fraudulent votes--- that Trump never
looked into? In 4 years? At all?
Until he lost this election? He's been whining about how this election was going to be
rigged, couldn't he have skipped a few golf games to actually look into it before it reared
its ugly head and kicked him out of the White House? Sure, sure.
One thing that seems to have gotten lost in the fog--and that definitely got lost
by this author--is that Giuliani and Powell are working on effectively two separate cases.
Both are working for Trump, and both are working against Biden et al with regards to this
election, but there is a clear line of demarcation between the two. Powell's focus is
primarily, if not solely, on Dominion and the electronic case, while Giuliani's primary focus
is on alleged physical fraud.
It makes no sense to assume that Powell's investigation should have begun four years ago,
and then use that as a basis to sneer, as this author does, at Giuliani--whose investigation
could not possibly have begun before November 4--for complaining about having to compress a
type of investigation that typically takes years into less than a month.
I'm not sure what Powell has. Some of the anomalies she has obliquely referred to are
already out there, if you look for them, and they are indeed suspicious (e.g. successive
batches of votes, often 10 or more in a row, all with the exact same ratio of Biden-to-Trump
votes--a statistical, if not literal, impossibility). However, it doesn't look like those
would be enough to swing the election, because even in her telling, if the race had been
closer, the Dominion irregularities would not have been discovered at all. The electronic
interference was significant, but it wasn't what made the difference.
The meat of this case, with the potential to flip the results, lies with old fashioned
physical fraud--ballot-manufacturing and box-stuffing--and Giuliani's mad scramble to find
enough evidence in time.
My gut says he won't make it.
There are very strong indications that what Giuliani and the Trump team suspect did indeed
happen. Most notable is the Democrats' brazen interference with GOP poll-watchers in multiple
states; it is inexplicable if they did not have something to hide. But by the same token,
that very interference successfully hid whatever it was that they did, and because of that,
they have already gotten away with it--the evidence that Giuliani needs is gone forever.
The room is filled with smoke, but the fire has already been extinguished--and without the
fire, Trump can't win.
"The mistake is in thinking that people are convinced by sheer quantities of
evidence."
Evidence, philosophically, is something that is true. If I have an apple in my hand and I
reach out and drop it, I can truthfully tell you that it will fall towards the ground. It is
evidence of the existence of gravity. I can't see gravity. But I can see the apple fall (and
anything else I drop). So can everyone in the world.
An affidavit is not evidence. It is a statement that someone is claiming is true. The
statement may or may not be true. So a lot of affidavits is not a "sheer quantity of
evidence". It's not evidence at all. Trump supporters need to understand that. And this is
why Trump continues to have these court cases thrown out: he is not presenting any real
evidence of fraud. Why? Because there isn't any.
You've got this wrong because your definition of evidence is wrong. An affidavit IS
evidence.The truthfullness or importance of it is something decided in court. It is evidence
just much as a fingerprint at a crime scene is evidence. The relevance of the fingerprint
evidence still has to be determined in court.
What's most obvious to me is that the lawyers making these far-fetched claims didn't
themselves believe the claims. The effort was geared to flood the zone, so to speak, to
create confusion and doubt resulting in state legislatures stepping in to settle electoral
vote allocations.
Sowing doubt this way might be acceptable in criminal court, where defense lawyers are trying
to establish reasonable doubt, however, here the objective should be to determine what
happened, and not inventing things that might have happened.
Soros, Chavez, Spain and communists? I believe the term is "jumping the shark."
Mr. Jalsevac confuses two different facts under heading no. 6, "The U.S. electoral system
is a mess." (1) The US electoral system is not a genuine system at all but an aggregate of
electoral systems that vary by state and even by county. (2) Some of these systems are
untrustworthy. It is clear that the second fact is cause for concern and in need of remedy.
It is not so clear that the first one is. The diversity of electoral systems is a feature
that contributes to the difficulty of manipulating national electoral results. It is the
chief reason why the Trump team has had to resort to grotesque conspiracistic fantasies to
maintain its claim that Trump is the legitimate winner.
"Durable, hand marked paper ballots must be established as the national standard for
democratic elections in the United States. While using paper may sound antiquated, the
consensus among election security experts is that nothing else provides the needed
reliability,security, and transparency. Durable, voter marked paper ballots are appropriate
technology for public elections....Hand Counted Paper Ballots are considered the 'Gold
Standard' of democratic elections"~ National Election Defense Coalition
https://www.electiondefense...
Are there any electronic voting machines in Team D-controlled states? How did they get
there? Did they sneak in across the border? Which political party held the presidency from
2008-2016? Were they pushing relentlessly for paper ballots, hand counted in public? For that
matter, following the 2016 election, I heard lots of conspiracy theory talk from Team D, but
little in the way advocating for paper ballots, hand-counted in public.
The Senate report was long on words, light on specifics. Great, if continuing a new cold
war is your objective. Note that the House did not impeach on that basis, after two years and
change of promising russiagate bombshells that never came.
According to this article, there are 8 states still using voting machines that produce no
paper trail. It's not a long article, but I extracted this list:
"eight states that will use some form of paperless voting in 2020: Texas, Louisiana,
Tennessee, Mississippi, Kansas, Indiana, Kentucky and New Jersey. "
There have been Democrats complaining about electronic voting machines for at least the
last 20 years. You're a bit late to the party, but you're welcome to join. Our democracy
works best when citizens are willing to work together toward goals on which they agree,
regardless of whether or not they agree on all goals.
I would also be glad to see bipartisan electoral reform, but only if includes measures
taken to protect votes before the actual voting starts. Some of the voter suppression
measures we.ve
seen in the last few years are:
- Purging of voter rolls near an election to keep voters from having a chance to vote
- Implementing postal procedures to reduce the speed of mail delivery to make it more
difficult to vote by mail
- Removing mail sorting machines and post office drop boxes to make it more difficult to vote
by mail
- Reducing the number of polling sites in areas populated by the other political party to
complicate voting in person
- Rejecting mailed in ballots because trivial differences in the signature, such as a missing
middle initial.
All of the Republican handwringing about "voter fraud" in the election seems to boil down
to complaints that the judges stopped their efforts to steal the election. Some of that gets
dressed up with pontification about the importance of the credibility of the election. The
credibility of an election is supremely important, but voter suppression damages that
credibility as much as voter fraud.
I noticed you did not mention the Ramsland affidavit in your discussion of the competence
of Trump's legal team. The affidavit attempts to identify areas in Michigan in which more
votes were cast than the number of registered voters. Unfortunately, all the examples
provided were in Minnesota. That does not suggest thorough research. In addition, the areas
listed in the affidavit tend to be in very Republican areas of Minnesota, suggesting that any
voter fraud may be as likely to be Republican as it is to be Democratic.
"Keeping copies of the physical ballots does nothing to assuage these concerns"
I disagree. Here in Michigan we do regular hand checks of randomly chosen scanners, and of
all of them if any problem arises. It has been remarkably accurate in my town.
The opposite of such scanning is prolonged counting, by fallible humans some of them
partisan and fighting with other partisans. I don't see advantage there.
But yes, hacking of any electronic device is a monster problem, and must be addressed by
regular and randomized physical confirmation, just as is done with any quality control
issue.
To be effective against fraud the count needs to be compelled by law and done on a truly
random sampling of ballots until statistical near-certainty of the result through
hand-counting alone is achieved, falling back to a count of all ballots if the election is
close.
Optional procedures executed in creative ways by goofy partisans is what "regular hand
checks" sounds like to me, though I may be wrong.
I agree it's not worthless to save the ballots, and I'd even agree with you far enough to
disagree with the author and say it's possible to design a good manual-check procedure. But I
read what he said as a simplification of the truth: in 2016 there was so much sillyness in
the law and the implementation of recount procedures that it'd be better if the machines
weren't there at all, and I doubt that's changed.
When it is close, we by law have an automatic 100% recount of machine scanned ballots by
hand. That is what was done in 2016. That was discontinued by agreement of both political
parties after the initial round of those counts showed zero error. Zero. By agreement. Thus,
it can be done. But you are correct about the sampling idea, and the need for uniform
enforceable law on the matter.
Now we're being told that we must simply believe Powell's theory that these companies
stole the election.
No, you must either do your own investigating to try and ascertain the truth, (which NO
media outlet seems to be doing) or keep an open mind that Powell will be able to prove what
she says. Powell is not some two-bit lawyer. She's a seasoned federal prosecutor putting a
lot on the line in making these claims. Grant her a modicum of respect in entertaining the
possibility that she can back up what she says.
Also, the Trump campaign has filed exactly 3, and now 4 lawsuits - not 30-something as is
continually and falsely reported and regurgitated by the media. The other lawsuits are by
supporters and allies, but not Trump's lawyers. Yes, it's hard to keep up, but YOUR JOB is to
at least try. Thank you.
I suggest young Master Jalsevac spend a couple of years living in one of our fine major
cities to see how things really are run outside of political philosophy books.
One of the oddest things about this is that in the past, particularly in 2004, many
Democrats charged that the Republicans had stolen the election, particularly in Ohio. Google:
2004 election stolen. You will find a lot of hits. Does anyone remember Diebold voting
machines? Are they still in use? Were they manipulated on behalf of Republicans, then or
later? I have no idea. But I want to make a few points: 1. Liberals have at times complained
loudly about stolen elections and the ease of manipulating electronic results by various
Republican-connected people. 2. Whether these were true or not have they ever been
sufficiently investigated? 3. Why, now is it only a vast liberal conspiracy that is alleged
to exist, and not perhaps the still existing conservative conspiracy from 2004? In November
2005 Mother Jones reviewed a book, Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election &
Why They'll Steal the Next One Too
The voting machine division of Diebold was taken over by Dominion Voting Systems. That's
the easiest conspiracy theory in history. The real question, if you want to believe, is why
the Republicans sold their election-stealer to the Democrats.
"In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters.
This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic
remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be
invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would
come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant
corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed
injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.
That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal
arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and
unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the
disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated
state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to
meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant
Defendants' motions and dismiss Plaintiffs' action with prejudice."
You know, this kind of reasonable and thoughtful writing is why, as a liberal, I like
coming over here to the dark side of town to see what's going on. Even while struggling to
present an open mind, he admits to being buried in the silliness of it all. A good read. Not
surprised to see all these calls for crucifixion in the comments.
You know, this kind of reasonable and thoughtful writing .......
It is neither reasonable or thoughtful. It pretends to be condemning the defense while
pretending that they would otherwise have a case. And he is refusing to acknowledge that the
why Trump has to turn to Rudy - his last resort - is because the reputable lawyers he had on
his team are refusing to make bogus claims in court; to be fair, so does Rudy, but he is
willing to make them to the press and they are not.
Even while struggling to present an open mind, he admits to being buried in the
silliness of it all.
You are doing what Liberals so often do. They are so hungry for a Republican who is not
calling them names and willing to admit that Trump is at fault, that they completely miss the
point that the "admission" is trying to make. When Comey admitted that Hillary Clinton
omitted no indictable offense, they praised him for his "fairness". But he was not being fair
at all. He would have to be an evil crook to indict the nominee of one of our major parties
when he knew she could not be convicted. But he broke every rule of propriety and launched
into a condemnation that handed Trump what he needed to win the election. So this writer
admitted that Trump is making no case . So what? You seem to have missed the
fact that he is falsely claiming that Trump does have case to make. And that
claim is utterly baseless!
I am not a partisan. I detest political parties. But I also detest seeing partisans
complimented for being non-partisan for simply not being on the raving extreme of their
party. It lowers the standard of what it beings to be non-partisan. Non-partisan means to
make judgements consistently on principle, applying the same standards to everyone. I expect
that many Republicans will read my post and conclude that I am being partisan - because that
is taken nowadays to mean "condemns my party". But I get accused just as often by Democrats
to being a Republican, so that is alright with me. But in so far as this particular quarrel
is concerned, President Trump has no case at all. The Pennsylvania elections were run be
declared Republicans. Prominent Republicans, and they gave both Republican Senators more
votes. They counted the legal votes as they were cast. They ran a fair, honest and honorable
election!
Thanks for the magnificent reply, 414 words, all thoughtful. You may have me there in your
sterner criticism of Rod's equivocation about Trump, but consider the audience, after all. As
for being a liberal hungry for a conservative who is not an asshole, guilty as charged. You
make a good point that Rod still seems still to yearn for Trump to have a case to make and
that is true, but I think Rod is fairly conflicted in this and other conundrums conservatives
must find themselves as the whole enterprise sinks into hopelessness and tawdry hopelessness
at that. It is a hard row to hoe, after all. I never said he was non-partisan, just a poor
conservative religious guy trying to make his way in the difficult world while continuing to
try to be a decent man. It is what is endearing about his writing to me sometimes. But I
thank you for this response, it shows both feeling and intelligence.
Unfortunately IMHO, the Kraken was either a careless misspeak or a bluff to shake the
trees to see if a whistleblower would fall out. If the later, it failed. If the former, I am
inclined to give Sidney a break. She has done yeoman's work for Flynn. And so the Kraken
seems destined to remain a creature of Scandinavian lore and Hollywood movies. I wish it were
not so. The Dominion software apparently is easily hacked and allows votes to be directly
manipulated without a trace. Hard to make a case without an audit trail. I wonder whether the
outcry from MAGA supporters will be sufficient to encourage states to choose a more secure
vendor or will Dominion still be in widespread use during the midterms? Kemp, Raffensberger
and company should be ridden out of GA on a rail after a good tar and feathering. Other
states have their own corrupt actors who should receive the same consideration. They all have
sold us out -- if the Dems take the Senate, even to slavery under socialism -- for 30 pieces
of silver. As for Kemp and Raffensberger, in a different age I might have suggested an
appointment with a high, sturdy branch in one of GA's many 100 plus years old live oaks.
As I listened to Lin's interview today I tho't that there must be something in the
Southern water. Both he and Sidney have that Southern drawl. Very genteel, polished and
extremely intelligent.
I am a very brave soul, but I don't think I would want to go up against either of them in
a court of law. 🙂
I forget who it was, either Lou or Tucker, that ended their interview telling Sidney half
jokingly to remember to lock her doors at night.
Please remember to PRAY God's protection for this wonderful woman!
When are they going to lay out the case? Lin Wood and Sidney have been making serious
statements. They have reputations beyond reproach. I believe them when they say they have the
goods. It's like they have to get the election called for Trump or they will surely be
political prisoners.
IF you watch the movie "Kill Chain: The Cyber War on America's Elections"* you will see
that a steal was supposed to happen in Florida that day and it got thwarted, before it got
started,
PLUS, they didn't have the mail in ballot scheme in place yet to back up their theft back
then. China Virus was their plandemic to make that happen, and to get the cash from the Care$
Act to get machines for everyone.
*"(2020)From voter registration to counting ballots, data security expert Harri Hursti
examines how hackers can influence and disrupt the U.S. election system."
Love Sidney Powell but that interview did not give me a lot of confidence. I sure hope she
has some solid evidence. Doesn't sound like she has much though. Don't have much time
left.
Biggest heist in the history of the US and nothing can be done about it is sickening. Barr
and Wray should be ashamed of themselves for letting something like this happen on their
watch. They did nothing. Thanks to them the constitution is now worth nothing. The rights are
gone. Law and order is gone. We are on our own.
How do Barr and Wray even look at themselves in the mirror?
Finally, I found out from this interview where I could send money to support this legal
effort. I'm tired of the RNC doing nothing. Sidney Powell will get my direct support now.
DefendingtheRepublic.org – is the right place.
According to Time : "in addressing the causes and consequences of this pandemic –
and its cruelly uneven impact – the elephant in the room is extreme income inequality.
How big is this elephant? A staggering $50 trillion. That is how much the upward redistribution
of income has cost American workers over the past several decades." Economics as a zero sum
game in other words
Here's an analogy : imagine the blues and reds both agree that I am a notorious thief,
even if it's only a false narrative. Then they hire me as a security guard. That would be
willfully, knowingly hiring a criminal, which would be criminal, not because of the facts,
but because of the logic.
A couple of thoughts about the Venzuela gambit. Evidently Tucker Carson wanted Sydney to
tell him all about the "Dominion" vote flipping in a public interview. Which would have been
tantamount to giving away all the potential Republican case, and given the Democrats prior
knowledge of what to expect. A no-go. Mentioning "Venezuela-Cuba" could have the effect of
heading off a direct civil war if the US Dems and Repubs have a" common enemy" to blame. (Too
late for Russia, China too touchy, not many other major targets). Note that Venezuela has a
paper trail created at the same time as the electronic vote...
"Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own," senior Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and
Jenna Ellis said on Sunday in a joint statement. "She is also not a lawyer for the president
in his personal capacity."
Giuliani and Ellis gave no explanation for the statement. Trump last week named Powell, a
former federal prosecutor, among five well-known lawyers who would lead his legal team in
challenging the results of this month's presidential election.
Powell was among three featured speakers when the Trump legal team held a press conference
on Thursday to give an overview of its election-fraud cases in key states that the president
apparently lost to Democrat rival Joe Biden.
Powell focused largely on accusations that Dominion voting machines and Smartmatic election
software were fraudulently manipulated to award thousands of fake votes to Biden. Her
allegations went deeper, involving allies of the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez owning
Dominion and having ties to Democrat billionaire donor George Soros.
But by Thursday night, Powell's story was being challenged by a conservative media
superstar, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who said she had brushed off multiple requests to
provide evidence of the Dominion-Smartmatic scheme for his show. She also was invited to be
interviewed on his show, but "when we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop
contacting her," Carlson said.
Powell responded by saying
she told Carlson not to contact her again because he was "very insulting, demanding and
rude." She also provided him with an affidavit and referred him to a witness who could help
him understand her statistical evidence. Carlson followed up the next night, saying he had
heard from Trump sources, including other members of the president's legal team, who said that
they hadn't seen Powell's evidence firsthand.
If Powell's allegations in the press conference seemed a little wild, her interview on
Saturday night with conservative news outlet Newsmax took the case to another level. She
accused Georgia's Republican governor, Brian Kemp, and the state's secretary of state, Brad
Raffensperger, of receiving financial benefits to help Biden win the state's 16 electoral
votes.
"Georgia's probably going to be the first state I'm gonna blow up," Powell said of
her planned fraud cases. "And Mr. Kemp and the secretary of state need to go with it because
they're in on the Dominion scam." She added that her Georgia lawsuit, which she hopes to
file this week, "will be biblical."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
15
pogohere 4 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 08:17 PM
Some teams are harder to play on than others. Look at the Flynn case. The US Dep. of Justice
surrendered to Powell et. al. and requested that its own case against Flynn be
dismissed following the disclosure by Powell's efforts that the DOJ was withholding
evidence-- a "Brady rule violation"-- of Flynn's innocence from the defense and the court.
Flynn's prestigious Wa DC law firm earlier had Flynn plead guilty. The judge is holding up
the dismissal of that case, against all precedent. Powell most likely isn't finished. Neither
is The Donald.
GoldMorgsCom 4 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 08:31 PM
Giuliani and Ellis intimidated and gearing down? Powell least nervous at the presentation.
Usually fraud by (voting)computers escapes the possibility of external proof. But a
peculiarity in the Michigan-elections enabled it. See on the site vashiva (Shiva) MIT PhD
Analysis of Michigan Votes Reveals Unfortunate Truth of U.S. Voting Systems. Its systematic
fraud, save screenshots. Steven J. Miller Ph.D. published his testimony, that about 50'000
mail-in ballots of republicans have disapeared in Pensylvenia and 50'000 absentee ballots
have been abused by others (in favor of Biden = +50000). It makes up about 150000 to the
disadvantage of Trump in PA. Bidens surplus was about 75000. About Michigan and Pensylvenia
it has been published that the number of fraud votes was sufficient for a fraud change of the
outcome in favor of "the democrats". The signals are that the same happened in the other
critical states . See also -- Trump lawyers allege 'MASSIVE' election fraud, point to sworn
statements & efforts to threaten and silence them (VIDEO)-- 19 Nov, 2020 20:30 (
rt-search, on top at the right ) In the first ten minutes it is explained how the "democrat"
bosses facilitated huge fraud with absentee ballots. In Pensylvenia 682'000 have been
accepted without proper checks and with destroying the evidence of fraud. It is a federal
offence not to store all election records (scans), even not collecting them, such as besiding
mail-in envelopes and not checking them before opening them.
JingsGeordie 4 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 08:18 PM
Disavows? That's twisting the information (edit - they've now changed it to 'distances') From
Gen. Flynn's twitter feed - ".@SidneyPowell1 has been suspended from Twitter for 12 hours.
She understands the WH press release & agrees with it. She is staying the course to prove
the massive deliberate election fraud that robbed #WeThePeople of our votes for President
Trump & other Republican candidates."
Thesheperd666 4 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 09:02 PM
Trump fired Sidney Powell ? That is a huge mistake and might coast him the presidency. Trumps
team looks weak now ! Sidney look more confident and much more calmer than Rudy Giuliani. I
really don't trust Rudy as much as Sidney, wondering if they are afraid of spoiling the
Republic party before the 12th amendment goes to the house for votes ? Either side your on
this makes Trumps team look bad, and are starting to make up stories. I think Trump did win
by a landslide and this years vote was stolen from the US citizens. Demarcates can breath a
little more easier now that Sidney is gone, she was the strongest one on the team. Trump
needs more Sidney Powell's not less, I don't trust Rudy nor do I think he has what it takes
to win. Trump needs better Lawyers, Rudy is just a celebrity lawyer that will keep his image
no matter what ! Trump needs tigers not mice !
anastasia265 3 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 09:27 PM
It's not true. She was never a part of that team and had her own funding site. Their strategy
was to keep the two matters separate
J_P_Franklin 4 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 08:49 PM
Majority of Republicans are and have conspired against Trump since 2016. America First
Trumpism is the opposite of Republican open borders/free trade treason.
GoldMorgsCom 4 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 09:03 PM
Peculiar is that the German chamber of commerce does not reveal any registration of the
Dominions, neither of Smartmatic neither of Scytl neither of Amazone. These have not
registrated or their registrations are being hidden on request. So who's prosecution by the
German state prosecutors is to be requested?
Gerald Newton 2 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 10:56 PM
Sidney Powell has not released her evidence yet but it is coming. She has an impressive
record and probably will crush much of the federal justice system. That is what she does.
Read her book, Licensed to Lie. It is about the way federal prosecutors lie to prosecute like
they did to Senator Stevens of Alaska.
Swanster6450 3 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 09:56 PM
I guess Sidney Powell is finding what happens to people from outside the political loop when
they seek to stick their nose in and point out a few inconsistencies. Chucked under a bus is
the usual outcome. Julian Assange is also finding out the same thing and, incidentally, so
too is Donald Trump. All shafted and all chucked under a bus for pointing out a few
inconsistencies.
RTreaderCaribb 3 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 09:56 PM
I have one question and one question only: why would Sydney Powell who seems to be very
bright and a good lawyer say something of which she would know will be exposed only in less
than 14 days to be totally untrue? This makes no sense at all. And so I think we all should
pray that this woman does not end up like Jeffrey Epstein. We should take our time. 14 days
are nothing in comparison to the endless work she has to put in . And if she cant show any
fact for her allegations then we can maybe say something went wrong with her. But right now
let this woman work. All this prejudgment in the public court is irritating to me. And if
Sidney Powell did the same then yes, she would be irritating to me too. And for Trump: If he
can prove voter fraud then he should go to the supreme court. If he cant then at some point
he must concede. I guess the latest is December 14th and until then he should just figure out
what it is. That is his legal right. And for the American people: if you were so stupid to
vote for Biden then please bear the consequences thereof because you will go down the tubes.
The man is not well in his head.
allan Kaplan 3 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 09:43 PM
Sidney Powell's stamina, her defiance and her antipathy is so real that those who have faced
injustice by the hands of the powerful know what it takes to get such bullies sweating. The
house of cards of the Democrat commies will come tumbling down once Powell gets to the podium
of naming names, dates, places, and their coconspirators et al. I love her tenacity,
determination, perseverance and her unflinching boldness that most of the dems are sweating
about! Thank you Ms. Powell for a great American tradition and go full speed... the
dissenting maverick you are!
GoldMorgsCom 3 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 09:27 PM
They are so scared that the president Trump will conduct the great cleansing, to start with
removing the authority on the dollar from the Federal Reserve to the usa federal state of the
people. They are already blocking the president Trump during four years to keep him from
that. They know they can now only keep the president Trump from the great cleansing by
removing him from office. They will do more than the high treason of the fraud against the
federal elections, to remove the president Trump from office. Eventually they will detonate a
smuggled-in nuclear bomb and allegate Russia or fire a missile with a nuclear bomb from an
unindentified submarine and allegate Russia. You believe the spread of Covid-19 this year was
a coincidense? If Russia is being attacked any more (with allegations) it is a good reason
for conducting the great cleansing in Russia. Those probably sly covered Khodorovski-types
who are pressing forward (exports of) GMM-injections "against Covid-19" are probably
backstabbing Russia; catastrophic future compensation claims on Russia and confiscation of
all export-incomes. This is a good reason for conducting the great cleansing out of Russia of
all Khodorovski-types. We hope that the reorganized government of Russia will cleanse out all
Khodorovski-types, no matter the president Trump will continue office and conduct the great
cleansing in the usa or not.
Marlin1091 12 minutes ago 23 Nov, 2020 01:06 AM
Google did and is helping biden. That is why I don't use google any more, I use Yandex and
for fackrok I use vk
BRT 207, agreed that the interview was less than cathartic, but Sidney has a tighrope to
walk. Her opponent is not the opposing campaign of Dem hacks. Her opponent is CIA. CIA
stuffed all those ballots. Unfortunately for Sidney, in US law and regulation, CIA crime is
secret. The perps are secret under the IIPA. The facts are secret under the operational files
exemption. The law is secret under COG procedures. Flynn explained the birds and bees to her.
Remember DIA is JFK's creation.
Now Sidney has to find a way to puke up evidence of CIA crime in court.
CIA ratfucked Chavez with their electoral malware, albeit ineffectually.
CIA put their Venezuelan proprietary through a couple of sheepdippings and turned it on
Trump. Just like they used it on Kerry. Just like they do whenever you vote for the wrong
guy. Honnête homme Hopsicker, offered a lifetime of hookers and blow to shut up, has
the most synoptic take:
This is transnational organized crime by CIA. Sidney has to call CIA agents under oath.
She has to protect them from DO's murderers. She has to explode everything you think about
your bullshit fake democracy. I don't know if she can do it but I hope she can.
By Arthur Allen, editor for California Healthline, joined Kaiser Health News in April
2020 after six years at Politico, where he created, edited and wrote for the first health
IT-focused news team. Previously, he was a freelance writer for publications such as The New
York Times, The Washington Post, Smithsonian, Lingua Franca magazine, The New Republic, Slate
and Salon. Earlier in his career, he worked for The Associated Press for 13 years, including
stints as a correspondent based in El Salvador, Mexico and Germany. He is the author of the
books "V
Kaiser Health News. accine: The Controversial Story of Medicine's Greatest Lifesaver" (W.W.
Norton, 2007); "Ripe: The Search for the Perfect Tomato" (Counterpoint Press, 2010) and "The
Fantastic Laboratory of Dr. Weigl" (W.W. Norton, 2014). Originally published at Kaiser Health
News
Kaiser Health News .
When he started researching a troublesome childhood infection nearly four decades ago,
virologist Dr. Barney Graham , then at
Vanderbilt University, had no inkling his federally funded work might be key to deliverance
from a global pandemic.
Yet nearly all the vaccines advancing toward possible FDA approval this fall or winter are
based on a design developed by Graham and his colleagues, a concept that emerged from a
scientific quest to understand a disastrous 1966 vaccine trial.
Basic research conducted by Graham and others at the National Institutes of Health, Defense
Department and federally funded academic laboratories has been the essential ingredient in the
rapid development of vaccines in response to COVID-19. The government has poured an additional
$10.5 billion into vaccine companies since the pandemic began to accelerate the delivery of
their products.
The Moderna vaccine, whose remarkable effectiveness in a late-stage trial was announced
Monday morning, emerged directly out of a partnership between Moderna and Graham's NIH
laboratory.
Coronavirus vaccines are likely to be worth billions to the drug industry if they prove safe
and effective. As many as 14 billion vaccines would be required to immunize everyone in the
world against COVID-19. If, as many scientists anticipate, vaccine-produced immunity wanes,
billions more doses could be sold as booster shots in years to come. And the technology and
production laboratories seeded with the help of all this federal largesse could give rise to
other profitable vaccines and drugs.
The vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are likely to be the first to win FDA
approval, in particular rely heavily on two fundamental discoveries that emerged from federally
funded research: the viral protein designed by Graham and his colleagues, and the concept of
RNA modification, first developed by Drew Weissman and
Katalin Karikó at the University of Pennsylvania. In fact, Moderna's founders in
2010 named the company after this concept: "Modified" + "RNA" = Moderna, according to
co-founder Robert Langer .
"This is the people's vaccine," said corporate critic Peter Maybarduk, director of Public
Citizen's Access to Medicines program. "Federal scientists helped invent it and taxpayers are
funding its development. It should belong to humanity."
Moderna, through spokesperson Ray Jordan, acknowledged its partnership with NIH throughout
the COVID-19 development process and earlier. Pfizer spokesperson Jerica Pitts noted the
company had not received development and manufacturing support from the U.S. government, unlike
Moderna and other companies.
The idea of creating a vaccine with messenger RNA, or mRNA -- the substance that converts
DNA into proteins -- goes back decades. Early efforts to create mRNA vaccines failed, however,
because the raw RNA was destroyed before it could generate the desired response. Our innate
immune systems evolved to kill RNA strands because that's what many viruses are.
Karikó came up with the idea of modifying the elements of RNA to enable it to slip
past the immune system undetected. The modifications she and Weissman developed allowed RNA to
become a promising delivery system for both vaccines and drugs. To be sure, their work was
enhanced by scientists at Moderna, BioNTech and other laboratories over the past decade.
Another key element in the mRNA vaccine is the lipid nanoparticle -- a tiny, ingeniously
designed bit of fat that encloses the RNA in a sort of invisibility cloak, ferrying it safely
through the blood and into cells and then dissolving, thereby allowing the RNA to do its work
of coding a protein that will serve as the vaccine's main active ingredient. The idea of
enclosing drugs or vaccines in lipid nanoparticles arose first in the 1960s and was developed
by Langer and others at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and various academic and
industry laboratories.
Karikó began investigating RNA in 1978 in her native Hungary and wrote her first NIH
grant proposal to use mRNA as a therapeutic in 1989. She and Weissman achieved successes
starting in 2004, but the path to recognition was often discouraging.
"I keep writing and doing experiments, things are getting better and better, but I never get
any money for the work," she recalled in an interview. "The critics said it will never be a
drug. When I did these discoveries, my salary was lower than the technicians working next to
me."
Eventually, the University of Pennsylvania sublicensed the patent to Cellscript, a biotech
company in Wisconsin, much to the dismay of Weissman and Karikó, who had started their
own company to try to commercialize the discovery. Moderna and BioNTech later would each pay
$75 million to Cellscript for the RNA modification patent, Karikó said. Though unhappy
with her treatment at Penn, she remained there until 2013 -- partly because her daughter, Susan
Francia, was making a name for herself on the school's rowing team. Francia would go on to win
two Olympic gold medals in the sport. Karikó is now a senior officer at BioNTech.
In addition to RNA modification and the lipid nanoparticle, the third key contribution to
the mRNA vaccines -- as well as those made by Novavax, Sanofi and Johnson & Johnson -- - is
the bioengineered protein
developed by Graham and his collaborators . It has proved in tests so far to elicit an
immune response that could prevent the virus from causing infections and disease.
The protein design was based on the observation that so-called fusion proteins -- the pieces
of the virus that enable it to invade a cell -- are shape-shifters, presenting different
surfaces to the immune system after the virus fuses with and infects cells. Graham and his
colleagues learned that antibodies against the post-fusion protein are far less effective at
stopping an infection.
The discovery arose in part through Graham's studies of a 54-year-old tragedy -- the failed
1966 trial of an NIH vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. In a clinical trial,
not only did that vaccine fail to protect against the common childhood disease, but most of the
21 children who received it were hospitalized
with acute allergic reactions, and two died .
About a decade ago, Graham, now deputy director of NIH's Vaccine Research Center, took a new
stab at the RSV problem with a postdoctoral fellow, Jason McLellan. After isolating and
obtaining three-dimensional models of the RSV's fusion protein, they worked with Chinese
scientists to identify an appropriate neutralizing antibody against it.
"We were sitting in Xiamen, China, when Jason got the first image up on his laptop, and I
was like, oh my God, it's coming together," Graham recalled. The prefusion antibodies they
discovered were 16 times more potent than the post-fusion form contained in the faulty 1960s
vaccine.
Two 2013 papers the team published in Science earned them a runner-up
prize in the prestigious journal's Breakthrough of the Year award. Their papers, which
showed it was possible to plan and create a vaccine at the microscopic structural level, set
the NIH's Vaccine Research Center on a path toward creating a generalizable, rapid way to
design vaccines against emerging pandemic viruses, Graham said.
In 2016, Graham, McLellan and other scientists, including Andrew Ward at the Scripps
Research Institute, advanced their concept further by publishing the prefusion structure
of a coronavirus that causes the common cold and a patent was filed for its design by NIH,
Scripps and Dartmouth -- where McLellan had set up his own lab. NIH and the University of Texas
-- where McLellan now works -- filed an additional patent this year for a
similar design change in the virus that causes COVID-19.
Graham's NIH lab, meanwhile, had started working with Moderna in 2017 to design a rapid
manufacturing system for vaccines. In January, they were preparing a demonstration project, a
clinical trial to test whether Graham's protein design and Moderna's mRNA platform could be
used to create a vaccine against Nipah, a deadly virus spread by bats in Asia.
Their plans changed rapidly when they learned on Jan. 7 that the epidemic of respiratory
disease in China was being caused by a coronavirus.
"We agreed immediately that the demonstration project would focus on this virus" instead of
Nipah, Graham said. Moderna produced a vaccine within six weeks. The first patient was
vaccinated in an NIH-led clinical study on March 16; early results from Moderna's
30,000-volunteer late-stage trial showed it was nearly 95% effective at preventing
COVID-19.
Although other scientists have advanced proposals for what may be even more potent vaccine antigens ,
Graham is confident that carefully designed vaccines using nucleic acids like RNA reflect the
future of new vaccines. Already, two major drug companies are doing advanced clinical trials
for RSV vaccines based on the designs his lab discovered, he said.
In a larger sense, the pandemic could be the event that paves the way for better, perhaps
cheaper and more plentiful vaccines.
"It's a silver lining, but I think we are definitely pushing forward the way everyone is
thinking about vaccines," said Michael Farzan , chair of the department of
immunology and microbiology at Scripps Research's Florida campus. "Certain techniques that have
been waiting in the wings, under development but never achieving the kind of funding they
needed for major tests, will finally get their chance to shine."
Under a 1980
law, the NIH will obtain no money from the coronavirus vaccine patent. How much money will
eventually go to the discoverers or their institutions isn't clear. Any existing licensing
agreements haven't been publicized; patent disputes among some of the companies will likely
last years. HHS' big contracts with the vaccine companies are not transparent, and Freedom of
Information Act requests have been slow-walked and heavily redacted, said Duke University law
professor Arti Rai.
Some basic scientists involved in the enterprise seem to accept the potentially lopsided
financial rewards.
"Having public-private partnerships is how things get done," Graham said. "During this
crisis, everything is focused on how can we do the best we can as fast as we can for the public
health. All this other stuff is going to have to be figured out later."
"It's not a good look to become extremely wealthy off a pandemic," McLellan said, noting the
big stock sales by
some vaccine company executives after they received hundreds of millions of dollars in
government assistance. Still, "the companies should be able to make some money."
For Graham, the lesson of the coronavirus vaccine response is that a few billion dollars a
year spent on additional basic research could prevent a thousand times as much loss in death,
illness and economic destruction.
"Basic research informs what we do, and planning and preparedness can make such a difference
in how we get ahead of these epidemics," he said.
I appreciate the recent re-look at the nexus of public investment funding private profit
in the pharma space. I'm not old enough to recall how things were done prior to the 1980s
with regards to promising academic discoveries getting commercialized in the United States.
There is also a glaring omission here in that there are mechanisms for the Federal Government
to take control of patents and price fix in an emergency, but it's clear that was never going
to happen and was never whispered in the lead up to operation Warp Speed. Pfizer keeps
pointing out they never took government money, which is a set up for them to set the price at
whatever they want while executives line their pockets.
The second point, that is not a focus of the article, is that these technologies are still
completely unproven. I am optimistic about the early results, though would feel better if
they were published in quality journals and not press releases. We simply don't know anything
about long term affects of dosing with this technology. These articles make it sound like
we're out of the woods and these vaccines are here to stay, but what if there are high
percentages of people that get major side effects? We still have no idea.
I was just thinking about that this morning. I thought about the little boy who cried
wolf. If Don had not tarnished his (??where-with-all??) by not leading. He still be the
Prez.
I applaud you for standing with power of your convictions. Not many have the integrity to
do so. This is meant sincerely.
On the other hand I think Larry has a point. Hopefully his and my concerns will prove to
be unfounded. I believe it is too soon to tell. Your question about the quantification of
risk is a fair question and is difficult for the layman judge.
I share the concerns that have been and are voiced here. Still, there is a class aspect to
it all. It seems as if this war is like every other war; the poors are sent in first. There
are many, perhaps the majority of volunteers, that need the couple of hundred bucks the
pharmas are offering the participants. They are the same people that line up to sell their
blood plasma every week. Big business, that. So, I woke up, looked in the mirror, and told
the old man there to "Suck it up, Buttercup."
And Lambert and others are right when they say our leaders should be first in line to roll
up their sleeves. Just don't forget the many that have already done so.
It was a revelation to me that RNA vaccines had been in the works since the 60s. That
makes me a little more in-favor of them. It is still frightening that this vaccine will be
mandated for all medical personnel before the rest of the population. Also interesting that
RNA gets greased up to slip past the enzymes(?) that destroy errant RNA I'm still trying to
think how that might not be such a good thing. But you are right – it looks like it
works. Extremely well in fact. But a timeline to prove it is safe? I'd say one or two
generations. If this mRNA slips past the mechanisms to protect the cell from foreign RNA then
it could hang around long enough to communicate itself back to the genetic DNA – it's
just that they don't quite know how that process works yet. And that's scary as hell.
(Lamarck's Signature). I'd say maybe we should not give this vaccine to anyone under the age
of 35 until we know more about possible negatives involving inheritance. Instead we should
produce good medicines to treat these infections.
Yes, we need volunteers. And they need to be fully informed. I hope you noticed this
remark in yesterday's Water Cooler. Of course, we don't know that the commentor's claimed
bona fides are factual, but if so, his/her take seems appropriate to me.
The publications and a full accounting of side effects are important for a new technology
like this. Traditional vaccinations are in the billions of doses at this point and quite
safe. For this new technology, it's quite hard to say. The publications might bowl me over
and convince me, but press releases do not.
It should be noted that, so far, we have proof of effectiveness in the form of press
releases that are intended to goose stock prices.
Long story, but the neoliberalization of basic biomedical science is complete. This was
foreseeable upon passage of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. I remember how such science was done
way back then. Scientists did science. Those without the patience and essentially
self-abnegation required for that, went to work at Ciba-Geigy or Burroughs-Welcome or Merck.
The system worked, more or less. At the time I was a very junior lab member, and I told my
labmates that Bayh-Dole meant only that we would pay for most science (at least) twice, the
first time when NIH/NSF/ACS/AHA/March of Dimes funded it and the second time when Big Pharma
"bought" it and charged what a false, not free, market in research and health care would
bear. They just stared at me, with stars in their eyes.
Dolly Parton is a great songwriter and performer but is also a shrewd businesswoman who is
hyper-focused on helping "her people" in the region where she grew up dirt poor. "Coat of
Many Colors" is one of the truly great autobiographical songs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_Many_Colors_(song)
1.So if there were to be no vaccine and the virus had it's way with us, killing 1% of us,
that's what, -- 3 million souls?
2. Alternatively, if there is a vaccine and everyone is vaccinated and that brings an end
to the pandemic, with deaths much curtailed, but 25,000 get Guillian Barre', that's still a
win right?
(Though not if you are one of the 25,000.)
3. Lastly, given their penchant for maximizing clicks and eyeballs,
how do you think the media would handle situations 1 or 2?
Trust in Public Health is easier to knock down than to build back up, especially
vaccines.
As Greg Brown says, "It's a long way up but it's a short way down."
South Dakota will be very informative on this front. It appears to be trying to drag-race
herd immunity through infection before a vaccine shows up. It will probably be the control
group for the statistical study of the relative efficacy on lives saved by a vaccine vs.
letting the disease take its natural course. Beer appears to be the placebo vaccine of choice
in South Dakota.
My reading of this is that even if Pfizer didn't take government money as part of the Warp
Speed initiative, as a mRNA vaccine it still likely builds on the earlier work. I have no
problem with pharma companies making a profit of their later work – they did do the
last critical developments – but nothing for the earlier work isn't right.
We pay for it but they profit from it. Why? Why is there for profit pharma and corporate
medicine to begin with? Why is there competition instead of cooperation in the production of
life saving/extending and other commonly needed goods and services? The provision of
pharmaceuticals and medicine are a free market failure. We are not adequately provided with
what we all must have at prices we all can afford. They've failed not because of the
scientists and medical practitioners who do the real work. They've failed because of the
capitalist parasites that own the corporations that employ the professionals who create the
products and provide the services on the ground.
One thought unsupported by any relevant technical expertise: the delivery mechanism sounds
well suited for bio weaponry given it bypasses your immune reaction to RNA.
The protein design was based on the observation that so-called fusion proteins -- the
pieces of the virus that enable it to invade a cell -- are shape-shifters, presenting
different surfaces to the immune system after the virus fuses with and infects cells. Graham
and his colleagues learned that antibodies against the post-fusion protein are far less
effective at stopping an infection.
Reminds me of this other mysterious shape-shifter: From Wikipedia:
Prions are misfolded proteins with the ability to transmit their misfolded shape onto normal
variants of the same protein. They characterize several fatal and transmissible
neurodegenerative diseases in humans and many other animals. It is not known what causes the
normal protein to misfold, but the abnormal three-dimensional structure is suspected of
conferring infectious properties, collapsing nearby protein molecules into the same shape.
The word prion derives from "proteinaceous infectious particle".
Long-term follow-up of individuals who have received this vaccine versus their placebo
compatriots is essential!
Not likely to be similar. The "shape shifting" of the viral fusion protein means that
different epitopes (i.e., different constellations of 3-D structure that elicit
immune/antibody responses) of the fusion protein, which is embedded in the viral membrane
envelope, are presented pre- and post-fusion. Antibodies against "post-fusion" fusion protein
are unlikely to work because fusion with the host cell is the key phase of infection. But,
and this is a big consideration, rushing into this is foolish, despite the rise in Big Pharma
stock prices.
COVID vaccine revelation sinks like a stone; disappears
In major media, certain stories gain traction. The trumpets keep blaring for a time before
they fade.
Other stories are one-offs. A few of them strike hard. Their implications -- if anyone
stops to think about them -- are powerful. Then nothing.
"Wait, aren't you going to follow up on that? Don't you see what that MEANS?"
Apparently not, because dead silence. "In other news, the governor lost his pet parakeet
for an hour. His chief of staff found it taking a nap in a desk drawer "
One-offs function like teasers. You definitely want to know more, but you never get
more.
Over the years, I've tried to follow up on a few. The reporter or the editor has a set of
standard replies: "We didn't get much feedback." "We covered it." "It's now old news." "There
wasn't anything else to find out."
Oh, but there WAS.
A few weeks ago, I ran a one-off. The analysis and commentary were mine, but the story was
an opinion piece in the New York Times. The Times called it an opinion piece to soften its
blow. I suspected it would disappear, and it did.
Its meaning and implication were too strong. It would be a vast embarrassment for the
White House, the Warp Speed COVID vaccine program, the vaccine manufacturers, the coronavirus
task force, and vaccine researchers.
And embarrassment would be just the beginning of their problem.
So here it is again. The vanished one-off, back in business:
COVID vaccine clinical trials doomed to fail; fatal design flaw; NY Times opinion piece
exposes all three major clinical trials.
Peter Doshi, associate editor of the medical journal BMJ, and Eric Topol, Scripps Research
professor of molecular medicine, have written a devastating NY Times opinion piece about the
ongoing COVID vaccine clinical trials.
They expose the fatal flaw in the large Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna trials.
September 22, the Times: "These Coronavirus Trials Don't Answer the One Question We Need
to Know"
"If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew
protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its
serious complications?"
"The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases."
"But that's not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine
candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is on hold, are approaching the
problem."
"According to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a
vaccine could meet the companies' benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild
Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk
of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death."
"To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting
seriously sick. That's not what these trials will determine."
This means these clinical trials are dead in the water.
The trials are designed to show effectiveness in preventing mild cases of COVID, which
nobody should care about, because mild cases naturally run their course and cause no harm.
THERE IS NO NEED FOR A VACCINE THAT PREVENTS MILD CASES.
There. That's the NY Times one-off. My piece analyzing it went on much longer, but you get
the main thrust:
The leading vaccine clinical trials are useless, irrelevant, misleading, and
deceptive.
But now, it gets much worse. Because Pfizer has just announced their vaccine is almost
ready. CNBC headline, November 9: "Pfizer, BioNTech say Covid vaccine is more than 90%
effective -- 'great day for science and humanity'"
And not a peep about the NY Times one-off. That's gone, as if it never was.
Trump's coronavirus task force knows the truth. Biden's new task force, waiting in the
wings, knows the truth. But they don't care. They're criminals. They'd sell a car with a gas
tank ready to explode to a customer with cash.
But you care, because you can read and think.
You can raise hell.
Now, in case anyone is interested in knowing WHY the major clinical trials of the COVID
vaccine are designed only to prevent mild cases of COVID, I'll explain.
A vaccine maker assumes that, during the course of the clinical trial, a few of the 30,000
volunteers are going to "catch COVID-19."
They assume this because "the virus is everywhere," as far as they're concerned. So it'll
drop down from the clouds and infect a few of the volunteers.
The magic number is 150. When that number of volunteers "catch COVID," everything stops.
The clinical trial stops.
At this point, the vaccine maker hopes that most of the volunteers who "got infected" are
in the placebo group. They didn't receive the real vaccine; they received the saltwater
placebo shot.
Then the vaccine maker can proudly say, "See? The volunteers who caught COVID-19? Most of
them didn't receive the vaccine. They weren't protected. The volunteers who received the real
vaccine didn't catch COVID. The vaccine protected them."
Actually, the number split the vaccine makers are looking for is 50 and 100. If 50 people
in the vaccine group catch COVID, and 100 in the placebo group catch COVID, the vaccine is
said to be 50% effective. And that's all the vaccine maker needs to win FDA approval for the
vaccine.
But wait. Let's look closer at this idea of "catching COVID." What are they really talking
about? How do they define that? Claiming a volunteer in the clinical trial caught COVID adds
up to what?
Does it add up to a minimal definition of COVID-19 -- a cough, or chills and fever? Or
does it mean a serious case -- severe pneumonia?
Now we come to the hidden factor, the secret, the source of the whole con game.
You see, the vaccine maker starts out with 30,000 HEALTHY volunteers. So, if they waited
for 150 of them to come down with severe pneumonia, a serious case of COVID, how long do you
think that would take? Five years? Ten years?
The vaccine maker can't possibly wait that long.
These 150 COVID cases the vaccine maker is looking for would be mild. Just a cough. Or
chills and fever. That scenario would only take a few months to develop. And face it, chills,
cough, and fever aren't unique to COVID. Anyone can come down with those symptoms.
THEREFORE, THE WHOLE CLINICAL TRIAL IS DESIGNED, UP FRONT, TO FIND 150 CASES OF MILD AND
MEANINGLESS AND SELF-CURING "COVID."
About which, no one cares. No one should care.
But, as we see, Pfizer is trumpeting their clinical trial of the vaccine as a landmark in
human history.
And THAT'S the story of the one-off the NY Times didn't think was worth a second
glance.
Because they're so stupid? No. They're not that stupid.
They're criminals.
And the government wants you to take the experimental COVID vaccine, whose "effectiveness"
was designed to prevent nothing worth losing a night's sleep over.
The only worry are the adverse effects of the vaccine, about which I've written
extensively. These effects include, depending on what's in the vial, a permanent alteration
of your genetic makeup, or an auto-immune cascade, in which the body attacks itself.
O'Connor pushed her about her claims that computer software used in the election,
particularly Dominion Voting Systems, has been tainted, and he wondered how she would prove it.
For starters, Powell said that her legal team has pictures of votes being manipulated in
real-time.
"It is terrifying, and it is a huge national security issue," Powell said. "Why the
Department of Justice and FBI have not done something, Dominion is closing its offices and
moving. No doubt they're shredding documents. God only knows what else. More than 100 Dominion
people have wiped any connection with Dominion off the internet."
She also claims that they have testimony from witnesses opening military ballots and
trashing them if they were for Trump, and substitute ballots were put in for Biden.
"I'm essentially staking my personal and professional reputation on these allegations, and I
have no hesitation from what I've seen in doing so," she noted. "In fact, I think it would be
irresponsible if not criminal of me not to come forward with it."
She also says she would LOVE for Dominion to sue her over her allegations so she can conduct
civil discovery. Powell also reacted to Fox News host Tucker Carlson's criticism of her on his
program on Thursday night.
The mass mailing of unsolicited ballots is of course a recipe for fraud, even more so in a
state where the voter rolls contain tens of thousands of people who haven't voted or updated
their records in more than a decade. This is how you get dead people voting, as we
reported here at The Federalist and as Tucker Carlson
noted last week .
But there's another, less sensational but perhaps more consequential election scandal in
Nevada that hasn't yet made headlines, even though it's been hiding in plain sight for weeks
now. Under the guise of supposedly nonprofit, nonpartisan get-out-the-vote campaigns, Native
American voter advocacy groups in Nevada handed out gift cards, electronics, clothing, and
other items to voters in tribal areas, in many cases documenting the exchange of ballots for
"prizes" on their own Facebook pages, sometimes even while wearing official Joe Biden campaign
gear.
Simply put, this is illegal. Offering voters anything of value in exchange for their
vote is a violation of
federal election law , and in some cases punishable by up to two years in prison and as
much as $10,000
in fines . That includes raffles, free food, free T-shirts, and so on.
... ... ...
There are about 60,000 eligible Native American voters in Nevada who make up about 3 percent
of the state's total voting population. That's almost twice the current margin of Biden's
current lead over President Trump in Nevada. So the Native American vote really does matter, it
could even be decisive. It therefore matters how many Native American votes were influenced by
an illegal cash-for-votes scheme, especially if funding for it came from American taxpayers via
the NCAI.
It also matters because this didn't just happen in Nevada. Organizers there might have been
more obvious about what they were doing, but there's evidence that similar efforts, including
gift card and electronics giveaways, were undertaken in Native communities in
South Dakota ,
Arizona ,
Wisconsin ,
Washington ,
Michigan ,
Idaho , Minnesota , and Texas .
All of this coordinated illegal activity, clearly designed to churn out votes for Biden and
Democrats in tribal areas all across the country, is completely out in the open. You don't need
special access or some secret source to find out about it. You just have be curious, look
around, and report it.
Unfortunately, mainstream media outlets are not curious and refuse to report on any of this
stuff. What's described above is an egregious and totally transparent vote-buying scheme in
Nevada that was likely undertaken on a similar scale across nearly a dozen other states, but
you won't read about it in The New York Times, or hear about it on CNN.
That's not because the story is unimportant, but because, for the media establishment, it's
inconvenient. No wonder these groups didn't try to hide what they were doing.
"... And, objectively, how is the neoliberal model doing? For starters, there is so much money around that doesn't know what to do with itself, that the price of money (interest rates) has never been lower. Ever. Basic supply and demand. ..."
We really need to accept that we may not know what we think we know. For 40 years, we've all
been bleating the mantras of neoliberalism which were promoted as The Natural Order of Things,
but are in fact just a model, one of many.
And, objectively, how is the neoliberal model doing? For starters, there is so much money
around that doesn't know what to do with itself, that the price of money (interest rates) has
never been lower. Ever. Basic supply and demand.
At the same time, neoliberal governments, citing lack of money, have imposed austerity
measures on the working class, cutting services and support to such an extent that serious
social problems have arisen.
The reason the governments are short of cash is because they have continually reduced the
share of GDP that goes into public coffers.
Blind Freddy can see the resultant inequality is a highly undesirable state of affairs,
generating social unrest and unstable markets. Bizarrely, it is also contrary to the most basic
of economic truisms: give poor people money and they spend it right away, generating a ripple
of economic activity that reverberates through the real economy.
But according to neoliberalism, what we have here is perfectly fine because it accords
with the model. And then the High Priests move in and blow smoke over the whole thing with
incantations of why this must be so, again according to the model, which they themselves drew
up to coordinate the way we do things. And of course, they believe their economic theory is the
Natural Order of Things.
The pandemic has blown the lid off a few of those mantras. It'll take fifty years to
decarbonise? We advanced decades in a few weeks. There is no magic money tree? Yes, there is
and you just used it. Giving poor people money undermines the economy? No, it doesn't –
you've just proved it. Government debt is a drain on the economy? Not if it stimulates
activity. Tax is an expense that needs to be curtailed? No, it's an investment in the economy
for everyone.
There are so many things we think we know and many of them are nonsense. We need to take the
opportunity this disruption presents and design a society for humans, not for corporations.
"... "They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side, but no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen." ..."
"... we can see that 2016 candidate Trump was relatively Trumpist but President Trump was less so. Salaries for the bottom 25% of workers did have the highest rate in increase during his term (through 2019). But in 2020, candidate Trump almost completely rejected Trumpism and ran as an ruling class establishment stooge. ..."
"... Trumpism is not a revolutionary ideology in the correct sense of the term. It is an incrementalist approach that seeks to better the material conditions of the working class but within the current capitalist power structure. ..."
"... The ruling class strategy in the US is to decorate with masks of "diversity" the ugly visages of class dominance. Thus Obama's and soon Kamala's pro-ruling class policies cannot be criticized for fear of being abused as a "racist". ..."
"... Trumpism relies on labor markets to improve the material conditions of the working class. A tight labor market necessarily transfers wealth from the rich to the poor in the form of decreased profits for the rich through increased salaries for the poor. ..."
"... Trump the ruler was presented with the greatest gift a border-loving Trumpist politician could ever ask for: Covid-19. But instead of exploiting this crisis like Viktor Orbán did in Hungary, Trump stabbed Trumpism in the back by turning himself into a useless libertarian during the crisis by refusing for example to push a law that requires home manufacturing of all critical supplies and in never closing the borders properly. He acted like a narcissistic clown in the early days of the crisis and deserves to lose just for that reason. ..."
"... So US racism is fully owned and perpetuated by the ruling class: wealthy oligarchs (including Trump), the media, Wall Street, CIA, FBI, the military industrial complex, multi-national corporations, Silicone Valley Tech, Hollywood, etc. Where there is power there is racism, where there is powerlessness there may be bigotry but not racism. The above lineup of ruling class racists, except for Trump, is the Biden coalition. The ruling class goal is to place an "enlightened person" mask over naked and rapacious ruling class greed and oppression. ..."
"... Under Biden, globalization will once again increase the pace and amplitude of the immiseration of the working class, resistance to the dominant economic paradigm will only grow on both the progressive left and the popular right. ..."
"... In a sense the Biden presidency will be a reactionary movement in that they will be trying to restore the pre-Trumpism political order. This will only further cement the soundness of Trumpism as an ideology. ..."
"... The bottom has no political or economic leverage, and isn't navigating to a position of strength. For example, the "bottom" is currently accepting placebo identity-politics as pacifier. The "bottom" is still searching for an "easy button" solution rather than taking a deeper look at oneself and the layout of the chess board at the macro level. ..."
"... Within an environment of worker scarcity, automation is a positive trend and helps lessen inflationary pressures. The problem with the US is that there is not enough automation because of cheap and docile labor. Compare a meat packing plant in Denmark which is highly automated compared to a US plant, which is packed to the brim with cheap imported labor. Much of the Covid crisis in the US and UK is brought about by sweatshop-style working conditions. ..."
"... It's grotesque to learn that Kamila Harris's relatives are connected to Uber/Lyft. Prop. 22 getting approved in California is another sign of propaganda/big money effectiveness ..."
"... Trumpism stands in opposition to globalization; whose goal is worker abundance which necessarily drives wages down and increases oligarchic wealth. US led imperialism, especially in the Middle East is also a necessary feature of globalization. ..."
"... Here too I would make a modification. Neo-liberalism and globalization aren't about worker "abundance" but rather worker "disposability." Again, if the idea is to create an abundance of workers, driving down market share, then why make finding work so complicated? Why be against strong education systems which would create new workers. Why shut down factories here in the US only to open them in Korea? Why lock up so many Americans for petty offensive, removing them from the willing work force. ..."
"... I would argue that the heart of neo-liberalism is a class structure that places "the establishment" as not just important in the grand scheme of things, but completely indispensable to an individual. And part of that self-aggrandizement is the subjection of every one else. "I am worth more than a thousand of you." Thus, why I must get 2-million-dollar bonus (even after bankrupting the company) and a post on the new re-org chart while everyone else gets a pink slip and watch their hard-earned pensions disappear in chapter 11 proceedings. ..."
"... But it does speak to how disposable workers are to upper management. You are hired for X, and when X is done you are automatically laid off. Why would you waste time giving such an employee training of any sort? Let alone benefits or perks. ..."
"... What is inexplicable is when unions attack Trumpist attempts at macro-scarcity through the use of national borders. A united Union/Trumpist front is required against ruling class interests. Struggling for worker scarcity does not mean one "hates" the workers the ruling class is importing in order to create worker abundance. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is Capitalism's attempt to remove the fetters on profits that exist within the power of a nation-state. Worker abundance is just one of many Neoliberal goals. Borders are a huge fetter to capitalism's basic mission of maximizing profit by producing commodifies with the cheapest labor and selling them to the wealthiest consumers. ..."
"... This is a very important aspect of precarity. Reducing work competition for jobs to increase wages is only half the job, stopping financial predators is the other half, imo ..."
"... Without immigration or outsourcing or even automation, the predators will find still other ways to break labor. We are seeing it with identity politics. ..."
"... I would argue that Bernie and Tulsi are "Trumpism adjacent" in the larger sense of Trumpism. ..."
"... If Trumpism as an ideology is going to flourish, Tulsi in particular will play a critical role in this. The simplest way to see this is that when the ruling class smears someone as a "Russian asset" what they are really doing is recognizing them as a Trumpist threat. ..."
"... precarious (adj.) 1640s, a legal word, "held through the favor of another," from Latin precarius "depending on favor, pertaining to entreaty, obtained by asking or praying," from prex (genitive precis) "entreaty, prayer" (from PIE root *prek- "to ask, entreat"). ..."
"... The notion of "dependent on the will of another" led to the extended sense "risky, dangerous, hazardous, uncertain" (1680s), but this was objected to. "No word is more unskillfully used than this with its derivatives. It is used for uncertain in all its senses; but it only means uncertain, as dependent on others " [Johnson]. Related: Precariously; precariousness. ..."
"... Questiones Disputatae ..."
"... contra, sed contra, ..."
"... When investigating the nature of anything, one should make the same kind of analysis as he makes when he reduces a proposition to certain self-evident principles." ..."
"... Vista Hermosa residents like Luna are troubled by a 2019 environmental rollback by the state, AB1197, that exempts homeless housing developments in the City of Los Angeles from the mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Arguably California's broadest environmental law, CEQA requires builders to assess the environmental impacts of new development and find ways to avoid or mitigate them. ..."
"... The political will to rollback CEQA has continued into 2020. In January, Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, who represents District 53 bordering Vista Hermosa, introduced a new piece of legislation, AB1907, to further expand CEQA exemptions to now include all affordable housing. ..."
"... "a giant suction pump had by 1929 to 1930 drawn into a few hands an increasing proportion of currently produced wealth. This served then as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied themselves the kind of effective demand for their products which would justify reinvestment of the capital accumulation in new plants. In consequence as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When the credit ran out, the game stopped" ..."
We have to carefully distinguish between two very different concepts, both based on the word
"Trump". First there is "Trumpism" which is an ideology. The overarching idea behind Trumpism
is to make the GOP a working-class oriented party. The key policy aims of Trumpism are worker
scarcity and anti-imperialism. Worker scarcity is achieved through immigration restriction and
protectionist trade policies. So together, we have the Trumpist Trinity, anti-immigration,
trade restriction, and anti-imperialism. This is the ideology that Trump ran on and rode to
victory in 2016. This is the idea. Unions exist to create micro-worker scarcity. Borders can be
used to create macro-worker scarcity which is far more powerful. And E-verify can be far more
effective than a bombastic wall.
Trumpism stands in opposition to globalization; whose goal is worker abundance which
necessarily drives wages down and increases oligarchic wealth. US led imperialism, especially
in the Middle East is also a necessary feature of globalization. Invade the World / Invite the
World.
The US has always featured two political parties that serve ruling class interests; Huey
Long described it thusly,
"They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters
on the other side, but no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative
grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen."
Trumpism attempts to force one group of waiters to get their grub from the working class'
kitchen. This is obviously an ambitious goal.
Now comes a crucial distinction. In addition to the ideology of "Trumpism" there is "Trump",
the man and his brand. At best there is an extremely tenuous relationship between Trumpism and
Trump. Now to some extent this is natural as ideas never remain pure for long when poured into
the cauldron of reality. With that in mind, we can see that 2016 candidate Trump was
relatively Trumpist but President Trump was less so. Salaries for the bottom 25% of workers did
have the highest rate in increase during his term (through 2019). But in 2020, candidate Trump
almost completely rejected Trumpism and ran as an ruling class establishment stooge.
Now of course Trump is an oligarch and so he is a member of the ruling class. But within
oligarchy, the only people who can challenge the existing order are oligarchs. He committed
massive class treason in 2016 in order to serve his narcissistic need for recognition and
power. In no way should Trump be idealized as altruistically caring about the working class.
Trumpism was nothing more than a means to an end. Trump's end is and always will be Trump, not
Trumpism per se. But none the less Trump exploited and brought to life Trumpism and his motives
for doing so are irrelevant.
Trumpism is not a revolutionary ideology in the correct sense of the term. It is an
incrementalist approach that seeks to better the material conditions of the working class but
within the current capitalist power structure. It posits a class struggle ideological
superstructure which is radical opposition to the globalist ruling classes insistence on an
identitarian (politics of race, sex, etc) perspective. The ruling class strategy in the US
is to decorate with masks of "diversity" the ugly visages of class dominance. Thus Obama's and
soon Kamala's pro-ruling class policies cannot be criticized for fear of being abused as a
"racist".
Trumpism's non-revolutionary aspect is similar to social democracy, as was championed by
Bernie Sanders in 2016 (in 2020 Bernie unfortunately fell to the dark side of identitarian
politics, which are necessarily the enemy of class politics and the most effective class
warfare tool in the ruling class' tool box). The key difference is that Trumpism relies on
labor markets to improve the material conditions of the working class. A tight labor market
necessarily transfers wealth from the rich to the poor in the form of decreased profits for the
rich through increased salaries for the poor.
In fact far from there being any contradiction between Trumpism and social democracy there
is a mutual dependence between them. The public education, health, and support institutions of
social democracy are can only be supported and revitalized by a prosperous working class. The
key idea of Trumpism is that the state asserts its borders to create labor scarcity. The great
problem of Trumpism is that the state is everywhere a tool of ruling class oppression. Borders
are the battle lines of the struggle.
Trump the ruler was presented with the greatest gift a border-loving Trumpist politician
could ever ask for: Covid-19. But instead of exploiting this crisis like Viktor Orbán
did in Hungary, Trump stabbed Trumpism in the back by turning himself into a useless
libertarian during the crisis by refusing for example to push a law that requires home
manufacturing of all critical supplies and in never closing the borders properly. He acted like
a narcissistic clown in the early days of the crisis and deserves to lose just for that
reason.
The ruling class response to Trumpism is identitarian politics: noble ruling class lords
screaming that the dirty peasants are racist. What the US ruling class must always do is
project their racism onto the peasants, who white or black, both suffer economically from
racial oppression. Mao Tse-Tung gave this astute analysis of US racism:
In the final analysis, national struggle is a matter of class struggle. Among the whites
in the United States, it is only the reactionary ruling circles who oppress the Negro people
. They can in no way represent the workers, farmers, revolutionary intellectuals and other
enlightened persons who comprise the overwhelming majority of the white people. At present,
it is the handful of imperialists headed by the United States, and their supporters, the
reactionaries in different countries, who are oppressing, committing aggression against and
menacing the overwhelming majority of the nations and peoples of the world. We are in the
majority and they are in the minority.
So US racism is fully owned and perpetuated by the ruling class: wealthy oligarchs
(including Trump), the media, Wall Street, CIA, FBI, the military industrial complex,
multi-national corporations, Silicone Valley Tech, Hollywood, etc. Where there is power there
is racism, where there is powerlessness there may be bigotry but not racism. The above lineup
of ruling class racists, except for Trump, is the Biden coalition. The ruling class goal is to
place an "enlightened person" mask over naked and rapacious ruling class greed and
oppression.
Under Biden, globalization will once again increase the pace and amplitude of the
immiseration of the working class, resistance to the dominant economic paradigm will only grow
on both the progressive left and the popular right. Previously elections in the US were
between center left and center right factions fighting for the right to serve the ruling class.
Looking at 2020 from a bird's eye perspective, roughly speaking the Biden coalition is most
progressives, the center left, and many elements of the center right (elements close to the
Bush family). The Trump coalition is portions of the center right and the popular right. The
ruling class was going to be fine whatever the result, but a Biden presidency constrained by a
GOP Senate is ideal in some ways to the ruling class.
A key strategic objective of the ruling class is to keep the left and right at each other's
throats. Trump helped them achieve this rigid politically binary goal despite occasionally
flirting with political fluidity during the 2016 campaign where his similarities to Bernie
Sanders were unmistakable. In contrast, anti-ruling class progressives and popularists have to
find a way to combine their forces and energy in opposition to the ruling class and not in a
pointless stalemate of playing "socialists" vs; "fascists", a battle whose only possible winner
is the ruling class.
One of the most interesting outcomes of the 2020 election is the specter of Latinos
embracing Trumpism. From an economic point of view this makes total sense. Immigration
restriction will benefit first and foremost the material conditions of the Latino working
class. Also Trump's macho populist persona works well within Latino culture. Not to mention
many Latinos despise blacks and so the whole BLM phenomenon helped push Latinos onto the Trump
train.
California is a now a de facto one-party state but that conditions are ripe for the rise of
a popularist yet macho, Latino based, Trumpist style political faction to oppose the
cosmopolitan urban Democratic hegemony. Back in the 60's, Cesar Chavez was endeavoring to
increase the QUALITY of Hispanic life in the US by increasing the salaries of farm workers
through a strategy of worker scarcity.
Ruling class institutions, threatened by the potential of having portions of their wealth
transferred to poor peasants, created an organization called "La Raza" as an alternative to
Chavez. La Raza wanted QUANTITY, they wanted more and more Latinos to build up their base of
political power.
And all the better if these Latinos stayed poor: not only do their ruling class paymasters
stay happy, this would also keep the Latino masses dependent on their identitarian political
leaders. So one of the key outcomes of the 2020 election is that in ever larger numbers,
Latinos are rejecting Quantity of Latinos and opting for Latino Quality of life.
And so in order to further Trumpism, Trump, who is acting as a fetter upon it, must go.
In a sense the Biden presidency will be a reactionary movement in that they will be trying
to restore the pre-Trumpism political order. This will only further cement the soundness of
Trumpism as an ideology.
But Trump as a leader is a much more mixed bag. New Trumpists will arise, for example Tucker
Carlson or podcaster Joe Rogan. 2024 will be a great year for Trumpism because this time Trump
will not be running it; and that may allow many progressives to join the train, especially in
light of how much hippy punching they are about to endure from the coming Biden synthesis of
Neolibs and Neocons.
Nice essay. I especially liked the differentiation between Trump and Trumpism.
I'd be interested to hear what your vision of the platform (main objectives) might be for
this new Trumpism party.
I still question whether top-down politics of any stripe is really going to address the
underlying economic and biosphere issues we're facing. Why? Because:
the top-down political economy is dedicated to maintaining status quo (with emphasis on
status & wealth), and
the bottom-up people who want things to change seem to want someone else to do all the
changing
most of our big problems arise from the disconnect between what we must do as a species
in order to survive and what we're currently, actually doing as individuals
When a Zen-like party emerges, which encourages its adherents to understand themselves,
seek "right" action (accurate situational analysis yielding a well-crafted strategy), and do
right action, I'll get interested in politics again. For now, we're just treading water in a
strong current that's headed to a bad place.
The Zen plan is no panacea, though. That path involves great risk (e.g. lots of failures)
and hard work. Pay's not that good, either.
Top-down vs. bottom-up are not necessarily contradictory and can in successive waves
contribute to social change in an increasingly self-reinforcing manner. Bottom-up change
influences top-down change (often through the opposition forces' malignant top-down
overreaction) which intensifies bottom-down change: so on and so on.
I would describe the main objectives for Trumpist party as the development of "Green
Trumpism". The moral imperatives associated with the climate crisis would be used as a
catalyst for Trumpist labor scarcity through the means of a Green Reindustrialization. The
process of globalization is one where production is severed from consumption. Production is
moved to cheap labor countries with terrible environmental standards. Capitalists produce
dirtier commodities while increasing their profits. This process must be reversed. If the
first world wants to consume then they must produce.
First world population growth is a critical factor in exasperating the climate crisis. All
of this growth can be linked to immigration, usually people from low consuming nations moving
to high consumption nations. These migration flows must be reversed.
Globalization requires imperialist power to enforce the safe transport of commodities
produced in far flung regions of the world. As globalization declines, so will necessarily US
imperialism.
yes, bottom-up and top-down would interact, if only the bottom-up was happening. It's
not.
The bottom has no political or economic leverage, and isn't navigating to a position of
strength. For example, the "bottom" is currently accepting placebo identity-politics as
pacifier. The "bottom" is still searching for an "easy button" solution rather than taking a
deeper look at oneself and the layout of the chess board at the macro level.
Using the climate crisis as driver for econ change is the Great Hope, and the top 1% is
hip to the game. They have and will continue to block meaningful change. Keep in mind that
just stopping the daily damage to the environment will render much (most) of our industrial
and household infrastructure obsolete. Nobody's ready to take that on, and that's the
implication of actually effective Green policy.
Right now, across the political spectrum, "green" consists of "what's convenient" instead
of "what's necessary". This is the individual-ethic bankruptcy I've alluded to elsewhere:
it's endemic from top 1% to bottom-est of the bottom.
You made a few statements I don't agree with:
"Capitalists have dirtier / more destructive production than (others)." 1st world production
is cleaner than in other places, and that 2nd and 3rd world production often happens in
non-capitalistic scenarios. Dirty production happens where dirty production is tolerated.
Another statement you made: "globalization has to stop / be reversed". Dunno about that
one. Globalization has resulted in production moving to cheapest-input locations. Like China.
Globalization will stop only when cost-of-inputs is leveled, and we're decades away from
that, and a whole lot more pain for the Developed world. Slow barge, that one.
Your essay doesn't address the effect of automation on household or societal economics.
Automation is not a reversible trend, and it's accelerating. The focus on the "where" of
production might not yield the HH economic benefits you're hoping for.
Some fairly different strategies need to be developed at the household level in order to
address the problems we face. Would you consider using the household as the pivot-point of
your new econ strategy rather than using industry and government?
Americans can exert more power with their consumption choices than their choices at the
ballot box. So certainly the household is a crucial pivot point.
Green tariffs can overnight level cost-of-inputs. Climate change provides a powerful moral
incentive to co-locate US consumption and production.
Within an environment of worker scarcity, automation is a positive trend and helps lessen
inflationary pressures. The problem with the US is that there is not enough automation
because of cheap and docile labor. Compare a meat packing plant in Denmark which is highly
automated compared to a US plant, which is packed to the brim with cheap imported labor. Much
of the Covid crisis in the US and UK is brought about by sweatshop-style working
conditions.
The question on automation is that somehow "the people" have to have a slice of the
profits and thus benefit from the process. A Yang-style UBI would need to go hand in hand
with increased automation.
I agree with the uselessness of the current Green movement. It is typically just used as a
tool to attack perceived opponents. But a Green Trumpism would no doubt both address the
climate crisis and help alleviate economic inequalities.
"The ruling class was going to be fine whatever the result, but a Biden presidency
constrained by a GOP Senate is ideal in some ways to the ruling class."
Yeah – there will be a lot of Biden disappointment amongst Us the majority –
this Precariat. A true Green New Deal would offer lots of employment opportunities here in
the USA – and would seem ideal for either party to embrace. Divided government won't
achieve it – the ruling class – and both parties – with short sighted heads
up their asses won't embrace it anyhow.
Regardless, Trumpism seems a fail except for a vast mob angry/scared/confused voters- and
some tax break aficionados. It's not just Biden/Harris won't deliver – but Tucker
Carlson, Joe Rogan, Ted Cruz, or whichever clever one runs in 2024 , won't deliver either,
and Trumps wall is a fiasco. If still effective propaganda..?
It's grotesque to learn that Kamila Harris's relatives are connected to Uber/Lyft. Prop.
22 getting approved in California is another sign of propaganda/big money effectiveness
– and We the People being tricked once again. I got lot's of mail showing
photos and quotes of regular working people embracing Prop 22 VOTE YES! save our jobs –
it passed easily.
Overall: Still glad to see Trump himself out of the White House – the clever
SOB.
This is a good essay. But I still have a few issues with it.
The key policy aims of Trumpism are worker scarcity and anti-imperialism. Worker scarcity
is achieved through immigration restriction and protectionist trade policies. So together, we
have the Trumpist Trinity, anti-immigration, trade restriction, and anti-imperialism. This is
the ideology that Trump ran on and rode to victory in 2016. This is the idea. Unions exist to
create micro-worker scarcity. Borders can be used to create macro-worker scarcity which is
far more powerful. And E-verify can be far more effective than a bombastic wall.
I would modify this to say "worker exclusivity", that only a narrow class of workers can
be tapped for specific terms of employment. When discussing the subject with those on the
rights, they are far more concerned about immigrants "taking their jobs" then they are of
building a scarcity of workers to gain a market share over employers. Let's not forget that
"Trumpian" is still fervently anti-union, even though this would be a good way of
generating "micro scarcity" as you put it. Being anti-union would be counterproductive to
worker scarcity.
Assuredly, "worker scarcity" makes a certain degree of sense. And I can easily see how
you came to that conclusion. But I fear you still give "trumpisim" too much credit in that
they have specific goals that they are attempting to achieve, and thus conceive of logical
steps to that goal.
I would argue that the right doesn't have goals in the same perspective as we on the
left may seem them. What we might think of as "goals" are better described as ideological
commandments that must be obeyed at all cost, and ignoring all consequence. As you noted
yourself. Trump's wall would do little to impede immigration. A better e-verify system
would be far more effective. So why ignore e-verify while being completely for the wall?
Because the wall is a visible simple of defiance against immigration that conservatives can
march back and forth in front of brandishing their 2nd amendment right. You can't do that
for a government policy.
Trumpism stands in opposition to globalization; whose goal is worker abundance which
necessarily drives wages down and increases oligarchic wealth. US led imperialism, especially
in the Middle East is also a necessary feature of globalization.
Here too I would make a modification. Neo-liberalism and globalization aren't about
worker "abundance" but rather worker "disposability." Again, if the idea is to create an
abundance of workers, driving down market share, then why make finding work so complicated?
Why be against strong education systems which would create new workers. Why shut down
factories here in the US only to open them in Korea? Why lock up so many Americans for
petty offensive, removing them from the willing work force.
I would argue that the heart of neo-liberalism is a class structure that places "the
establishment" as not just important in the grand scheme of things, but completely
indispensable to an individual. And part of that self-aggrandizement is the subjection of
every one else. "I am worth more than a thousand of you." Thus, why I must get
2-million-dollar bonus (even after bankrupting the company) and a post on the new re-org
chart while everyone else gets a pink slip and watch their hard-earned pensions disappear
in chapter 11 proceedings.
Of course, unlike much of the right, neo-liberalism does have a goal-oriented
methodology. So, creating "worker abundance" to force down individual worker market share
certainly makes sense. But is it true? It doesn't capture the full cynicism of typical
neo-liberal thinking. For creating so much worker abundance, plenty of neo-liberal aligned
employers still managed to complain about worker "allocations" (the idea that certain
employment sectors face chronic worker scarcity.) Indeed, current "plug-n-play" employment
patterns have made filling many positions nearly impossible because no one ever has the
right qualifications for a specific job without training. I have seen engineering jobs go
empty for years because they can't find "prior experience for proprietary development
project." (face palm.).
But it does speak to how disposable workers are to upper management. You are hired for
X, and when X is done you are automatically laid off. Why would you waste time giving such
an employee training of any sort? Let alone benefits or perks.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I will attempt to respond to your points.
Ruling class elements of the GOP attack unions in order to minimize worker micro-scarcity.
What is inexplicable is when unions attack Trumpist attempts at macro-scarcity through the
use of national borders. A united Union/Trumpist front is required against ruling class
interests. Struggling for worker scarcity does not mean one "hates" the workers the ruling
class is importing in order to create worker abundance.
This is to accept the ruling elite's identitarian frame, which boils down to: class struggle is racist. What this basically boils
down to is that the ruling class is benevolent and kind and loves purely altruistically to
import little brown workers while evil workers hate them because they are taking their jobs.
Oligarchs + cheap labor immigrants = good. Workers militating for their class interests =
bad. The key goal for Trumpism is to flip these equations.
Worker abundance necessarily means job scarcity from the worker's point of view. This
makes workers desperate and willing to accept lower wages. This has been happening for the
last 40 years at least since the end of the Cold War, if not a little sooner. Worker scarcity
means job abundance, from the worker's point of view. This means plenty of options because
management has to bid up salaries to attract workers.
Neoliberalism is Capitalism's attempt to remove the fetters on profits that exist within
the power of a nation-state. Worker abundance is just one of many Neoliberal goals. Borders
are a huge fetter to capitalism's basic mission of maximizing profit by producing commodifies
with the cheapest labor and selling them to the wealthiest consumers.
Nation-states can also
impose regulations (environmental, worker, etc) which also limit capitalist profit. Free
trade allows corporations to relocate factories to nations with the lowest salaries,
environmental and worker protections. For those jobs that cannot be transferred, Prop 22 is
the thin edge of the neoliberal wedge that is constraining the nation-state from protecting
workers.
I understand restricting immigration and anti-globalism as a means to increase US workers
leverage in raising wages in jobs and in better political representation. This addresses the
physical world of work.
Left unaddressed, and equally important imo, is the fact that US business and economy is now
largely financialized; much of the greatest wealth comes from unregrulated or restrained
predatory financial practices, from rentierism, from tolls and fines and fees.
This
financialization is every bit as important as the physical conditions you list in the rise in
precarity, maybe even more so at this time. How, for instance, would only physical
restrictions have changed the financial outcomes of the 2008 mortgage bank frauds and
financial crisis, the outcomes of ratings agencies giving bogus ratings to junk bonds,
changed the exorbitant rise in medicine prices, etc?
This is a very important aspect of
precarity. Reducing work competition for jobs to increase wages is only half the job,
stopping financial predators is the other half, imo
O could have stopped the bank predators in 2009-10, but chose not to. In his own
words:
+++ Without immigration or outsourcing or even automation, the predators will find still other
ways to break labor. We are seeing it with identity politics.
Beware of the UBI: it simply greases the wheels for more privatization instead of public
goods and infrastructure, similar to how vouchers and charters gut a public school
system.
Financialization is the necessary result of globalization's destruction of Fordism: which
is the interdependent role of worker and consumer. In order to increase profits, Ford doubled
his workers' salaries so that could serve him as consumers as well as workers.
Globalization
seeks to increase profits even further by disassociating the worker and the consumer. Work is
off-shored to low wage countries, whose leaders intentionally damp down local consumption.
This paradoxically means the soon to be immiserated western worker is still called upon to
play the role of global consumer of last resort.
At the same time, huge waves of profits are
washing over Wall Street. And so temporary speculative bubbles are created that serve two
purposes. First false wave of prosperity brought on for example by a real estate boom tamps
down any worker resistance towards the new economic order. Secondly the seemingly "free
money" created by speculation allow western consumption to continue.
So necessarily a Green Reindustrialization will force Wall Street to stop chasing
speculative squirrels and to instead concentrate on financing the new clean plant that will
help alleviate the climate crisis.
Rogan likes to do long form interviews across the political spectrum, but he has
consistently been a fan of Bernie and Tulsi. Author is Confusing the medium with the message.
Not the same.
I would argue that Bernie and Tulsi are "Trumpism adjacent" in the larger sense of
Trumpism.
If Trumpism as an ideology is going to flourish, Tulsi in particular will play a
critical role in this. The simplest way to see this is that when the ruling class smears
someone as a "Russian asset" what they are really doing is recognizing them as a Trumpist
threat.
Trumpism in its highest form will mean a reconciliation of the non-identitarian left
and right. For example, white identitarians like Richard Spencer have abandoned Trumpism.
I think that one of the most important considerations is that there needs to be a
coalition of sorts – between the working class Trumpian base and the Left (primarily
Generation Y and X). It shares one thing, they are both victims of the Establishment,
neoliberals, and urgently need change.
One image has always been very important to me. Note the distribution of socially
conservative, economically left wing voters.
The major challenge facing Democrats today is that race, gender, identity politics, and
religion appear to trump economics, at least as far as politically engaged primary voters
go. The old-line Democrats were an economic liberal party with socially conservative and
socially liberal wings (the social liberals, in fact, were in a minority). The new
Democrats are a socially liberal party with an economic conservative wing (neoliberals) and
a progressive economic wing. They all agree on social issues. They are loath to compromise
on open borders (which is what the existing immigration dysfunction de facto gives us),
transgender bathrooms, making room for pro-life members, or gay married couples' wedding
cakesbecause those are the only issues that hold their economic right and economic left
together.
I don't think that the Democratic Party in its current form is viable for the left.
So the price of a new New Deal majority would be to let Democrats welcome abortion
critics and opponents of mass immigration, so long as they favored a higher minimum wage,
less "synthetic immigration," and a pause on globalization (which facilitates international
labor arbitrage). In the words of John Judis:
I think that we would end up with the following compromise.
1. The economically left, culturally right agrees to accept global warming, end the wars,
and "socialism" like universal healthcare), and to offer legal immigrants along with
minorities a shot at the middle class
2. The economically left, culturally left agrees to compromise on immigration, globalization
(think put a strong emphasis on re-industrialization and de-financialization), and social
issues (think abortion, guns, defend the police, etc).
Interestingly, the American Conservative has an article lambasting Trump as well.
"The ruling class goal is to place an "enlightened person" mask over naked and rapacious
ruling class greed and oppression."
Maybe the same can be said of placing a "socially conservative" mask. We need to be
cautious in positing the possiblility of a multi-ethnic, multi-racial conservative movement
that somehow manages to be "nationalist, anti-cosmopolitan, anti-immigration" but still
serves the interests of the multi-racial, multi-ethnic, religiously diverse, working class
populace that's already here.
Implementing worker scarcity will necessarily further the economic interests of the
multi-racial, multi-ethnic, religiously diverse, working class populace that's already
here.
Just as implementing worker abundance necessarily furthers the economic interests of the
multi-racial, multi-ethnic, religiously diverse, RULING class populace that's already
here.
Great write up.
While I generally agree with your characterizations, I will also throw out there ..in no
particular order..
1) luckily , trump and his "legion of doom" aren't competent enough to draw on the "larger
picture" you've outlined here to maximize his effectiveness by using these natural
advantages, in their plot of self aggrandizement luckily for us americans/ the trump is his
own worst enemy.
2) ejecting trump from trumpism is a path to greater success for the right and
fascism/corporatism, which some "smart" people will surely weave into their future plans and
models. And the corporatists,be they from the republican side of the aisle, or the democratic
side will surely carry forward with this opening in american politics.
because trump does have to go the professionals of deception can mold that wisp of smoke into
any shape they want but it won't stay for long and doesn't hold up to any scrutiny . it isn't
real..It isn't even a chunk of clay
3] the problem of trumpism, or "conservative republican politics", or "democratic party
politics" is that they all necessarliy MUST be a lie in progress. NONE of the political
duopoly can go into "truthland" . it is their kryptonite. So all have agreed to never enter
and call it a no go zone
And the fact that everything about our political situation is "fact free",at least in the
sense that any facts used are only used out of context to keep a truer understanding from
happening; hasn't stopped anyone yet and isn't likely too any time soon so too bad for
everyone. .we'll call that a draw.
The 30,000 foot description of yours not withstanding, that type of over arching layers of
this onion, is something for planners to incorporate in "the con" as it needs to be.. but is
above the paygrade of most political actors , who work at rousing the rabble
4) I don't see actual agency of the people . what people want to do has nothing to do with
what is going to happen usually, if the elites want something to happen, they provide the
opinions and the votes.. "deserve" has nothing to do with it.. and "our reality" is just an
illusion.
So over layering a description of bigger forces, over the chaos that has been created to keep
this "hegelian dialect" in place , is again for those at a higher pay grade in the
process..
Too many chefs ruin the meal but hey ,it's our gruel and we have nothing else to eat , for
the moment and maybe less later, if they get their way.
"Post-truth" is dystopian. It's a luxury to live at a distance from unpleasant realities.
If a society can sustain a population/segment so far up their own **** then you've "arrived"
in a sense.
However, dystopia sounds better than the crises that lay ahead. It's the unavoidable hard
landing that worries me.
Maybe truth works like wealth: The first generation discovers the truth. The second
generation teaches the truth. And the third generation fakes news.
The Democratic Party doesn't want to come to terms with the fact that they deserve as much
blame as the GOP for the predicament the working class finds itself in.
They chose under Clinton to repeal Glass Steagall, sign free trade agreements, and bring
China into the WTO. Under Obama, those policies largely continued. Under Biden, all signs
indicate that this will still continue.
I think the brutal reality is that the upper middle class is willfully ignorant of what
the precariat faces. Public health authorities, while understandably trying to contain the
pandemic, are not the ones who are going to see their lives destroyed. The working class was
doomed either way, either by being disproportionately hurt by the coronavirus (they can't
work from home) or from long-term unemployment (they've suffered more as a percentage of
total jobs lost). In other words, they don't have a stake in keeping the lockdown and may see
opening up as a lesser evil.
Likewise, the Liberals who are in secure upper middle class white collar jobs tended to
act disdainfully when working class people protested the lockdowns. I'm not saying the
protestors were right, but many are people who put their lives into their work, such as small
business owners. Evidently, subsidies were needed at the very least.
In this regard, the GOP might have more hope than the Democrats, barring a Berniecrat
takeover of the Democrats, which is looking less likely. That said the GOP still has a huge
right wing apparatus that would have to be overcome for a "real populist" (ex: someone who
actually cared about the well being of the working class) to take over.
One advantage might be that younger people are overwhelmingly left wing economically, so
as Generation Y and Z become a bigger share of the electorate, things may change.
Likewise, the Liberals who are in secure upper middle class white collar jobs tended to
act disdainfully when working class people protested the lockdowns. I'm not saying the
protestors were right, but many are people who put their lives into their work, such as
small business owners. Evidently, subsidies were needed at the very least
To this day, they still get outraged for the same reasons. If you so much as point out
what you just wrote–not being anti-science but simply the hardship lockdowns cause and
how it needs to be properly addressed–at best you'll be called scientifically
illiterate. At worst you'll be accused of being an evil rich person who wants to kill grandma
to make the stock market go up.
While some of the protests may have been astroturf, not all of them were. If you're a
small-business owner facing the prospect of losing everything you've worked for and basically
being told "you're on own" of course you will be angry. Likewise, if you're an employee and
can't work from home, of course you will be stressed out about losing your job. This is the
real "economic anxiety" and it is no laughing matter.
for the real small business owners, and the individuals who can't work .
they ought to feel pissed
after all . a fraction of the trillions that are earmarked for wall street, could have "paid
their bills"..at least for a year . and then the "citizens" would be getting something
tangible for the debt being incurred in their name by the duopoly.
All the people realizing "someone" is getting bailed out and it isn't them
I was puzzled by the victory of Prop. 22 in California. This is a state which has huge
Democratic majorities, and normally rubber-stamps all union-sponsored legislation.
Uber and Lyft threatened that if Prop. 22 did not pass, they would either stop operations
or would lay off 75% of their temp workers.
(not unlike an employer threatening to move to China if their workers form a union.)
They also threatened that ride prices would at least double, and wait times would greatly
increase.
The average voter may have put their own self-interest ahead of any class loyalty.
Final note: the gig workers did get a few benefits out of AB 5, things granted by Uber and
Lyft to buy some goodwill.
Comments welcome! I do not live in CA so I am just guessing on this. It was an important
vote.
Prop 22 is going to be the most important result of the 2020 election, not Trump
v Biden or control of either legislature.
I've been very puzzled by the result too as it passed handily and wasn't really close. I
don't live near CA either, but I did read that among other misleading tactics, the Prop 22
proponents gave delivery bags to restaurants that use these gig delivery services so that the
delivery drivers would be dropping off meals to people in Yes on 22 bags, which made it seem
like prop 22 would be beneficial to gig workers if you didn't look into it much.
So on the one hand there was the intent to deceive. But then I think that if I heard about
these dirty tricks 3,000 miles away, surely CA voters must have known about them too.
The depressing thing is that maybe a lot of people did know exactly what Prop 22 was all
about and decided they liked the idea of a permanent underclass always only minutes
away at the touch of a button to do the things they can't be bothered with for a
pittance.
The fact that so many of the gig company execs worked first in the Obama administration
and are now heading back to the Biden administration with dreams of scaling up prop 22 is a
very ominous portent.
I voted NO on prop 22, but a mailer I received from the YES side may show why it
passed.
It has text with "by 4-to-1, app-based drivers overwhelmingly prefer to work as
independent contractors".
The pictures of smiling workers on the mailer are all minorities (Asian, Hispanic,
Black).
I'd suggest a small percentage of CA voters actually use Uber/Lyft, so am inclined to
believe voters did not vote to preserve their own self-interest.
The "YES" mailer lists 5 advantages for the drivers, "guaranteed hourly earnings for
app-based drivers", "per mile compensation toward vehicle expenses", "medical and disability
coverage for injuries and illnesses", "new health benefits for drivers who work 15+ hours a
week", and "additional safety protections for app-based drivers"
The mailer lists groups supporting it, NAACP, California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,
Consumer Choice Center, The Latin Business Association, Black Women Organized for Political
Action, California Small Business Association, California Senior Advocates League.
I remember a prior YES on 22 mailer had support from Mothers Against Drunk Driving..
The "YES" group spent about 12x more than the No group (188 million vs 15million)
I saw a lot of pro Prop 22 advertising and nothing against it. The ads were all sleek,
full of cheerful drivers with big smiles, and easily the best made ads of 2020. I knew that
there was something bad about the proposition, but until just a few days before the election
I couldn't tell you why. All my mental bandwidth was on the national elections and not on
parsing the various state propositions like I normally would. This time it was all on
something else.
If a poli-sci/poli-econ geek like me was having some problems with truly understanding
this extremely effective, slickly made campaign of manufactured consent, what does that say
about the many, often financially and/or socially overwhelmed, California voters who would be
much like me? I think that the overlords had the perfect situation for getting the
proposition passed.
"but the (GOP) party needs to reverse its positions on taxing the wealthiest, punishing
and preventing the expansion of organized labor, reversing their position on outsourcing
manufacturing, and addressing economic precarity"
And I need to become 6'4″, handsome, young and athletic.
Indeed why would they reverse when the Dems agree with them on all of it. What the above
article doesn't get is that the true ruling class response to precarity is simply to make
sure voters have no options to address it. We are in a class war, not a battle between
political parties. Any promises Biden made to the poor will blow away like smoke once in
office. He is on the record saying that billionaires are swell folks.
Lambert linked an interesting article yesterday in Water Cooler that talked about cycles
in history and the ingredients of high social unrest. The subject is historian Peter
Turchin
He has been warning for a decade that a few key social and political trends portend an
"age of discord," civil unrest and carnage worse than most Americans have experienced. In
2010, he predicted that the unrest would get serious around 2020, and that it wouldn't let
up until those social and political trends reversed. Havoc at the level of the late 1960s
and early '70s is the best-case scenario; all-out civil war is the worst.
The fundamental problems, he says, are a dark triad of social maladies: a bloated elite
class, with too few elite jobs to go around; declining living standards among the general
population; and a government that can't cover its financial positions.
Turchin is saying that social instability is not just the result of high inequality but
also of a bloated ruling class that is itself insecure because there aren't enough PMC jobs
for all those college graduates and their credentials. Thus in our case the political parties
have come to be dominated by these middle class concerns with the poor almost entirely out of
the picture and dismissed as racist deplorables who probably deserve their fate. As the
article says this sociological theory of history is controversial but at least worth
considering.
A good, broad, liberal arts degree, or something like it, can be useful in many kinds of
jobs, if the jobs exist . Much of the high skilled, high paying jobs have all been shipped
overseas, and the remaining good paying jobs increasingly are office jobs requiring not only
a masters degree, but good social connections, and at least saying only goodthoughts to get
and keep.
It use to be that there was plenty of diverse work. If you failed at getting tenure or
that job at the bank, or the government position you wanted, there was plenty of good work
requiring only some education, intelligence, and drive. Having the kind of degree and
connections that someone in the modern PMC would merely be very useful, not a requirement for
a good life. Bur now we have too many people having the exact education needed to get the few
remaining good jobs in the few safe fields, and unlike fifty years, failure means
destitution, not disappointment.
And yet claiming that this class war exist, which is supposedly immiserating increasing
numbers of Americans ever higher up the class chain, is all deplorably racist, sexist,
homophobic, and transphobic I am reliable informed. /s
It is unsettling to see writers who I have been reading for years, even decades, start
saying that it is racism or bigotry, and only that, which explains the Bad Man. One doesn't
have to be a Marxist to make a connection with the increasing poverty and corruption under
both parties over the past forty or fifty years with President Trump. Yet, many refuse
to.
It does make me wonder what it is that I am blind to.
I agree,
the class war is a better way of seeing things.
all the symptoms and externalities the class war provides are the things the parties use as
fodder issues for their respective bases but all the duopoly can provide is more of the same
. "their way" their culture . their rules . their precedents their history..
this is how they seem to win they teach the children to think their" way".
Then what else will happen in the future
people continually adopting patterns that already exist.
They have created a culture . and we all know how people are treated by their neighbors who
are "counter-culture"
It becomes a self reinforcing narrative, where the hive keeps the status quo because they
want to .
We keep supporting systems that are there to control us rather than recreating systems that
help .. like we are "supposed" to or something.
James P. Yep. That paragraph has some giant "ifs" in it that caught my eye as I was
reading. The likelihood of Republicans sponsoring legislation to repeal "right to work" laws,
which tend to be in Republican-dominated states, is almost nil. Further, a party that is
opposed to any tax increases, no matter what need has to be addressed, isn't going to change
course. Another "if" is relying on someone like the egregious Tom Cotton, as mentioned, for
leadership about legislation.
I am sure, though, that you are already on your way to becoming a beefcake model and
internet influencer.
It's going to take some time for this article to sink in. Words like precariat and
precarity are fairly new concepts, at least for me and my automatic spell checker. What is
the etymology of this word and what are it's conceptual dimensions. I know what precarious
means and I can see how using it as an adjective works. But if it's going to be a key term I
want to know more about it. Accordiing to a quick search, the etymology is:
precarious (adj.)
1640s, a legal word, "held through the favor of another," from Latin precarius "depending on
favor, pertaining to entreaty, obtained by asking or praying," from prex (genitive precis)
"entreaty, prayer" (from PIE root *prek- "to ask, entreat").
The notion of "dependent on the will of another" led to the extended sense "risky,
dangerous, hazardous, uncertain" (1680s), but this was objected to. "No word is more
unskillfully used than this with its derivatives. It is used for uncertain in all its senses;
but it only means uncertain, as dependent on others " [Johnson]. Related: Precariously;
precariousness.
So what is striking in reading it's etymology is that it is defined as something
"dependent, uncertain, risky, dangerous, hazardous." This characterizes many areas of life.
With respect to contemporary life in the area of economics, I certainly see it all around me
and in the news headlines, in the instability of good long-term paying jobs with benefits. In
politics, I certainly see the risks, dangers, and hazards, especially in the highly
militarized nature of foreign relations. But looking at the term from the perspective of a
"social scientist" does it explain the antecedents that lead to this condition and is it
operational in the sense of breaking it down into more rudimentary terms and
relationships.
I am reading St. Thomas Aquinas' book "On Truth" and although the style of Questiones
Disputatae , with its contra, sed contra, and style is archaic and hard to
follow, it provides a good way of centering dialogue. In Question one of Article 1, the
formal reply to the stated Article of "What is Truth?" states:
When investigating the nature of anything, one should make the same kind of analysis
as he makes when he reduces a proposition to certain self-evident principles."
Since this term "precarity" is new to me, I don't think I have a good handle on how to use
it outside of a descriptor. Does it explain anything? And maybe I'm just asking too much of
the word. Maybe it's just meant as that, a simple characterization whose underlying causal
relationships are to yet be determined and examined.
I've seen precariate be described as a combination of precarious proletariat.
While one could argue the position of the proletariat is always precarious, I do think the
are times in history which are more precarious than others, and what we see now is certainly
one (climate change impacts, opioid/alcoholism, covid19 pandemic, ever increasing inequality,
globalization of manufacturing, health care for profit in the US, increasing cost of housing
and education, no doubt many more)
Nice piece generally and which kinda validates a feeling I've had generally that
"uncertainty is increasing" which is often bad for people in so many ways – uncertainty
among the "entitled" can be highly damaging to polling (in addition to all the points raised
in the article). The elephant in the room is of course interpreting polling results. For
example 70% Democrat at a precinct/state/national level is consistent with an infinite number
of explanations: at one end we have "strong means" (meaning these are "solid" votes) and at
the other we have "very weak means but big variances" (meaning these votes are subject to all
sorts of factors like news items, real or manufactured, etc). We can't "know" which universe
we're in .Unless we conduct a secondary survey to give a "second line in the x-y plane" to
see where it intersects the main one ..then we know whether the 70% is driven by means or
variances or some combination.
The likelihood function for all "limited dependent variable models" – discrete
choices like voting – has a term that is multiplicative in means and variances. Thus
"70%" could mean any of a HUGE number of things. Those of us experienced in interpreting
these data can rule out the "dumb" explanations .but we are still left with a number of
"possible explanations". If we don't actively talk to voters, do a lot of qualitative
research etc, then we can't begin to limit the number of "possible solutions" further. I have
had little experience in applying the methods to polling so I rely a lot on sites like NC to
give "insights from the ground". It is a pity polling institutions don't. YouGov were on the
right track in 2017 but bottled it due to collecting data for their "second line" in a poor
way. It's a pity – if they collected data in better way they'd be far and away the best
polling organisation. Though the downright lies told by Trumpites that Lambert has
highlighted remain a problem – I do have ideas how to address this but they go way
beyond the scope of the site and like I've said before, I think pushing MMT etc is a better
use of resources (even though it pains me personally not to have my own "hobby horse"
championed, hehe).
But I personally think increased variances are a fact of life and reflect the article's
point that uncertainty in life is hurting everyone.
Uncertainty and fear are increasing because the kick-the-can strategies are starting to
look really wobbly, and the fights for survival and hail-marys (like MMT) are being trotted
out.
The velocity of change has increased, and the rate of adaptation appears to have somehow
actually slowed down. Just exactly the wrong response at the wrong time.
One commenter above poked fun at the term "precarity" – said it was a $10 gimmick
for the word "poor".
A while back Mark Twain said a "cauliflower is a cabbage with a college education".
Precarity is a college-educated middle class "information worker" who is "feeling
poor".
The effects of automation and globalization are moving up the class ladder. The ship's
sinking and the water's already flooded 3rd class berths (rust belt and flyover), and is
about 1/3 of the way into the 2nd class cabins.
Agree or disagree with Andrew's Yang's proposal for a universal basic income, I think he
is definitely on to something when he talks about the ramifications of automation and machine
learning, though he isn't the first person to point it out.
Some people are simply not aware–it's not that they necessarily don't care, they
simply just don't know–while others are in denial or don't care.
Regardless of where a given person falls, I do agree that with Yang and others that say
dealing with this economic reshaping will be of the key challenges–if not the most
important challenge–of our time.
reshaping our monetary system is one of the biggest hurdles in reshaping our economic
present.
Monetary reform efforts like the modern day "chicago plan" as was described in the bill
proposed in congress in 2011/2012 112th congress HR 2990
open the door to creating money debt free, and permanently which could pay off the national
debt, and fund policies like single payer health care and even "citizen dividends", that are
really just ways to inject money into the economy, rather than starting the injection of
money into the economy on wall street , like now.. https://www.congress.gov/bill/112-thcongress/house-bill/2990/text
In sharp contrast, Trump may have appeared indifferent to the gravity of the coronavirus,
but his persistent calls to reopen the economy addressed the precarity issue, as they
appealed to many workers whose livelihoods were being destroyed by the pandemically induced
government restrictions placed on economic activity.
The average worker up through October does not have Covid and may not know anyone of
working age who does have Covid ..but they do have a job, and if the job must be done
in-person they know they were vulnerable.
"Keeping the economy open" is more urgent to them than defeating Covid through
lockdowns.
This is a big reason why Trump even kept this election close.
In America, the authorities who order lockdowns cannot simultaneously order financial
relief. This created a tragic class divide on fighting the pandemic.
These days the members of the media tend to be dominated by the upper middle class who
attended elite colleges and probably don't even understand the meaning of precarity.
Therefore to them it seems perverse to object to lockdowns and elaborate precautions that the
work from home set can more easily deal with. In the old days newspaper reporters rose
through the ranks and came from small town newspapers and were more in touch with the general
society rather than journalism schools.
I live in California and was surprised to learn here that Harris opposed prop 22. While
the Pro campaign carpet bombed the airwaves with ads, I never saw any CA leaders raise a
voice in opposition or attempt to explain why this would be bad for working people. Never saw
any mention, other than in the state election booklet, that the prop introduced a huge
supermajority needed to repeal it, making it effectively impossible to remove once passed.
Didn't see any out of state money funding ads despite it being obvious that success in
California would lead to adoption in other states.
Well Harris does all support and oppose M4A depending on who shes talking to and when
she's saying it, so there's that. I suspect any disagreements she may express over prop 22's
passage are crocodile tears at best.
Her and every other leader who takes positions on many issues but not on this one. Perhaps
they saw polling and thought it best instead to add to the strategic underground reserves of
dry powder.
Great piece. One effect of spreading precarity–and I will use the term more loosely
to encompass not only economic precarity, but also the increasing sense of pervasive dread
and fear experienced by so many across all walks of life–is that living in this state
increases one's susceptibility to both totalitarian ideologies and to drives for war against
some perceived enemy. To me this explains the shadow of "law and order" hard nationalism
coming from the far right, the more extreme variants of identity politics on the left, and
the terrified push for censorship and "full lockdown" coming from the neoliberal center.
Unfortunately the billionaire class and their pets in the media see all of this as a
potential cash cow rather than a serious danger. Given their stranglehold on the national
discourse and their control of the most effective means of mass organizing (social media),
I'm not sure it is possible to reverse the trend early enough to prevent some kind of major
conflict. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try!
P.S. To avoid any confusion, when I disparagingly refer to "full lockdown" I mean an
authoritarian lockdown without accompanying benefits for workers and with "papers please"
checkpoints and penalties. The worst kind of lockdown, where people are both unable to
support themselves and are actively prevented from doing so. In my opinion people who push
for a hard lockdown before benefits/compensation can be arranged are unintentionally
advocating for such a position; the compensation will never come.
Heck, I've seen comments (generally not on this site) admiring what China did and
lamenting the fact that it can't be done here in the United States.
I sure hope these are troll accounts and not real people in this country, especially not
real people on the left. If these are real people, we are in more trouble than I thought.
A government with the power to literally weld people's door shut, which is what China did,
can do a lot of other scary things.
Yes, like get on top of a virus (and achieve the highest level of economic growth in human
history, and produce incredible poetry, and so on). And as I'm not 'in this country,' I
believe I'm not 'real people.'
I have seen the same thing and have had the same concerns. I do think there is more
dishonest disruption/manipulation and trolling going on than we are aware of. It's at the
point where I automatically assume that most social media accounts are not taking an honest
position. I hope I'm right, because if I'm wrong then humanity is absolutely terrifying.
The corporate imperialism status quo isn't terrifying enough for you? Oil and gas seeping
out through the land under and around "affordable housing" because CEQA doesn't count on
those properties doesn't terrify you? Flint's water crisis doesn't terrify you?
The throngs of human beings thrown out onto the street by Upgrading slumlords and
developers doesn't terrify you? Overlords talking with straight faces about excess and
surplus humans and ramming Prop 22 through doesn't terrify you?
There's a big difference between "humanity is OK, but the small slice that rules us is
terrible" and "humanity is in deep shit because we're mostly terrible." The first implies a
solution, the second what? Hope for a benevolent AI overlord to emerge?
Read my post again. I said that I automatically assume that most accounts posting terrible
stuff are bots. There are accounts that say awful things about almost any and every topic
imaginable. The number of them is so huge that if these are real people and not
bots, then people may indeed be largely terrible. But I assume they are bots.
https://popularresistance.org/affordable-housing-developers-set-their-sights-on-former-toxic-oil-fields/
DeSmog blog Vista Hermosa residents like Luna are troubled by a 2019 environmental rollback by the
state, AB1197, that exempts homeless housing developments in the City of Los Angeles from the
mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Arguably California's broadest
environmental law, CEQA requires builders to assess the environmental impacts of new
development and find ways to avoid or mitigate them.
The political will to rollback CEQA has continued into 2020. In January, Assemblyman
Miguel Santiago, who represents District 53 bordering Vista Hermosa, introduced a new piece
of legislation, AB1907, to further expand CEQA exemptions to now include all affordable
housing.
I'm reminded of the excellent post by Anne Amnesia in May 2016, (yes, when Obama and Biden
were still in office, and the White House was just a huge gleam in Kamala's way too sparkly
eyes, given the massive poverty, incarceration and inequality in California, as she
successfully ran for California Senator and will have not completed even one term)
Unnecessariathttps://morecrows.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/unnecessariat/
A very brief excerpt (it's long and meaty), emphasis mine:
In 2011, economist Guy Standing coined the term "precariat" to refer to workers
whose jobs were insecure, underpaid, and mobile, who had to engage in substantial "work for
labor" to remain employed, whose survival could, at any time, be compromised by employers
(who, for instance held their visas) and who therefore could do nothing to improve their
lot. The term found favor in the Occupy movement, and was colloquially expanded to include
not just farmworkers, contract workers, "gig" workers, but also unpaid interns, adjunct
faculty, etc. Looking back from 2016, one pertinent characteristic seems obvious: no matter
how tenuous, the precariat had jobs. The new dying Americans, the ones killing themselves
on purpose or with drugs, don't. Don't, won't, and know it.
Here's the thing: from where I live, the world has drifted away. We aren't
precarious, we're unnecessary. The money has gone to the top. The wages have gone to
the top. The recovery has gone to the top. And what's worst of all, everybody who matters
seems basically pretty okay with that. The new bright sparks, cheerfully referred to as
"Young Gods" believe themselves to be the honest winners in a new invent-or-die economy,
and are busily planning to escape into space or acquire superpowers, and instead of
worrying about this, the talking heads on TV tell you its all a good thing- don't worry,
the recession's over and everything's better now, and technology is TOTES AMAZEBALLS!
The Rent-Seeking Is Too Damn High
If there's no economic plan for the Unnecessariat, there's certainly an abundance for
plans to extract value from them. No-one has the option to just make their own way and be
left alone at it. It used to be that people were uninsured and if they got seriously sick
they'd declare bankruptcy and lose the farm, but now they have a (mandatory) $1k/month plan
with a $5k deductible: they'll still declare bankruptcy and lose the farm if they get sick,
but in the meantime they pay a shit-ton to the shareholders of United Healthcare, or Aetna,
or whoever. This, like shifting the chronically jobless from "unemployed" to "disabled" is
seen as a major improvement in status, at least on television.
I was surprised Prop 22 passed because it was not doing well in the polls for most of the
pre-election period. It seemed Californians were solidly against it. Then, perhaps 4-6 weeks
before the election, I noticed a dramatic change in messaging. Suddenly the ads were touting
that if Prop 22 passed, Uber and Lyft drivers would receive health care benefits. I assumed
that this was deceptive messaging designed to turn the vote around. Here is what Kaiser
Health News says about the benefits:
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201029/App-based-companies-pushing-Prop-22-say-drivers-will-get-health-benefits-Will-they.aspx
Looks like it worked. I guess there's no penalty for this sort of deception, or at least, no
enforcement of a penalty.
So, I have CSPAN on at the moment. They're streaming the DC #MillionMAGAMarch
#StopTheSteal SuperSpreader rally.
The over-the-top vitriol is rather breathtaking. The angry ignorance is depressing.
They're "not gonna allow the Steal." They're gonna "be warriors." "Trump WON! Trump WON!
Trump WON! Trump WON! "
The Occam's Chainsaw "logic" is on full display.
Meanwhile, yesterday's new U.S. Covid19 case count was more than 184k, 1.6m for Nov
1-13.
No argument there. I started an Excel sheet, w/ transcribed JHU data commencing Oct 1st
(thru yesterday). The exponential upward trendline in the graph has an R-sq of 0.91. (an
iterative 7-day moving avg is also illuminating.)
Of course, it'll go up until it no longer does. And, "new cases" incidence rates comprise
but one facet of interest.
If you're struggling but aren't sick (yet), economic concerns win out. No big surprise
there. 70 million people are fighting a return to austerity and a technocratic "Great Reset"
that was devised without their input. They see it as literally fighting for their lives and
livelihoods. The new admin can ignore this at their own peril. (Too bad Trump didn't actually
solve any of their problems, but at least he gave them his attention, more than anyone else
has done in decades.)
Many people have to choose between the certainty of being unable to pay their bills, if
they stay home, versus the unknown risk of contracting COVID if they work.
Staying home is luxury a lot of people just don't have–even pre-COVID it was very
common for people in low-wage jobs that don't provide sick-leave to show up to work sick. It
wasn't because these people are evil or wanted to get anyone sick but rather because if you
don't work you don't get paid.
Precisely. The rent isn't going to pay itself, and people are scared about their future.
Covid isn't an obvious terror like Ebola, so people weigh the risks and decide in favor of
their economic security. If we were like some of the more advanced countries in the world,
they wouldn't have to make this choice, but here we are.
"at least he gave them his attention, more than anyone else has done in decades."
Hmmm last time I looked Bernie Sanders was paying attention and proposing solutions since
at least 2015. Nice how you just erased him and the millions who voted for him.
You're right. Trump is the only primary-winning candidate who paid attention to
the working class in recent memory. Bernie was obviously a million times better than Trump
because he was sincere, he had a plan, and he would have followed through. But he got
screwed.
I'm becoming a bit weary of reading that politicians like Trump are "exploiting anxieties"
about poverty and unemployment, as though such anxieties were unreasonable and the problems
didn't really exist. The trouble is that "responding to voters' concerns about their lives"
doesn't have quite the same dismissive overtones. The supercilious assumption that people who
are afraid of losing their jobs are being "exploited", whereas people being urged to vote on
gender lines aren't, seems very strange. Is anyone really surprised that people are more
worried about how much money they have than about which gender they are?
Understand people's problems, devise reasonable solutions, communicate your plan to the
voters, and follow through on your promises. It sounds so easy, doesn't it but good luck
trying it with the media and parties working together against you at every turn. Pull up
those bootstraps!
Thanks. We are going to find out how the velocity of the vote is slower than the velocity
of hunger.
"Civilization is about 3 meals thick." John Brockman, ex-con.
We are not together and the people in power don't want to give the people without, food
money. Two more and 3 more months of disease as hunger and death knock at more and more
doors. Evictions pick up apace.
Cormac McCarthy dystopia. No country for anybody.
The economic theory attributed to Warren Mosler and popularized by Stephanie Kelton is the
last idea. If it is a Hail Mary then so be it. If it doesn't work, isn't put to work, mankind
itself is doomed.
Public health care authorities understandably directed their policy responses toward
pandemic mitigation, and the Democrats largely embraced their recommendations. But they
remained insensitive to the anxieties of tens of millions of Americans, whose jobs were
being destroyed for good, whose household debts -- rent, mortgage, and utility arrears, as
well as interest on education and car loans -- were rising inexorably, even allowing for
the temporary expedient of stimulus checks from the government until this past August
I agree and worse this dynamic is playing itself out again–talk about whether
President-elect Biden should institute a lockdown is bringing out the "lockdown now, worry
about the consequences later" mentality again.
While I'm not sure Biden personally regards the millions of those who cannot work from
home, but aren't considered essential, collateral damage, there are clearly a segment of
Democrats who do–I've even seen it on Facebook among people I know. It provides further
proof that the Democrats, as Thomas Frank and others have astutely noted, have become
predominantly the party of the college-educated upper-middle class.
While I'm not denying the severity of the pandemic, the consequences of business shutdowns
and subsequent layoffs are very real and not something to be laughed at or minimized,
especially if Democrats want to have a future among those who are less affluent.
The globalists found just the economics they were looking for.
The USP of neoclassical economics – It concentrates wealth.
Let's use it for globalisation.
Mariner Eccles, FED chair 1934 – 48, observed what the capital accumulation of
neoclassical economics did to the US economy in the 1920s. "a giant suction pump had by 1929 to 1930 drawn into a few hands an increasing proportion
of currently produced wealth. This served then as capital accumulations. But by taking
purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied themselves the kind of
effective demand for their products which would justify reinvestment of the capital
accumulation in new plants. In consequence as in a poker game where the chips were
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by
borrowing. When the credit ran out, the game stopped"
This is what it's supposed to be like.
A few people have all the money and everyone else gets by on debt.
Most of today's problems come from the 1920s.
Financial stability had been locked into the regulations of the Keynesian era.
The neoliberals removed them and the financial crises came back. https://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/banking-crises.png
"This Time is Different" by Reinhart and Rogoff has a graph showing the same thing (Figure
13.1 – The proportion of countries with banking crises, 1900-2008).
After the 1930s, they wanted to ensure those times would never return and put things in
place to ensure they didn't.
The neoliberals have been busy stripping them away.
What did the economists learn in the 1940s? http://delong.typepad.com/kalecki43.pdf
In the paper from 1943 you can see ..
They knew Government debt and deficits weren't a problem as they had seen the massive
Government debt and deficits of WW2.
They knew full employment was feasible as they had seen it in WW2.
After WW2 Governments aimed to create full employment as policymakers knew it could be done
and actually maximised wealth creation in the economy.
Balancing the budget was just something they used to do before WW2, but it wasn't actually
necessary.
Government debt and deficits weren't a problem.
They could now solve all those problems they had seen in the 1930s, which caused politics to
swing to the extremes and populist leaders to rise.
They could eliminate unemployment and create a full employment economy.
They could put welfare states in place to ensure the economic hardship of the 1930s would
never be seen again.
They didn't have to use austerity; they could fight recessions with fiscal stimulus.
The neoliberals started to remove the things that had created stable Western societies
after WW2.
"If I thought voters were racists who want basic economic security and the other party was
offering them racism but not economic security, I would simply try offering economic security
but not racism rather than offering them neither." -Ed Burmilla https://twitter.com/edburmila/status/1324420903409692673
We stepped onto an old path that still leads to the same place.
1920s/2000s – neoclassical economics, high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation,
low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 – Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s – Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, austerity, rising
nationalism and extremism
1940s – World war.
We forgot we had been down that path before.
Right wing populist leaders are only to be expected at this stage.
Why is Western liberalism always such a disaster?
They did try and learn from past mistakes to create a new liberalism (neoliberalism), but the
Mont Pelerin Society went round in a circle and got back to pretty much where they
started.
It equates making money with creating wealth and people try and make money in the easiest
way possible, which doesn't actually create any wealth.
In 1984, for the first time in American history, "unearned" income exceeded "earned"
income.
The American have lost sight of what real wealth creation is, and are just focussed on making
money.
You might as well do that in the easiest way possible.
It looks like a parasitic rentier capitalism because that is what it is.
Bankers make the most money when they are driving your economy into a financial
crisis.
What they are doing is really an illusion; they are just pulling future spending power into
today.
The 1920s roared at the expense of an impoverished 1930s.
Japan roared on the money creation of real estate lending in the 1980s, they spent the next
30 years repaying the debt they had built up in the 1980s and the economy flat-lined. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk
Bankers use bank credit to pump up asset prices, which doesn't actually create any
wealth.
The money creation of bank credit flows into the economy making it boom, but you are heading
towards a financial crisis and claims on future prosperity are building up in the financial
system.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf
Early success comes at the expense of an impoverished future.
Let's get the basics sorted.
When no one knows what real wealth creation is, you are in trouble.
We want economic success
Step one – Identify where wealth creation occurs in the economy.
Houston, we have a problem.
Economists do identify where real wealth creation in the economy occurs, but this is a
most inconvenient truth as it reveals many at the top don't actually create any wealth.
This is the problem.
Much of their money comes from wealth extraction rather than wealth creation, and they need
to get everyone thoroughly confused so we don't realise what they are really up to.
The Classical Economists had a quick look around and noticed the aristocracy were
maintained in luxury and leisure by the hard work of everyone else.
They haven't done anything economically productive for centuries, they couldn't miss it.
The Classical economist, Adam Smith:
"The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of
the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour
of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant
and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his
money."
There was no benefits system in those days, and if those at the bottom didn't work they
died.
They had to earn money to live.
Ricardo was an expert on the small state, unregulated capitalism he observed in the world
around him. He was part of the new capitalist class, and the old landowning class were a huge
problem with their rents that had to be paid both directly and through wages.
"The interest of the landlords is always opposed to the interest of every other class in the
community" Ricardo 1815 / Classical Economist.
They soon identified the constructive "earned" income and the parasitic "unearned"
income.
This disappeared in neoclassical economics.
GDP was invented after they used neoclassical economics last time.
In the 1920s, the economy roared, the stock market soared and nearly everyone had been making
lots of money.
In the 1930s, they were wondering what the hell had just happened as everything had appeared
to be going so well in the 1920s and then it all just fell apart.
They needed a better measure to see what was really going on in the economy and came up with
GDP.
In the 1930s, they pondered over where all that wealth had gone to in 1929 and realised
inflating asset prices doesn't create real wealth, they came up with the GDP measure to track
real wealth creation in the economy.
The transfer of existing assets, like stocks and real estate, doesn't create real wealth and
therefore does not add to GDP. The real wealth creation in the economy is measured by
GDP.
Real wealth creation involves real work producing new goods and services in the economy.
So all that transferring existing financial assets around doesn't create wealth?
No it doesn't, and now you are ready to start thinking about what is really going on
there.
Economists do identify where real wealth creation in the economy occurs, but this is a
most inconvenient truth as it reveals many at the top don't actually create any wealth.
Hide what real wealth creation is, and pretend it's making money, and this problem goes
away.
Saturday during an appearance on FNC's "Justice," Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) questioned why
Democrats oppose any investigations into the integrity of the presidential election, despite
their past efforts on the 2016 presidential election.
The Ohio Republican congressman reminded Fox News viewers that Democrats dedicated for years
to the "Russia hoax" but do not want to allow four weeks for an investigation into this year's
presidential election.
For the past three or four days I have been wondering why the NY Post made this very sudden
turn to supporting Joe Biden. For months we have had brilliant articles by Miranda Devine ,
Michael Goodwin, and others all in support of Trump and the America we have known for many
years. Replies: @Realist
REPLY AGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD
For the past three or four days I have been wondering why the NY Post made this very
sudden turn to supporting Joe Biden. For years we have had brilliant articles by Miranda
Devine , Michael Goodwin, and others all in support of Trump and the America we have known
for many years, and all of a sudden the NY Post changed its views, but these columnists have
not changed. They are too knowledgable and are gifted with common sense. I look forward to
reading their columns or will the Post cancel culture them?
Any discussion of how to "work with" the Marxists is well, it just shouldn't be discussed.
You can't work with Marxists. Besides, Trump won the election. This will be proven over the
next few weeks.
At this point, it seems unlikely that Trump is going to prevail in his legal challenges.
It's possible that he will, but what do you think is more likely? If he doesn't prevail,
however, Biden's "win" can actually be a tremendous win for us.
Why? Well, first let's address the question of who "we" are. I hate to sound like Joe Biden,
who seems not to know who he is or where he is or what he's talking about from moment to moment
(get ready for four years of hilarity, folks). But it's useful to remind ourselves of who we
are from time to time. We are White Nationalists.
A White Nationalist is
someone who believes that white peoples have a right to their own homelands. So that, as a
White Nationalist, I am a German nationalist, an English nationalist, a Scottish nationalist, a
French nationalist, etc . Or, at least, I support all those nationalisms. To be a white
nationalist in America is really to recognize that the core "American people" are the white
people whose ancestors built the country and who continue to pay for it. Thus, American White
Nationalism = American nationalism. To be an American nationalist is also to recognize that
more recent, non-white arrivals don't belong here at all; and that while our blacks have been
here a long time and some of them do sing, dance, and dribble well, they are mostly parasites
who contribute almost nothing to the society except grief.
Since it now looks impossible to go back to the good old days when we had blacks in complete
subjection, and since both blacks and browns out-breed us, American nationalists essentially
face two possible courses of action. The first is to remove non-whites from the country, which
seems impossible at this point, or to remove ourselves. This latter course would mean that we
all go back to Europe, which the Europeans won't allow, or that we effectively secede from the
USA and carve out our own white space (or spaces) within North America. It is this latter
option that now seems like it may be our only option, and something we must work
toward.
So, how does Trump's loss help advance us in that goal? To state the obvious, white
Americans will never work toward a white American homeland unless they are aware of
themselves as White Americans; unless they see themselves as a group with distinct
interests, and the moral right to assert those interests. "Awakening" white people has
always been our goal as White Nationalists -- awakening whites in America, and in
Europe. This awakening is far more important than any political figure, or any short-term
political goals. This awakening is and ought to be our top priority.
When I first got involved in this movement, almost exactly twenty years ago, there were two
questions that were constantly raised in my local "hate group": (1) When are white people going
to wake up? And (2) will it take some kind of societal collapse to get them to wake up? Most of
us thought that it would take such a collapse, but that this wouldn't happen in our lifetimes.
Well, my friends, now it has happened. The collapse has occurred, and Trump's loss has
brought it about.
The country was already fractured along political lines. Now it is completely broken.
Conservatives, the overwhelming majority of whom are white, have long known that the media are
biased to the Left and that the political establishment does not have their interests at heart.
But they still believed in "the system." They believed that it still might be possible to work
within the system and get somebody elected who would actually be their guy . Somebody
who could bring the jobs home, stop the tide of non-white immigration, clean up the streets (
i.e. , do something about black crime), combat the politically correct madness, and get
us out of the forever wars. The election of Donald Trump seemed to confirm this optimism.
But all the voices on the far-Right who labeled Trump "a distraction" have now been proved
correct. Trump actually wound up doing little for white people -- despite being continually
vilified by the Left as a white supremacist! Still, millions of whites not only continued to
support him, they carried on a love affair with the man. Trump was adored by his base like no
other American political figure in memory. Not even Reagan got this much love. The more vicious
and unhinged the attacks on Trump became, the more his base supported him. They knew that his
reelection would be no cakewalk, but they believed it was still possible.
They knew that the media and the Democrats would play dirty -- very dirty. But they trusted
the electoral process. Or, at least, they hoped for the best. For months there was talk about
voter fraud, primarily focused on the issue of mail-in ballots. But conservative whites still
had faith that the system would work for them, as it did in 2016.
Now their faith has been completely and irreparably shattered. And this is hugely
significant for us.
The first step toward real secession is psychological secession: seeing that though I
still live in it, this is no longer my country, and there is no longer any hope of making the
system work for me and those like me. This is exactly what the 2020 election has accomplished.
About 57% of white people voted for Trump in this election. And those many millions of whites
are now choking down a gigantic red pill. As we all know, the red pill is the path to
liberation.
Quoth Tyler Durden: "Losing all hope was freedom."
It seems that there is credible evidence that there was voter fraud in the election,
benefitting Biden. As I write this, Trump's legal team is preparing to fight it -- but, as I
have already said, I think that they will lose. Ultimately, it does not matter whether or not
there was fraud, or whether the fraud was enough to swing the election to Biden (two separate
issues). What matters is that white Trump voters believe that there was.
Trump voters are now, ironically, in sort of the same position as Democrats in the wake of
2016. No matter how much we would like to, none of us will ever forget the "Russian
interference!" and "Russia collusion!" hysteria that went on for the better part of two and a
half years, until the Mueller report more or less put the thing out of its misery (though not
entirely). The difference, however, is that that was all bullshit. And a significant number of
Democrats knew it. Trump voters actually have very good reasons to think that this election was
stolen.
Regardless of what we eventually learn about whether sharpies can cause ballots to be
misread, or whether a "glitch" flipped Trump votes to Biden votes, there is still ample reason
for the 70 million Trump voters to think that this thing was rigged. In the months preceding
the election, America saw a massive overreach of state and local government power in the form
of COVID lockdowns, the net effect of which was to ruin far more lives than it saved. Is it
paranoia to think that the intention here was to crash the economy and render Trump
unelectable?Consider: Virtually the entire media was not only against Trump, but made it their
personal mission to take him down by any means necessary. No lie, no distortion was too
ridiculous or too scurrilous. Leftists in government, journalism, academia, and the
entertainment industry openly declared that anything and everything was permissible in
order to take down the "existential threat" posed by Orange Man. This was the fertile ground
onto which were sowed the seeds of speculation about election fraud.
The lockdowns coincided with months of coordinated rioting billed as "protests" against
non-existent "racial injustice." The rioters somehow weren't subject to the rules of the
lockdowns, because apparently COVID takes a holiday when it is politically expedient. This
double standard was so obscene and so blatant, it enraged Republican voters (as well as a few
honest rank and file Democrats of my acquaintance).
The Left calculated, correctly, that Trump would do little or nothing to stop the rioting,
out of fear of looking too dictatorial in an election year. Trump's own calculation was that
allowing the riots to happen would give the Left plenty of rope with which to hang itself.
Trump was wrong; his inaction made him seem weak. The basic hope of the Left was that months of
economic and social chaos would fatally wound Trump, and that voters would be too stupid to see
that it was actually the Left that was to blame for it. In the main, it looks like they were
right about this.
But diehard Trump supporters correctly saw that the lockdowns and riots were an election
year strategy hatched by the Left. If they were not wholly designed by the Left to
damage Trump, they were at least manipulated for that purpose. The cherry on the cake came in
the weeks leading up to the election, in the form of big tech's censorship of news damaging to
Biden, including blocking the New York Post 's stories about Biden's involvement in his
son's shady business deals. This classically Orwellian move finally reached an extreme few
would ever have even thought possible, when at last social media began censoring the President
himself.
Given all of this, it would be unreasonable not to think that this election was
stolen. Trump's supporters believe this -- every last one of them. And they will never stop
believing it. Mark my words: this is never, ever going away. Trump voters will go to
their graves believing that the election was stolen, and feeling as passionately about it as
they do right now, less than a week after polls closed. They will go to their graves hating
Leftists (as they rightfully should), and believing that the system is broken beyond
repair.
"But," so your objection will go, "the fact that these white Trump voters will become
disillusioned with the system does not mean that they will become self-aware white
advocates."
My contention, however, is that what begins as disillusionment with the system will, in many
cases (a great many cases, I believe) lead to increasing racial consciousness, or open the door
to it. Take it from me -- from my own personal experience: once you have accepted that
one big thing is a total sham, you begin to wonder whether everything else is. And if
you keep going this way, you eventually begin wondering whether wrong is right; whether
everything we've ever been told is false and bad might be true and good.
And the fact is that white Trump voters are already far more racially aware than the
naysayers in the comments section will give them credit for. Trumpism is an implicitly white
phenomenon if ever there was one. And it is implicit only in the sense that its supporters are
too tactful and too fearful to name it for what it is -- not in the sense that they are
unaware of what it is. We all thought that the media and the Leftists had lost their
minds when they damned Trump and his supporters as racists and white supremacists. But they
weren't crazy. They grasped, much more clearly than Republicans, what the vector of the
Trump movement was -- where it might be headed. They correctly saw that a movement that offered
a home to millions of white Americans upset by non-white immigration (euphemistically called
"illegal immigration") might eventually give birth to self-aware white advocacy. When they
called the Trumpites "racists" it was like seeing the oak tree in the acorn.
As perceptive as the Left was on that particular score, they have, as we all know, been
remarkably deaf, dumb, and blind in other ways. Biden's share of the popular vote (if
legitimate) is by no means a landslide. There is no "mandate" for looney Leftism, and no
"repudiation" of Trump (indeed, Trump did expand his base -- though in one crucial area, as I
will shortly discuss, it shrank). But that won't stop Leftists like AOC, and many others, from
imagining that they have a mandate for all their craziness.
Therefore, expect the anti-white rhetoric to pick up steam. And, needless to say, this will
help the process along in a big way: white Trump voters will think for five minutes and realize
that they are at the mercy of a system that is demonstrably rigged against them and
wills their destruction. If they haven't realized it already. That image of the McCloskeys with
their guns facing down the brown hoard is unlikely to fade anytime soon. And what happened to
the McCloskeys has now happened to all white Americans: despised, cornered, and now disarmed.
(The literal disarmament is right around the corner, if the runoff elections in Georgia deliver
the Senate to the Democrats.)
We are nevertheless still at a point where whiteness remains implicit. Whites dare not speak
out in their own defense -- not explicitly as whites, anyway. Populist journalists like Tucker
Carlson, Ann Coulter, and Pat Buchanan, who are privately on our side, still speak in coded
language, avoiding open advocacy for whites. However, the coded language (as the Left also
correctly sees) is becoming easier to decode by the day. As many on our side have said, we will
make no real and substantial progress until we are willing to openly stand up for ourselves --
in person, in broad daylight, and without sock puppets and noms de plume like "Jef
Costello." Is that day imminent? I believe that it is.
What would it take? First, it would take white self-awareness -- and I have argued that this
is already there, emerging from its cocoon. Second, it would take anger . It would take
whites being pushed to a point where they are so angry they speak and behave imprudently
, damning the consequences. If one does it, he will simply be squashed; fired, censored,
canceled, deplatformed. If many do it, that's a different story. They can't fire us all. And if
that anger is great enough, they will fear us. They should. As Don Jr. recently tweeted , "70
million pissed off Republicans and not one city burned to the ground." But this may not last.
The election might just be the proverbial straw. The camel may be about to metamorphose into
the lion.
Already there are signs of uncharacteristic self-assertion on the part of angry Trump
voters. There have been large protests by Republicans in "swing states," including Michigan and Pennsylvania.
There has been violence. Continuing the lockdowns will exacerbate this. Everybody, not just
whites, has reached the breaking point with this COVID bullshit. Of course, now that Biden is
elected, it would not be surprising if COVID suddenly became a non-issue.
Here are some more predictions:
Trump has now moved over to Gab , a
free-speech platform that has embraced thought criminals of all kinds (so far). Trump's
supporters will follow him to Gab -- millions of them. They will read the other stuff and
become more red-pilled. You can almost predict this one with mathematical certainty.
Gun sales will increase as Trump voters scramble to arm themselves before Biden tries to
disarm them. Gun sales have increased enormously since the BLM riots began, so much so that the
stores cannot keep up with demand. Ammo sales have been so brisk it's now hard to find bullets
for those guns. (Yes, I do believe we
are headed for violent civil war .)
Conspiracy theories are going to be mainstreamed. This process was already underway, due
partly to the influence of "QAnon." I tried reading
the QAnon book , with the intention of writing something about it for this website. I
stopped because the thing was so stupid I couldn't get through it. If this stuff can be
influential among Trump voters, anything can. Alex Jones is all over Gab. The Trumpites who
follow their leader over to that platform will get a big dose of him -- and about 60% of what
he says is actually true. He was talking about Epstein's pedo island years ago.
One thing leads to another -- once, as I have said, a big lie is exposed, one begins to
question everything else. Who really runs the world? Who controls US policy in the Middle East?
What's Bohemian Grove all about? Exactly how long does it take to cremate a single body?
Inquiring minds want to know. Let a thousand conspiracy theories bloom! Every one of them helps
us, because every one of them undermines the system and the elites who run it.
White males are the only group Trump did not make gains with in 2020. Given his portrayal in
the media, the irony here is rich, as Jim Goad has noted. Had Trump
gotten more votes from white males, it looks like he would have outvoted even the dead and the
fake voters. As Gregory
Hood has pointed out, "the reason President Trump is in this position is because he
didn't do enough for white working-class voters ." He continues: "White working-class
voters are now the most important voting group in America. They will have decided two
presidential elections in a row. They will decide more."
The Republican establishment cannot be unaware of this. They've seen the same numbers Hood
has. If they did not realize it before, they realize it now. There will be absolutely no going
back to the Republican party of John McCain and Mitt Romney. Those names are hard to pronounce
now without gagging. That they were the Republican nominees in, respectively, 2008 and 2012 now
seems downright surreal. That is how much Trump has changed the party. To save that party,
Republicans will have to offer something to white voters. They will have to keep running the
Trump train, without Trump. (Though Trump is not going away; he will remain a huge part of
public life.)
Everyone thinks 2020 has been a terrible year. It is just the opposite. White nationalism
has taken a giant step forward.
To be an American nationalist is also to recognize that more recent, non-white arrivals
don't belong here at all; and that while our blacks have been here a long time and some of
them do sing, dance, and dribble well, they are mostly parasites who contribute almost
nothing to the society except grief.
The author makes a lot of cogent and well-reasoned points, but his delivery lacks nuance
and has a coarseness which suggests prejudice to the point of racism.
Not that I am accusing the author of being a racist at all – but in the field of
persuasion, a biased narrative produces polarisation, either confirming or disputing one's
preconceived beliefs.
I suggest adjusting the author's arguments to recognise the actual fundamental issue in
play, which is not skin colour or race or language, but CULTURE. Yes, no doubt, the
historical currents and ill-conceived government policies have herded different parcels of
humanity into differing contexts on the basis of their racial backgrounds, but while the
identifying characteristics (and idiotic government-enabled victim industries) may be
numerically associated with skin colour, the actual behavioural differentiations are
determined by the collective CULTURE adopted by each individual within their respective
communities.
Allow me a simplistic example here. By government policy, an Australian is recognised as
Koori (and entitled to all the government benefits, handouts, preferential treatment and
other assistance that Koori status attracts) if he/she can demonstrate that they have at
least 1/16 Koori blood. What a boon to the Australian "Aboriginal Industry", a
government-spawned victim industry par-excellence, whose client-base and professional
employment potential is thereby magically multiplied 10-fold compared a Koori threshold
limited to just full and half-bloods (do the math).
As would be expected, a great many people are all too eager to pile onto this "victim"
gravy train. Never mind that the bulk of them are white.
And the really warped thing about all of this, is that all those whiteys whose great great
grandmother or grandfather may have been a Koori, baited by the siren-song of government
entitlements and victim rights, all too often fall into the trap of government dependency and
economic despondency that afflicts so many of the victim industry's clientelle.
It's not language or race or skin colour, its CULTURE. Egged along by idiotic government
officials and vested interests.
Here in Australia, my view is that you're either Australian, or you're not. All other
considerations are secondary. That applies equally to foreign and domestic policy, and
equally to the native-born and immigrants. Until we come to understand and accept that
proposition, the NATION will be hobbled.
So too with the USA. Mind you, it appears to me that the USA's CULTURAL issues are rather
more entrenched and vulnerable to vested interests than in Australia (so far). If they can't
be resolved, then we may be looking at eventual disintegration into several nations,
irrespective of race.
Really, it's these exciting and dark times when real change happens. The Kali Yuga beckons
us all onwards! I look forward to that future thing which American Nationalism will give
birth to. I just hope it involves dragons, somehow, somewhere. Maybe on a flag.
Your premise of a "white homeland" in North America is problematic at best, since the
territory was already occupied by First Nations of indigenous peoples who clearly were the
first to make such a claim on these lands, which stood until the continent was stolen from
them by white people. A just reckoning of homelands begins with recognizing their prior
rights here first, and then assessing where in the world it is best to park our itinerant
white asses. But as you say, we've already forfeited our place in our actual white homelands
in Europe and elsewhere in the Old World. So maybe we can negotiate paying rent, on these
lands we occupy, to the poor survivors of the genocide we enacted to claim "our" home.
"Most of us thought that it would take such a collapse, but that this wouldn't happen in
our lifetimes. Well, my friends, now it has happened.'
Reminds me of Mr Twain & his comment that reports of his death have been greatly
exaggerated .
The author's race nationalism is sad, to say the least. As if "white" comes with a label.
(And never mind all the Legal/Property issues that would arise -- imagine sorting out an
Olympic sized pool of cooked spaghetti .)
"that we effectively secede from the USA and carve out our own white space (or spaces) within
North America. It is this latter option that now seems like it may be our only option, and
something we must work toward."
But having sorted out the labels "White", citizens can play " India 1947 -- the
Partion" : you know, that wonderful time when millions of Hindus moved south &
millions of Muslims moved north. Death toll somewhere between a couple of hundred thousand to
a couple of million. I wonder who will get the bulk of the Oligarchs ? Where will those
tribal Oligarchs feel more comfortable ?
Mexicans & Asians -- wonder whether they'll be welcome ? Turn away the Asians especially,
will go a long way to guaranteeing failure.
The saddest thing of all ? Assume all the race issues are settled -- & you still have 101
other political issues to deal with .Unless, of course, the author simply wants to transfer
the status quo to his new racial Eden .Wow, what a triumph that would be.
Of course Europeans and people outside of Europe of European descent are waking and
beginning to take our own side This is the inevitable reaction to our ( mostly ) hostile
elite, Politics as usual/ MSM etc are all in decline and no amount of censorship is changing
these trends. Matthew Goodwin and Roger Eatwell in National Populism The revolt against
liberal democracy are amongst many who see this happening. The trend is towards Nationalism
away from the Multiculti cult and its champions on tv etc. The silent majority in all White
nations are less silent with every passing year.
I've long considered myself a political exile. I left the US because I couldn't stand it
any more. The insanity of the laws, the always increasing police state was something I saw
but others apparently didn't.
If states start to secede and Texas is one of them, I'll move back. The Fed Gov is the
main problem and needs to totally disappear. When the USA goes the way of the USSR, then
you'll know there's a chance for freedom.
The history of race relations in the past 60 years or so has been based on your
assumption, that everyone is the same but environments create cultures that make them seem
different. It's a claim that's impossible to disprove, because you can define any traits as
cultural, and is therefore meaningless. Nevertheless, in practical real-life terms all you
have to do is look at how various groups behave in many different locations and even
different times, to see that something is at work besides culture.
And failing to acknowledge biodiversity leads to the absurd victimization industry that
has brought us to the brink of race war.
"warriors of the Powhatan "came unarmed into our houses with deer, turkeys, fish, fruits,
and other provisions to sell us". The Powhatan then grabbed any tools or weapons available
and killed all the English settlers they found, including men, women, and children of all
ages. Chief Opechancanough led the Powhatan Confederacy in a coordinated series of surprise
attacks; they killed a total of 347 people, a quarter of the population of the Virginia
colony."
Oh no those poor natives. Maybe they should have avoided a fight they couldn't win.
There's a reason we call them savages.
"The difference, however, is that that was all bullshit."
But, as the programmer Alberto Brandolini is reputed to have said: "The amount of energy
necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." This is the
unbearable asymmetry of bullshit .
There are so many massive lies out there that are still believed by many of the stupid
masses brainwashed by mass media, the universities, and a variety of other large
institutions.
You can't fix stupid.
So–my crystal ball is very foggy at this point.
(If you think about cultures in the history of the human race, all were based on a bunch
of lies. As Terence McKenna liked to say–nowhere is it written that we apes are
entitled to learn the truth about anything.)
@Etruscan Film Star in parallel with the whole racial profiling paradigm is the same idea
applied to religion, wherein George Dubya whipped up his "civilisational struggle" against
the Muslim world to facilitate American games of Empire. To the extent that any problem
actually exists, religion is a red herring. Here in Australia, Muslim people are amongst the
most genuine and charitable people that one can meet. In my experience, the only tiny
minority of Muslim people who have caused friction are invariably of Arab origin, and more
specifically from Saudi Arabia – an inherently tribal & chauvinistic culture (and a
key American ally in the Middle East – just sayin').
Race & religion are distractions. Compatible cultures can assimilate in a harmonious
society, while incompatible cultures cannot.
For the time being, as long as Jews play the gane of Whites vs Diversity, whites should
play a game of Jews vs Gentiles.
If Jews can lead a multicultural coalition against Whites, then Whites can lead a
multicultural coalition against Jews. This is their worst nightmare, and almost everything
they do is best understood as an attempt to prevent this.
This latter course would mean that we all go back to Europe, which the Europeans won't
allow, or that we effectively secede from the USA and carve out our own white space (or
spaces) within North America. It is this latter option that now seems like it may be our only
option, and something we must work toward.
Jez, they say I am a dreamer, and all I want is a free pony and some government
cheese.
I suspect that Australians are several decades behind Americans in discovering that your
perspective, which basically is what we called civic nationalism, is largely false and has
now largely failed. I don't have time to even sketch this, but you can look for critiques of
civic nationalism and for concepts like regression to the mean. I hope you can learn from our
experience.
@Ultrafart the Brave and snotty racist Europeans and Japanese kept the revolutionary
masses down. The opposite is the truth, it were the Europeans who were revolutionary folks
(French revolution/Enlightenment anyone) trying to spread modernism over racist, parochial,
reactionary, tribal darkie populations and the whole thing ended in tears and trumped up
charges against Whitey dreamt up by Jews, marxists and third World Nationalists/ elites. Same
with Japanese Empire which too was driven by the Pan Asian ideology. The Chinese too will be
rejected by the darkie masses in the future, they too will face trumped up charges for
"exploitation" and "oppression" in the future, it has already started right now.
I do not deny that there are differences between the races. However, breeding is not one
of them.
Ever since the end of slavery, American blacks have had moderate numbers of children,
essentially the same whites. Yes, really. Why do you think, after all these centuries,
pre-1965 American blacks are still hardly more than 10% of the population?
Actually the fraction of blacks in the United States is lower than it used to be –
the Grover-Cleveland cheap-labor immigration surge, that drove wages so low and profits so
high, was all from (at the time) white third-world Europe, and increased the white fraction
of the population. Because white europeans at the time bred more than black Americans!
So yes, during the 19th century and up through Mao, the Chinese bred like rabbits and
lived lives of total misery. After Mao, the Chinese fertility rate was allowed to moderate,
and now China is doing very well. Is there anything genetic in the Chinese people for either
high or or low fertility rates? No. This at least, is entirely cultural.
Are there genetic differences between the races? Yes. Is excessive breeding one of them?
No.
@Ultrafart the Brave in Western societies on average than MENA and South Asians, even the
African blacks, who have much more deeper cultures than New World blacks, they all integrate
fast into Western cultures but they tend to ebonyify everything. But they bring with them
some negative traits like tendency towards violence, crime, chip on the shoulder mentality,
melanin power mentality, seeing racism everywhere etc So culturally they integrate faster but
the skin colour difference creates resentments and temperament differences still exist. On
the positive side blacks are not clannish as the darker Eurasian semi Caucasoids and have an
individualistic tendency which does gel well with individualistic Northern Euros.
I was away from Polaris Parkway, just North of Westerville and Worthington, Ohio, for a
couple of months and things have deteriorated quickly.
This also happened to Epstein Best Bud, Les Wexner's pet project Easton Town Center, close to
New Albany Wexner's British Village Fantasyland.
The common factor in deterioration is wait for it
Blacks and Browns, managed by jews.
Philadelphia Block Busting, 60 years later, same demographic players.
@sb understand that the Australian aboriginals were not a uniform race across the
Australian continent. The Tasmanian Aboriginals were quite different to their continental
counterparts, but even the mainlanders were not racially homogenous. The racial makeup of the
native peoples of Papua & New Guinea are completely different again.
A broad analogy can be drawn with the various black races occupying the African continent
– their skin colour doesn't uniquely define their respective races. For an extreme
example, compare the Congo Pygmies of central Africa with the Rwandan Tutsis.
I do take your point, however – rather than qualify the Kooris as Australian for a
potentially global audience, perhaps it is simpler to just refer generically to native
Australians..
One might think so, but apparently not. Instead, in so many ways the Australian culture
seems to be marching in suicidal lockstep with the USA, like the mythical lemmings toward the
proverbial cliff.
An appalling example of this is the insidious slide of the Australian medical system over
the last few decades from a universally free model to a for-profit one infested with middle
men and insurance rackets, presumably on a trajectory towards a full-blown American-style
Big-Pharma business model with the poor folk thrown under the bus.
@Malla rt of thinking aligns somewhat with reports of homecoming head-chopping ISIS
psychos being sent to reeducation camps in Xinjiang, China. The local indigenous population
apparently is doing just fine, but returning extremists trained for genocidal wars in the
Middle East no longer fit in.
Here's a true story which helps to illustrate that the principle of cultural harmony
transcends race, and even species. I was raised on a farm, and on this farm were herds of
sheep and also some turkeys. One particular sheep somehow got it into her head that she was a
turkey. She would follow the turkey flock around all day, and at night, she would roost in a
tree with the turkeys. The turkeys didn't seem to mind, and the sheep seemed quite happy.
Compatible cultures.
The stolen election is like Jewish control of the media. EVERYBODY, even Biden voters know
this SELECTION/ELECTION WAS STOLEN, but like Jewish control of the media, we are demanded to
pretend it doesn't exist or never happened.
No Trump fan here, but I voted for the Orange Man because of the alternative. I still have
hope that Team Trump can turn this around. All the Jew/Israel butt kissing aside and the
broken promises and holding meetings with (c)rappers, Trump did expose the "normies" to the
FAKE MEDIA. Hell, that is more than any other modern day POTUS has done for Whites. Can
someone tell me when was the last time Whites had a true representative in the White House
that actually looked out for White Americans and was concerned about White civil rights? I am
pushing 60 and we haven't had one in my lifetime for sure.
So that, as a White Nationalist, I am a German nationalist, an English nationalist, a
Scottish nationalist, a French nationalist, etc.
I think if we take it as far as Hitler, we are also Chinese nationalists, and Japanese
nationalists etc – those nations can develop in their spheres – and so much the
better for them. But they may not force themselves on us (or others).
This whole article is based on the Susan Sarandon premise in 2016 when Bernie lost –
that a Trump win would inspire the base to elect a progressive, caring left wing politician.
This didn't turn out – the system got rigged for about as establishment a criminal as
could have been chosen.
Article 10 is not easy to execute. The right may have honour and guns, but the left is
TDSed, and rabies is one strong steroid to help with a fight!
In addition there is no real leader – one who could strategise a secession
effectively. Trump certainly couldn't. He'd be great as the PR guy, but not as the leader.
Until one is born, America is stuck within the belly of the US beast.
Author Costello said:
"Had Trump gotten more votes from white males, it looks like he would have outvoted even the
dead and the fake voters."
Nope.
Costello misses the point that the curious count stoppage was a pause to enable the left
to manufacture the votes that they then anticipated needing in lieu of the largely pro-Trump
turnout numbrs. And, any unanticipated pro-Trump surge could have easily been overcome by
having a reserve at the ready.
IOW:
Regardless of who had voted for Trump, they simply would have been overcome by the left
creating more fake votes for Biden.
I would add materialist values and urbanization to the blend. All my ancestry emanated
from Scandinavia. After checking out several major cities during the years of my young
manhood, I returned to a rural, homesteading life.
Working with my hands and body is important to my well-being. Seasonally, living on the
northwestern fringe of the Northwoods, winters are long and arduous -- a good time for
artistic and intellectual pursuits. The soul has its needs, as Thomas Moore pointed out in
his book "Growth of the Soul". My needs center on living close to the mother of us all.
Northeast Asians and Northwest Europeans share much in this perspective.
Not too many answers to why and to what purpose but still a brilliant article.
Generals love the war, soldiers not so much.
There is lingering question in my mind! The question is: Who loves more war, Israel , or
seventeen intelligence agencies with General staff.
But for the time being I am very much against any radical solution.
I am with Trump's "Stand down and stand by".
I think Biden also does deserve a chance to come up with solutions.
But if Biden starts a new war than everything will be justified and Final solution will
become inevitable.
@TG k up a feast. The younger children enjoy their own fun and games. The older ones help
their samesex parents. During the evening after supper, the bottles get passed around and
sometimes there is music and perhaps dancing.
The bulk of the Amish -- and the Mennonites -- emerged from an Anabaptist culture in
Switzerland and parts of Germany and during the late 17th Century many of them relocated to
Lanacaster County Pennsylvania, from which they have now colonized westwards wherever there
is the possibility of true country living. Not many of them migrate past the 90th Meridian,
where poor soil and semi-arid conditions are poorly conducive to agriculture and cozy country
living.
@Ultrafart the Brave s have manipulated much in America in the last 50 years and that is
the bigger reason for what are marketed as 'cultural clashes'. Most of them are bogus and
engineered.
Race & religion are distractions. Compatible cultures can assimilate in a harmonious
society, while incompatible cultures cannot.
Agree, again, I'd use the term: shared or accepted values.
(Fwiw, I'm willing to go the step further and view the author as a likely racist and
supremacist. Most people like that have lived sheltered lives and had little exposure to a
variety of peoples. Many of their assertions are simply empty and unaware of ahem the real
world.)
If Brexit ranks NINE on the Collective Self-Harm for No Good Reason scale, proposing a
civil war in the 21st century to create a "whites only" state in North America is so nutty it
breaks the dial.
But We'll give you MT, ND, SD, WY, IA, NB, KS, and Maybe OK. That way you can all go back
to growing crops and digging oil (ND) for your subsistence. Every place else is getting too
mixed for you.
Maybe if you're nice the Hawaiians will let you vacation on their islands occasionally to
get a break from long cold winters.
Though a lame and uninsightful article on the whole, the strategy of and desire for
secession is the healthiest conclusion that the author could have been reached. I would just
hope that when whites within the ethnostate inevitably conflict with the ethnogovernment that
he would also want for them to secede.
What a simple morality play for the banking elites (who own both parties through
"lobbying, i.e. bribery" sanctioned by the highest courts) to divide and conquer the
taxcattle.
You are arguing over who you pay Tribute to. This is a golden opportunity for mass civil
disobedience to overwhelm and bury the decrepit, imperial corporatist oligarchy.
The stone-age aboriginals who previously inhabited what is now America failed to defend
their lands from invasion. Sadly, we've learned nothing from their mistakes.
Ronnie Unz needs to weigh in here Give the little cretin credit for posting this of
course.
Ronnie you are about to get your brown invasion that you so crave good and hard. Of all
the things that the globalist elites want in electing this moron demented POS called Biden is
an open border
Here it comes Ronnie Won't you and your bro Cholo loving Reed be soooo very happy
Amnesty is going to be served up as one of the first acts of Shithead Biden's
administration
Rejoice Ronnie . More poverty crossing the border to cut your grass.. And a bigger mass of
people for the welfare state
Of course you think that maids and dry wall hangers are natural conservatives I beg to
differ Where i live in Virginia they are natural clients of our welfare offices. We are
ground zero for the Welfare Dreamers who come from Central America.
I don't have to gaze into my navel and dream up some statistics about this you insipid
moron I can walk down the street to the Socialist Service office and see it for my own
eyes.
Yes Ronnie White Nationalist failed thanks to shitheads like you . Now asshole enjoy
paying California taxes to support open door poverty
Virginia is we are now on par to have California style taxes to support the brown
wave.
Your Buddy Reed had a good plan for escaping that I believe he used to be a Virginian he
moved to where the cholos are leaving!
As to this article right!! Cucked whites are doing shit. They'll be called racists and
shrivel up like a daisy in a wind storm.
@Priss Factor he Jewish agenda. Why don't we have a Herve Ryssen here in the US? Why
don't we have an Alain Soral, publishing prolifically and SELLING books to the deplorable
French yellow vests? Why don't we have a comedian like Dieudonne, poking fun at the organized
community and its endless wailing about its victimhood? We need more strong voices, willing
to point out the fact that there is NO SUCH THING as "Judeo-Christian values"; the very idea
grew out of a poison, Scofield Reference Bible influenced swamp, a hideous swamp monster
feeding on bleating Christian Zionist sheep, baa baa baaing as their wealth and futures are
extracted by the oligarch Jews.
It seems, based on much video, as well as the geographic centers of this fraud, that
negroes played a disproportionate role in the illegal election activities. Now that does seem
counter intuitive, as negroes are overwhelming honest, law abiding citizens.
I can only imagine that it was some small group of Jews that bribed our colored brethren
to engage in this thoroughly out of character misbehavior that may well lead to violent,
bloody national upheaval.
If only we had employed a larger share of our negro population in the various lucrative
advertisement opportunities, thereby sparing them from a life of soul crushing poverty. We
might have saved the nation, had we been kinder to our minority Black population.
"A White Nationalist is someone who believes that white peoples have a right to their
own homelands." – White Americans forfeited this right the moment they began
bringing African slaves here. Advocacy for white nationalism in America is advocacy for
secession or genocide. If you have no stomach for advocating genocide of non-whites in
America you must advocate for carving out white homeland for white nationalists. This
homeland no long will represent America or be America, so you no longer will be American
white nationalist but white 'bantustan' nationalist. If you lucky the rest of America will
let you have casinos in your bantustan.
The karma of the U.S was always screwed from the day the vile white Euro invaders fucked
with the natives and if there should be statues they should be of the likes of Geronimo and
not white imperial scum.
May the spirits of all the slaughtered native North American Indians be smiling from ear
to ear at the potentially very dangerous division in the middle country of North America.
A very good article that raises a lot of valid points. White Supremacy is the ONLY way,
that's what (((they))) call us, so ride with it – wear their labels with pride. Onwards
and upwards!
"The goal of abolishing the white race is, on its face, so desirable that some may find it
hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed WHITE
SUPREMACISTS .Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and
the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as the white race is
destroyed."
– Noel Ignatiev, Jewish Harvard professor and co-founder of 'Race Traitor'
magazine.
What makes you think White Americans brought blacks to America? America didn't even exist
when black slavery commenced and the bulk of black slaves went to the Spanish colonies, not
the American colonies.
A just reckoning of homelands begins with recognizing their prior rights here first,
A just reckoning also requires a statute of limitations on questions priority and a
recognition of who actually built the country.
Besides, the 'native' tribes were already killing and displacing each other. They were
mutually hostile, not united. Why should the addition of one more tribe to that warring mix
– albeit a tribe whiter and more successful than the rest – make any difference?
Ironically, it takes a 'racist' to claim that it does.
Agree, although Jews have a few advantages that make them much better at it, namely a
couple thousand years experience operating as tiny minorities in others lands and a shameless
hyperethnocentric instinct evidently lacking in white gentiles.
I looked at gab but it didn't seem very user friendly, problem is also everybody needs to
cease using twitter and shift to gab at the same time, critical mass.
And where, amongst these face diapered morons and Covid fearing degenerates, will you find
freedom?
America's problems are far greater than issues of Race, Politics, or Culture. At the core,
the issue is complete Spiritual Collapse, manifested in craven cowardice, cringingly
lickspittle obedience, mindless group think, and resolute belief in imaginary events.
This isn't going to end well for anyone. The spiritual death of America is as permanent as
it is absolute.
This latter course would mean that we all go back to Europe, which the Europeans won't
allow .
You haven't been paying attention, sonny. The Europeans are busy trying to catch up with
America's comparitive advantage by importing masses of similar types.
Has anybody else besides myself noticed how fast Jared Taylor and his #1 prize writer,
Gregory Hood – have cucked and caved in and conceded that the DemonRats won the 2020
Presidential election?
And, how each of these guys have now gone into full concession mode and are trying to
persuade and influence their followers to join them in their cuckery and effeminate
willingness to become submissive?
Also, I was listening to a recent Red Ice podcast where they had a slew of allegedly
pro-white community spokesmen and women on to discuss the fraudulent and clearly obvious
attempts by the Demonic leftists to steal the election and they were pushing a meme that I
found more than a little bit disturbing.
It went something like this: Racially healthy Whites need to respond to this travesty by
'opting out' of the 'system'. This means that Whites need to stop participating; i.e., stop
voting completely.
Alex Linder once said, when discussing the suicidal mindset of Whites who were infected
with Christianity – and who we all have repeatedly heard on various talk radio call-in
shows come on the
radio – after another leftist anti-white agenda victory and say: "Well, I will just
continue to pray and leave things up to God" – Linder dubbed that kind of attitude by
Whites as nothing more than pathetic excuse for them to continue to 'do nothing' to help
themselves or their people. I agree.
This meme that 'Whites need to stop voting' is exactly the same kind of attitude. I am
willing to concede the point that voting is senseless as long as the system continues to
allow fraudulent and illegal chicanery to thrive and go unpunished. But, anyone who actively
promotes the idea that Whites should just completely opt out is pushing advice that is
exactly what our mortal enemies want most. It is a complete surrender to being ruled over by
non-whites and jews who hate our guts and who do not want to encounter any opposition to
their agenda to genocide our race of people.
Yes, the election WAS stolen, the democrats having admitted it themselves after four years
of trying to get rid of president Trump, as they said, "BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE"!! So rational
people are now to believe that they have suddenly become honest players in the 2020 election?
As the saying goes, GOOD LUCK WITH THAT THOUGHT /..Dr. Charles Fhandrich.
@Stonewall Jackson sympathizing with some of your sentiments, Stonewall, but your
mean-spirited discourse (directed towards our host, no less) is a textbook example of why
Comments Sections (and some commentators) get edited–and even banned. Why take this
route? It seems self-defeating.
Your disrespectful attitude undermines your appeal. It also diminishes this site.
Why not aim higher? Why not civility?
Ron Unz might be wrong here and there. But he is not a "moron". Making such claims makes
you look like one.
Ron Unz has given the world a forum where countless and controversial and conflicting
points of view are given oxygen and light. This is invaluable and rare.
This is probably the most profound and auspicious moment in modern American history. I
would like to see Trump and the Republican party seize this moment by creating a parallel
government. Imagine 71 million Americans standing solid and publicly announcing a resounding
"Fuck you!" to the Jewish commies and all their colored cohorts.
'Why should the addition of one more tribe to that warring mix make a difference?'
Because it was their homeland, unlike the Euro invaders of central North America and just
try asking an elderly Palestinian how that feels.
And the different tribes may have been at war occasionally but this can hardly be compared
to the mass slaughter of the Native North American Indians and their Bison(to try and starve
them).
@Ultrafart the Brave Most importantly, the lies attributing black dysfunction to white
racism must stop immediately, and the government has to stop shoving diversity down our
throats continuously.
Allow freedom of association, enforce the laws, stop making excuses for black dysfunction,
and limit if not eliminate further immigration into the West from the Third World.
Perhaps then there can be some hope for us living together with a modicum of peace and
prosperity.
But I agree with you that nothing is accomplished by referring to an entire group of
people in completely disparaging terms.
That being said, black dysfunction has been and continues to be a serious problem that
will not be resolved by blaming it on white racism.
@Frankie P , who are both honored as Prophets in Islam, but instead, Jews spit on hearing
their names and do the same while passing a Christian of any kind or a Christian Church in
Israel. They have no respect for Christians or any other religion.
It is time the Jewish lobbies and the American Government leaders as well as the evangelical
Christian leaders who mislead the poor American young into joining the military and believing
that they are doing something for God and Christianity by fighting Israel's wars were named,
shamed and arrested and tried for treason.
In a perverse sort of way, israel's favorite "war song" is "Onward Christian Soldiers"
There I've said it
Will the redpilled understand that America has done this to many other countries, with
many more dead, or will their new consciousness be limited to this particular event? Because
the redpilled ones were always enthusiastic about new military adventures.
If the warriors came unarmed, but wound up killing people instead, I'd wonder what took
place in the interval. Something tells me we're only hearing one side and only a small part
of the story.
As for avoiding a fight they couldn't win, what advantage would they have obtained if they
just bent over and took it in the cheeks without a fight?
Maybe the reason "we" call them savages is called projection.
BTW, here's an example of what failing to fight will get ya,
An elephant that had some tests performed on it was going to be culled. However, in the
end, they decided to release it back into the wild (within the reserve).
This elephant took it into it's head that it was an African buffalo!
It hung out with the buffalo herd, and started to emulate the buffaloes behavior.
Initially, of course, the buffaloes were a tad leery of their new, very large friend –
but eventually got used to him.
And the elephant provided plenty of muscle when it came to lions stalking the herd.
It seems like you got the Pocahontas version of history.
All I can say is that if some guys on horses abducted my daughter and then slowly tortured
and scalpted her to death, you can be sure I wouldn't hesitate to genocide each and every one
of those savages down to the last one. But let's not have facts interrupt your narcissistic
moral masturbating. Just don't come here, coz in the end we'll end up laughing at you.
@Majority of One watermelon, they pass around the gin and juice and sit around smoking
the chronic and endo. Guns and ammunition are then passed around and they all discuss that
nights or the next days activities.
The bulk of the Negroes emerged from the African bush, sold by their own and competing
tribes and have colonized all 52 states wherever there is the possibility of free living and
handouts. Not many of them migrate to rural areas where country living and hard work would be
considered racist and discriminatory.
We have to thank our black Bros and Sistas. Without their motto "there can be no
construction without destruction" the USA would never be what it is today.
Ahhh This white man has put in a convincing case for himself and people like him and he
has my total support. He and his people can have Wyoming and half of South Dakota, only half.
Want some cows and mules? Take them. Take some white women also if they agree to go. And you
must take Trump with you, he's white like you. Good luck.
White liberals cry crocodile tears when the jewsmedia reminds them how White settlers
stole land formerly inhabited by American Indians. But, the fact is, every people alive in
the world today stole the land they now live on from a weaker people. It's the history of
mankind. Further, every Indian tribe in America at the time of Columbus had stolen their land
from another tribe, and they continued warring and land stealing until the White man put a
stop to it.
This obsession with restitution and atonement, is replacing religion. Only a race too long
comfortable would consider giving away to the defeated all they have accomplished and hard
fought for.
Churchills jewish henchman, fake aristocrat and architect of the Dresden and associated
slaughters frederick linderman mused that the defining event of the 20th century would be
'the abdication of the white man'.
The seeds of annihilation were sown in the late 19th century, now comes the reaping, aided
ably by the mendacity, sloth and cowardice of our own peoples and leaders.
President Kushner or President Emhoff that is the question. Same old – Jewish
"White" Supremacy. The "white" supremacy game of our "free" Zion press forgets to say which
"whites" are supreme. Our "free" Zion press is right that there is a "white" group that is
supreme but do not go into details which one. Unz site is one of the few sites that notices
this "white" group that is supreme in the US and in the entire west.
Vice President-elect Kamala Harris' husband, Doug Emhoff, will leave his job as a
partner with a high-profile law firm to focus on his role in the new Biden
administration.
A campaign spokeswoman said Tuesday that Emhoff will sever ties with DLA Piper by
Inauguration Day. Emhoff took a leave of absence from the firm in August, when Harris was
named Joe Biden's running mate. Biden and Harris will be inaugurated Jan. 20.
Emhoff is working with the transition team to determine the issues he will take on as
the vice presidential spouse. He is the first man to hold that role, as Harris is the
nation's first female vice president.
thanks mr Costelo for showing your thought crystal clear.
I a south american, am not entirely a contradictor to your views. And even share a few of
them.
If you re a white US nationalist I am a Brazilian, no matter-what-color, nationalist.
A nationalist must necessarily abide by the Westphalia Peace and be a faithful son of the
1815 Wien Conference.
The first corolarium of a nationalist like you is , of course, abhorr and abolish globalism.
This concedes a few exceptions (such as worlwide communications) since they are already in
place and cannot be sensibly reverted.
NOTE 1:I do want to wipe out globalism. (though not for every small nation nation of the
world, which would turn not applicable and counterproductive) away from my country for the
next decades at least.
The second corolarium is that any self conscious country should cling and fiercely defend a
strong list of protectionist laws. And entirely renegotiate the rusty, hegemonic leaning WTO
rules. Not to quit it but to found a new WTO. This protection is what the US did all the the
19th century long, from top to bottom.
The third one that springs out as a consequence is that the STATE presence and adhesion to
state owned companies in key sectors is vital to any nationalism.
Now the big criterium to enlight and tell things apart is: the less develoloped a country is
the more
of state ownership and reliance it will requires.
So until my home country does reach a 40.000 dollar/year PER CAPITA income, with an
acceptable
income distribution, I will be a feroucious nationalist just like Costello.
It is taken for granted that small places like Singagore, Uruguay, Andorra, Bosnia or
seychelles can AT WILL make an option to globalize, to intenationalize, to sell themselves
out to neighbor or to the best bidder.
No half words, no subtle or figurative language. And nobody must keep a secret as to what to
do when a big , rich, established country the destroy this legitimate thir party Nationalism,
annex or dominate the so described national entity.
Revolution, no less.
@Random Anonymous ti" future, they needed to introduce the intermediate step of civic
nationalism, whereby anyone could be an American as long as they were willing to assimilate
into the dominant culture. Hence, Israel Zangwill's The Melting-Pot .
Thus, civic-nationalism represented the proverbial camel poking its nose through the tent
before entering it completely. Once Westerners became acclimated to having non-Westerners
living among themselves, the assimilationist approach slowly began to be transformed into the
multicultural framework, one in which the overarching objective of dismantling "white
supremacy" was slowly unfurled. This is where we find ourselves today.
Like sensible people, I think they understand that America is never going to be another
Orania. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orania,_Northern_Cape
It's possible to get a deeper appreciation of the roots of America's social crisis America by
reading Thomas Sowell who has uniquely, I think, shown that patronizing guilt-ridden whites
(those that were) over the decades bear a particular responsibility.
Well, if you can't see racism in this guy words I'm convincente that you're already a
totally blind racist.
There is NO white land in this continent, son. If you are that German, english, Nordic
white nationalist then you can surely Go back there to European origins and claim your
ancestors' lands. But one thing you can never claim is the right over stolen territory,
neither to define how long one have to occupy robbed land until be able to recognize others
as a "native white"
or INVADERS.
EVERY SANE HUMAN KNOWS WHAT IS BEHIND THIS FACADE OF ARGUMENT.
NO WAY ANY REAL NATIVE CAN CLAIM TO BE WHITE, LET ALONE CALL AFRICAN DESCENDENTS ("OUR
BLACKS" ) PARASITES AND THIA SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT THE SICK PREMISES THIS COLONIALIST
SUPREMACIST IS DEFECATING FROM HIS MOUTH.
Friday rush hour. Euston station [in London]. Who's here? Who isn't. A kaleidoscope of
skin colours. The world in one terminus. Barbara Roche can see it over the rim of her cup of
Americano coffee. "I love the diversity of London," she tells me. "I just feel
comfortable."
White Americans brought them here? All White Americans? Was a black or two parceled out to
each White American? Blacks were brought here before America was a nation. And not by White
Americans.
A huge number of White Americans came to America after White Americans abolished slavery.
Most black slaves weren't even brought to White America but spanish america. White Americans
must pay as a group right?
Congrats on being the lowest IQ writer to ever be published on this site. Glad to see Ron
Unz is doing his part to increase representation of the imbecile community.
"Nation" is a white concept. De-colonialize your brain, bigot! To the redskins, land
belonged to those who could take it, and Europeans honored that tradition in grand style.
Do you really believe the BS you just spewed? "So, things began to slide when welfare became
generous and English wasn't required, etc. All of that has been to the detriment of the black
population and the cause of many problems in that population." Just another excuse for blacks.
Blacks are parasitic criminals, they are going to complain welfare or not. Cut off welfare to
blacks then, they never deserved it anyway. The most undeserved race in the world.
This obsession with Tucker Carlson is as ridiculous as the obsession with Jordan Peterson.
Neither give two shits about anything white nationalist. Tucker was born into this life with a
jewish silver spoon in his mouth. The guy is worth $20+ million. The fact he hasnt left Foxnews
immediately after the networks recent debacle with election reporting shows where his loyalty
lies, like most jews (even though he's adopted) its with $$$$
Further, every Indian tribe in America at the time of Columbus had stolen their land from
another tribe, and they continued warring and land stealing until the White man put a stop to
it.
Of course they put a stop to it. Because they wanted a monopoly on all that. Same reason the
White Euro Christians put a stop to Germany's "lebensraum" ideas. The examples are nearly
endless.
We hyoominz are wunnerful, no? And religions and politicians are here to solve it all.
Uh -huh!
Just came across this interesting video of Enoch Powell debating Jonathan Miller on issues
around UK immigration. They both appeared on the Dick Cavett Show, which aired back in 1971
Not sure if the honourable Enoch Powell had known this trivia about Jonathan, but if he had
he should've put the following query to him:
"You seem to be an ardent proponent of promoting mass immigration into Britain. Are you just
as ardent a proponent of promoting mass immigration into Eretz Israel?"
If Jonathan had been injected with a truth serum, he would have likely responded:
"Don't be silly. Why would HaShem's chosen people wish to mix with the goyim of the world?
Sheesh, what a schmuck!"
While it is true that people of the same culture, race and religion live in more harmony in
their marriages, and probably in their society, there is no way to achieve that objective in
today's world of mass communication and mass transportation. Impossible. To even think about
something like that is a recipe for nothing better than frustration and despair. The Church
recommended that people of the different cultures and races and religions should not marry
because of the risk that it would interfere with the harmony in their marriage as they face
life's other trials. It's solution when the Christians came to the Americas was for them to
convert the nations and it's objective was to promote better like-mindedness and better harmony
that could sustain them as they lived together in the Americas.
This is what the globalists believe they can achieve without Christianity. Well, they can't,
because without Christianity, there is only self-interest, the opposite of Christianity, and
that is what they are affirmatively teaching at the moment, for self-interest is what they need
to promote disunity, for that provides the means for better control of society.
In my opinion, you had better find another way. Maybe you would be better off correcting the
vast majority of hispanics for believing they are something other than Caucasian.
Indians slaughtered each other on the regular, they enslaved each other on the regular, they
were not a peaceful people and quite savage. Indian tribes would often join up with the White
man to fight other Indian tribes.
Hey, are you a member of the same tribe that Lizzy Warren is from or are you a member of the
(((tribe.))) Come on, now, you really don't give two shits about Native Americans, you just
hate Whitey, don't you? Anyone can search my rather lengthy comment history and they will find
they I have a few posts claiming the American Indian is the ONLY nonwhite people who Whitey
owes a damn thing to, not a popular opinion, but it is mine and I will own it.
I have an excellent idea! Go to the south and find some white man, preferably someone who
hunts, and tell him he has to move because he's on "stolen land."
@Tucker aged what got us here in the first place? So certainly, completely disengaging is
what will further accelerate our demise. You have to wonder, maybe these organizations are part
of the gay op to further disenfranchise whites even faster?
This display of white weakness needs to end. If you believe in your right to exist and for
the sake of your children, never let them gain any more power, ever. If that means voting for
someone that also supports Israel, then so what? If you as a WN, ever think there have been
more 'pure and honest' politicians in the past, or are waiting for your perfect WN savior to
support in the future, then you are just stupid, sorry.
@christine drafting place – but not exclusive. I spent over 3 decades with Athabaskan
and eskimos – Inuit, Yupik, and a few Aleuts – since the Aleuts were the last
genocided tribe – during WW II when they moved all of them to the mainland – in
order own all their land – after the War. In the end, this is all planned by the Owners
– Illuminati- Deep State – Zionists etc. It doesn't matter if they genocide the
Nates – the whites, blacks, Browns – until all the tribes unite and take out the
Cancer – the Plan will continue. PS the Russians , when they owned Alaska – never
genocided the Native population – no matter what the media or stupid SE Nates –
say. I homesteaded in Alaska .
According to Wikipedia, Newsmax is co-owned by Christopher Ruddy and Richard Mellon
Scaife(heir to the Mellon fortune in Pittsburg). Ruddy is the son of a police officer in NYC
and a confidant of Trump. Per Wiki he graduated from Hebrew University of Jerusalem for
undergrad, but his first name suggests he's not Jewish. Is he? He describes himself as a
"libertarian conservative" and Reaganite.
October 28, 2020 Report: Biden Would Kill Upwards Of 159K Jobs In Mich.
According to a recent study, Michigan supports around 159,000 jobs in the oil and gas
industry, all of which would be eliminated under Biden's plan to achieve zero emissions by
2035.
The "redpilled" fully understand that America's foreign wars are a load of BS that profit
the military industrial complex and certain lobbying groups – but not the USA itself.
To you, a Jew is an American nationalist because he is not a recent arrival, unlike, say,
Ilhan Omar. I got your number you're not a nationalist but a paid up harlot masquerading,
sadly, as a White nationalist.
"Like what North America, Australia, Argentina predominantly was before mass non -White
migration"
Argentina? No mass non-White migration here, to speak of. This country since the white
arrival has always been a mestizo society.The same is true of much of Central and more
so South America. During this century in Argentina,there has been a substantial migration of
Bolovins, Peruvians and Paraguyans thanks to the Kirchners (our Clintons) " Patria
Grande " program that allowed them in, but it represents nothing on the scale of what has
been done elsewhere to the north. Here the issue is less a color issue than a class issue.
But We'll give you MT, ND, SD, WY, IA, NB, KS, and Maybe OK.
You'll need to get Canada's permission before you give away New Brunswick.
I imagine the "honesty belt" would quickly become a desirable place to live compared to
everywhere else, and the good solid folks in Honestan would again allow their resident shlomos
to open the floodgates.
In order to be taken seriously you need some kind of united front. Take a look at even small
minority groups such as the LGBTQ community, who maybe accounts for 3% of the US population,
but has grown into a unified political force.
There also needs to be a consequence if your group is wronged. We have daily mainstream
television shows that do nothing but make fun of White people and their traditions. The Muslims
behead anyone who dares draw a stick figure of Muhammad, let alone entire programming dedicated
to the denigration of their culture.
In order to defeat a bully, you need to punch them in the mouth. Right now many people are
hopefully waking up to the fact that there is indeed a bully, then identifying exactly who that
is, and finally taking some sort of action against the bully.
@Priss Factor anded by their "G_d" to Rule the World, tikkun olam , " (b)light
unto the nations " and 20 other descriptors for the megalomaniac tyrant known as the Jew,
who lusts to control blacks, whites and everyone else in slavery to itself.
I do agree with the author that we White Nationalists need to lose our fear of defending our
racial identity, but da' blacks ain't da' problem. The Jewish race / ideology that lusts to
destroy us ALL – IS the problem.
Talking about black / white racial tensions as if they were the source of our problems is
like worrying about dandruff on a cancer patient. So PLEASE, let's get to the point, shall
we?
Increased white nationalism leads to increased anti-white-nationalism. Genociding indigenes
makes white supremacists look evil. Trumpism leads to BLMism and Antifa. White wars of
aggression lead to brown refugees going to Europe. God will turn Europe and North America
black, red and yellow if He wants to, and He can do it by taking advantage of white people's
pride and letting them do stupid "white supremacist" things that make them look bad.
The pilpul by Miller is truly astonishing, comparing old British people to
immigrants!
People like Miller serve the purpose of trying to rationalise the decisions of the other
members of his Tribe, usually by gaslighting people into thinking they are crazy and nothing
out of the normal is happening. Hence you see these crazy metaphors and analogies drawn by the
likes of Miller in that clip.
"As many on our side have said, we will make no real and substantial progress until we are
willing to openly stand up for ourselves -- in person, in broad daylight, and without sock
puppets and noms de plume like "Jef Costello." Is that day imminent? I believe that it is."
In that case, let's have your real name practice what you preach!
"the bulk of black slaves went to the Spanish colonies, not the American colonies"
Could you please cite supporting evidence for this assertion? I think (but am unsure) it is
incorrect. One thingof which I am certain, however,is that the Spaniards abolished slavery far
earlier than the white Americans. Another is that Spaniards are also "white".
White males are the only group Trump did not make gains with in 2020.
Is that true? How does anybody know that? Exit polls?
After all these wildly inaccurate polls for four years, are we suddenly to believe polls
now?
Furthermore, consider this: The one group you can steal votes from if you're the Democrats
are the white males. This is where you would do it. You can't steal any from the column of
black voters -- since they vote 90% for you already there simply aren't enough to steal. You
steal them from the white males, it's a beautiful double-whammy. One, you get your stolen
victory; two, you demoralize the strongest group arrayed against you.
"In my experience, the only tiny minority of Muslim people who have caused friction are
invariably of Arab origin, and more specifically from Saudi Arabia – an inherently tribal
& chauvinistic culture (and a key American ally in the Middle East – just
sayin')."
Unfortunately, Arabs, in particular Saudis, are a horrible disease that needs to be removed
by all means, including thermo nuclear radiation therapy!
What I don't get, from the likes of sweethearts like Pedro
how does the fact that the Sioux were riding their horses across Colorado before we got
here, make it mean that Mexican half-Aztec / half Spaniards have a right to come and steal it
from *us* ?
If we stole it from the Sioux as he says, the presence of his lardbutt here means he is
accepting stolen goods, which means his sin is as big as -- or bigger than -- ours.
I keep telling blacks about jews and slavery in JUSA – they pretend they don't believe
what I am saying even though I provide evidence (from this website).
I guess they are more opportunistic than I thought and less brave, hoping their jewish masters
will somehow help them get more money from white people, so they don't want to bite the hand
they expect will feed them
To whom the land belongs?
At one time in world history all land did belong to dinosaurs.
So how to do justice about ownership of the land?
Human beings should kill each other until no human being left, and than the land will belong to
its rightful owners again, the animals.
Native Americans were the ones who had this right idea.
They were killing each other and eating each other.
..
Did somebody ask Dahmer if human flesh taste better than chicken?
Someone for the love of God please start an American Nationalist conference and invite all
people who have the tiniest shred of dignity left in this chemical plagued population.
The goal of the conference: to discuss starting a political party that will be a valid third
party option. Agendas to be fleshed out: donor registration, billboard campaigns, multi-state
speeches targeting smaller towns that have been boarded up, setting up a volunteer network of
security operatives to forcibly secure election integrity, etc.
This stuff isn't rocket science and I don't understand why so many people who have money and
claim to be for WHITE NATIONALISM have not pushed their people in this direction. BUT IF YOU
DONT HAVE MONEY and are interested in this let me share with you a secret to start it. Get 10
under-writers who will lend $5,000 for a total of $50k. $50,000 should be enough to get the
ball rolling. I would be willing to help $. If you sell enough tickets you can pay the lenders
back. Secure a venue and promote tickets to the conference across multiple platforms.
Just an idea for saving our people in this midnight hour.
"I suggest adjusting the author's arguments to recognise the actual fundamental issue in
play, which is not skin colour or race or language, but CULTURE"
I call BS. You are one of those people who believe that NURTURE is everything and NATURE
accounts for nothing. A very foolish mindset. A deluded mindset. Do some research and come back
after you have learned something from the real world and not from your Marxist professors.
It's not Jews (technically JewISH). It is the multitudes of all races around the world, who
have ignored the word of God, and chosen the JewISH (and Catholic, at the top) agenda, as the
preferred way of life.
This frank article confirms pretty much what I posted in DaLimbraw Library over a year ago
– https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2019/08/white-supremacy-is-it-time-to-face.html?m=0
– a summary of articles on Western Civilization with links provided. Requires some
serious reading!
History shows that WC was built on Christianity, Graeco-Roman law traditions and primarily in
Europe – meaning the White race. That's just fact!
White supremacy – if it ever returns – might just save our Western
Civilization!
I had an excellent exchange with a retarded mexican a while back, as the stupid pos was
blabbing that whitey "stole this land from the indigenous people," (HIS people -- -mexican
cretins.)
I said, "Oh really? Hmmm ..what tribe are you from?"
Empty stare.
"Are you Apache? Comanche? Sioux? The El Chapo tribe?"
@Ultrafart the Brave nd is to what they were mislead to believe I see it here with my
African friends, Swiss, other Europeans etc everyone I know has experienced this
So this kind of betrayal and feeling of being tricked also contributes to whether they
assimilate (and what there really is to assimilate into when the new host country has no
culture whatsoever to offer to anyone, including the natives – apart from shopping and
watching TV).
Plus add to this the feeling that say the 800 000 refugees imported last year understand that
Canadistan actually played a role in destroying their countries and their desire to assimilate
or to respect the new country diminishes even further.
"Ron Unz has given the world a forum where countless and controversial and conflicting
points of view are given oxygen and light. This is invaluable and rare."
@Majority of One
How an Amish Gentleman (he is really one) handles a racism issue, how he handles a triggered
lefty, chip on the shoulder, black "British" spoilt snobby urban London girl Sienna on some
bullshit "racist" incident. How wise the Amish are compared the "English" (non Amish White
American folk) around them!!!
One would be surprised (or not so surprised if you do not fall for typical Jew media/ history
stereotypes) that the most snobby arrogant person among the six British youth who went and
lived among the Amish in the USA in this British TV series was the black girl Sienna whose
parents are from Africa.
Check out the comment section, everybody hates Sienna.
So there are approximately 330 million people in America, and the latest vote count shows
that 150 million or thereabouts voted in this election? NO WAY IN HELL. To be honest I don't
think Trump received over 70 million LEGITIMATE VOTES much less Biden. I think they have Biden
at 75 or 77 million right now, can't remember which. LMAO. NO WAY IN HELL JOE BIDEN HAS
RECEIVED 75-77 LEGITIMATE VOTES.
Think about it people. Think of the people too young to vote, the people incarcerated, the
people who don't ever vote, the people so old that they just don't give a damn like the ones in
nursing homes, etc. Just the other day, I was talking to the Orkin man who sprayed my house,
and he stated he didn't even vote. Well, given I was flying a Trump flag maybe the guy was
being diplomatic or lying but who knows? I think another LIE in this STOLEN election is the
total vote count. I guess the people who stole the vote for Biden and manufactured that Biden
accumulated close to 80 million votes had to even up Trump's votes to make this fairy tale seem
somewhat believable.
First of all I don't identify as White nationalist. When I lived in a liberal city I
couldn't stand being around White people. I would much rather live in Mexico than around
liberal Whites. Urban Whites especially can be really annoying regardless of politics. They
want to be morally right and feel intellectually superior without having to do any work or give
any explanation as to why. They want to feel cosmopolitan and view any dissention as a thorn in
the side to their unexplained superiority.
Will White people be red pilled by this election? Nope.
We have the internet and most White people can't seem to be bothered with spending a couple
nights reading about how both Con Inc and liberals lie about race. Intellectual laziness
abounds.
Most of those Trump voting Republicans really believe that we can turn every Black family
into the Huxtables with the right level of minimal government/low taxes/etc. They really
believe this. It's shocking.
There is no silver lining with this election. It's a disaster.
Too many White people choose to live in a false reality where race doesn't exist. Our best
hope is that White egalitarian leftists breed out themselves off by having few or no children.
Then we'll probably have to align with Hispanics to end the welfare system. Don't get mad at me
for pointing that out. Go take it up with the moron conservatives still pushing Alisa Rosenbaum
fantasy over facts.
Two things can happen: that Trump wins (which would be something of justice), and that the
whites go looking for their places in the United States.
In fact, this is what has already happened in California for years: whites are leaving that
state.
God forbid! But IF Beijing Biden slithers his way into the WH the 1619 Project will be the
theme of the US Govt. Which, of course, means that we don't belong here..Well, if we don't
belong here then we can only go back to Europe. Who cares if the anti-white EU countries don't
want us? They've spent the last several years taking in destructive, horny, hostile
opportunistic welfare shopping scum if there's room for them there's room for us. Unless they
want us to stay here and be genocided like the S. Africans.
Concluding paragraphs to Chuck Baldwin's latest column, Almost No One Else Will Say It,
So I Must :
That's why Benjamin Netanyahu already congratulated Joe Biden on an election victory --
even before the election was firmly decided. He is keenly aware of the exponential rise in
Zionist power and influence that accompanies the Harris family rise to the White House.
Amazingly, many evangelicals continue to stupidly believe that Netanyahu (and Zionism
itself) is a friend of the United States and a friend of Christianity. What dupes!
In a real sense, the rise of the Marxist attack against America, personified in Kamala
Harris, can be, at least partially, attributed to the misguided support for Zionism among our
evangelical churches.
As I said, almost no one else will say it, so I must.
To bolster your argument against the Left, instead of identifying first as a "White
Nationalist" you should say, simply, that you are an Ethnic Nationalist. That makes your
argument harder to refute and highlights the logical inconsistency of the Left's argument,
which, at its core, is really just anti-White.
As I point out to people, I'm a Tibetan Nationalist and an Anglo-American Nationalist; a
Black Nationalist but also a White Nationalist. All ethnic groups are entitled to their
sovereignty, lands and control of their borders. Humans are tribal and need common cultural
ties to maintain social capital and build a functioning society. This should be common sense,
but somehow it's instead become taboo.
In other words, Trump made the same arguments Republicans have been making for 50 years.
Coincidentally, he also pursued the same policies Republicans have been pursuing for 50
years.
Longer viewer:
Folks are acting like elections have not been stolen in the past. Get real.
Folks are acting like our government has not been completely corporate-owned since Reagan. Get
real.
Folks are acting like the Talmudic syndicate has played no role whatsoever in this scam. Get
real.
Someone for the love of God please start an American Nationalist conference The goal of
the conference: to discuss starting a political party that will be a valid third party
option.
National Justice Party Statement on the 2020 Presidential Election
Everyone hates White people and yet everyone wants to move to White countries.
Leftists tell us this is because Whites are bad and have colluded against everyone. That is
the reason behind their success.
So build America in Africa without them? Why is this not the plan? Would it not prove that
egalitarians were correct all along? Funny how the plan of the leftist to move the third world
to White countries. There seems to be zero dissention along this line. All leftists agree by
their actions that assimilating White countries for their ideals is more viable than building a
new America without Whites.
Trump is taking on Big Ag. He's taking on the military as best he can; he hasn't started any
new wars.
Trump is taking on the U.S. multinational corporations who took the jobs overseas
(tariffs).
Trump is taking on the fraud in the election system. DNC's top election guru just resigned
(yeah, I bet he did!) Trump is exposing the algorithms in the Dominion Voting System.
Trump got 72 million votes. He owns the Republican Party now! They have been fighting him up
until this point, but they are now realizing that they are nothing without Trump.
If Trump were to start a third party, look out! How's that for leading?
The very first white man who tied to live with the Stone Age Siberian Savages was Etienne
Brule. He was part of Cartier's exploration team in the early 1600's.
When Cartier returned and inquired about Etienne he was informed that the Siberian savages
murdered, scalped and ATE him.
May the spirits of Siberian Savages be suffering the endless tortures they would visit on
their victims.
What makes you think the Chinese or Japanese would have left the Americas alone?
This is some egalitarian fantasy of the Americas remaining scarcely populated with warring
tribes. As if the rest of the world would have left it as a nature preserve.
It was never a country and in fact the tribes would align with warring European countries
against other tribes. That of course probably wasn't mentioned in your White guilt history
class. Numerous tribes used Europeans and their tools as a means of enacting revenge against
their traditional enemies. Read about the Blackfoot for a politically incorrect reality
check.
I like to think that the Indians were just exacting pure revenge against the gun toting euro
invaders and your wrong i am of irish white heritage and don't make me laugh about torture and
despicable human acts as i have seen those pictures of massive piles of bison that were gunned
down by invading euro scum that were attempting to starve the natives.
It doesn't matter who the president is, you know that Hillary Clinton didn't lose and Trump
didn't win, but here's the president, Obama didn't want to do exactly what you're doing now,
and he didn't want to launch an investigation. You are directly pushing America into a civil
war, by a "fraud of choice" that has no evidence. Indeed, you are pushing everyone into the
catastrophe of the Civil War. You know very well that everything Trump claimed was a lie, and
half the world was accused of lies, nowhere is evidence and the UN laughs at him, but you claim
that now Trump claims the truth once in his life, again without a dictatorship.
If Trump loses, the consequences would be dire.
We are interested in Trump winning.
On the other hand, the strength of the whites was their Christian and authentic religion. Not
their race. In the Middle Ages it was the Church that defended Europe from the Muslim
invasion.
Nowadays an infiltrator is seated in Pedro's See, Bergoglio does not think like a Catholic.
Only with that faith can our culture and our lives be saved.
Genocide not. The fake "indigenous people" / little dummies are everywhere and have a
complete free ride with plenty of taxpayers cash ("rent") to stay loaded on, to avoid any
personal responsibility.
And clearly, American Indians were "xenophobic" / "racist" in resisting European migrants.
recommended:
It seems rather odd and highly suspicious that so called NATIONALISTS CONSERVATIVES (whites)
propose cowardice in the face of aggression they all claim to be so outraged so contrived BUT
all of them propose INACTION now this is the main reason YOU/WE are LOSING America we bowed our
heads, weeping sorrowful and thats all The DEMS implemented 4yrs of on the ground campaign of
terror they were called BLMANTIFA a permanent campaign of terror And NOW the CONSERVATIVE
NATIONALISTS suggests stupidity separation, repatriation, secession ALL DUMB STUPID RANTS
UTOPIAS .WE MUST STAND OUR GROUND NOW NOW History, legality, morality, is on OUR SIDE and
people know it .THE MAIN THRUS SHOULD BE MUST BE MASSIVE RED STATES REVOLT 1776mII REDUX .By
the time dictator Biden finish his first year HE would had used his excutive powers, and in
coalition with BLUE/RINOS enacted a NEW CONSTITUTION, REDO THE ELECTORAL FRAMEWORKS so that NO
RED Nationalist will ever be elected again,,,never,,,so called ANTI TRUMP LEGISLATIONS which
really means ANTIWHITE laws an AMERICAN JIM CROW LAWS IN REVERSE dont you see the perils to
come its not about utopias, there is no tomorrow..unless WE FIGHT NOW mass revolts
peacefully???? 1776 II MILITIAS..
the Japanese too cannot live and do well in live in multiracial Ottoman-Byzantine like
societies.
Isn't there a large Japanese diaspora doing well in Brazil and Peru?
The Chinese too will be rejected by the darkie masses in the future,
I have a hard time seeing the Chinese falling for that shuck and jive unless they become a
completely Christian society, all the way to the top of the pyramid.
right now, less than a week after polls closed And, as the Biden camp continues to
vote
I don't know whether or not red-pilling Trump's fans will help, but it should already be
obvious to those with eyes open that too many people believe whatever they see and hear on TV.
It's entirely possible that most of the Trump supporters won't be red-pilled at all.
Even Americans who don't particularly like or trust Trump may be disgusted enough with the
blatant media push to declare Biden the winner, that they decide not to allow it any more. That
may be enough to get some of them to decide that waiting for government to "do something" is a
waste of time.
If the rioters decide to riot in celebration of Biden's win, or in outrage over his win
being revealed as fraud and rejected, some number of Americans could just decide to shut the
rioters down themselves. It wouldn't be that hard for armed Americans who know how to fight,
and there are hundreds of thousands of combat vets with recent experience who just might go
ahead and do it.
One thing's for sure, they won't be giving any warning on social media before they hit
back.
@christine and despicable human acts as i have seen those pictures of massive piles of
bison
They tortured the bison! The horror!
I guess you have never heard about Buffalo Jumps, then?
You may claim to be white, but it's clear you have had your empty head filled by Anti-White
delusional lies. The Siberians were so savage that during the French Indian wars the French
troops finally refused to fight alongside their Indian allies, because they were savage to the
point that the French viewed them as being similar to the THE XENOMORPHS from the movie
Aliens.
excellent. In The last 20 years they have changed deeply. Because only 17 years ago they
were all gung ho about destroying Iraq. Perhaps a bit of depleted uranium shot into Peoria will
cement their views.
@Bill lifetime. The only politicians who really gave a damn about Whites in my lifetime
were Dixiecrats, and probably most of them were good ole boy crooks who just talked a good game
but CAVED eventually. Hell, Strom Thurmond fathered a mixed race daughter IF I am not mistaken.
Tell me what did all the Presidents from JFK to Obama do to make this nation better? And
before you give the standard JFK horseshit, JFK was all for the multiracial plan for America,
and he sure supported integration of schools down South. Okay, let me hear what President in
the last century REALLY LOOKED OUT FOR WHITE INTERESTS OVER JEWISH OR NONWHITE INTERESTS. I got
time and I am all ears.
The point is whites did nothing that any one of those tribes wouldn't have done to all the
others if they had had the power to do it. (If anything, whites treated them much better than
they treated each other.) We might look at that from the vantage point of 21st century morality
and call it awful – just as we might with the Mongol or Islamo-Arab conquests – but
it would remain 'ancient history,' not something to constantly dredge up in order to instill
racial guilt and gain political advantage.
We'll see about the "red pilled" part, but even liberals out here, even ones who voted
Biden, are NOT convinced Biden-Harris won legitimately. And who knows? Maybe the criminal
psycho elites realized perhaps awakening a couple 'o hundred million gun owners was a but
premature and will "allow" Trump to retake the White House I mean, Biden's doing what Biden was
gonna do .make the whole damned thing look illegit. And NOBODY out here has anything but
distrust when it comes to Harris one liberal from Commie-fornia who lived there knows Harris is
evil.
Really it all come down to these–will we let them take our guns, will we let them
force vaccines on us, and will we let them burn this nation to the ground while forcing all
rural folks into stack 'n packs, Agenda 2030 style?
@utu o if there was ever a serious prospect it might happen, they would probably want to
separate as well. And why not? Ultimately, we're all better off living around people more like
ourselves than less like ourselves. (Duh)
And why would anyone be required to call himself a 'bantustan nationalist'? When
Mexicans arrive in America they don't suddenly cease to call themselves Mexican, so why should
Americans stop calling themselves American simply because of an altered political geography?
For an intelligent man, it's astonishing how quickly you transform into a blithering idiot the
moment you begin discussing issues that emotionally disturb you.
Good suggestion. Perhaps some can think of others. Either way, it's good because it's more
cultural than political, at least it sounds that way, and because it puts the focus exactly
where it belongs, on our basic freedoms.
One thing's for certain. Putting ideology and politics before race and culture, ie; Right =
White (and visa versa) will be like shooting yourself in the foot before running a marathon in
difficult terrain. In other words, it'd be a piece of unforgivable stupidity. And irreversible
as well. Since, if this is flubbed, a second chance will not come again.
I guess for some white yanks the truth about the birth of their country is a little too
close to the bone for their liking and a bit too raw and painful but the truth is the truth and
shame on all the euro invaders of all of the Americas in the past.
Try coming out to rural remote far west Texas .Austin isn't all of Texas. And I said rural,
not El Paso!
And, oh yeah, Midland-Odessa, Lubbock, Amarillo that is, all of Texas except El Paso westward
of the San Antonio-Austin lib-tard areas (including artsy-fartsy Marfa they may like Biden but
the don't like Harris if you know what I mean).
JSI is basically a criminal organization that wants power. Everything they say and do flows
from this. They are The People Of The Lie . The point is, you might be able to obtain
control of a culture or civilization through lies. But you can't run it that way.
And now we're back to the point you raise in your comment and what it directs our attention
to. It directs our attention to what we're witnessing, to what anyone can see as soon as they
stop talking about how powerful they are and how screwed everyone else is. Enough! No. What
we're witnessing is nothing less than The Pyrrhic Victory Of Jewish Supremacy Inc .
@christine I think your heart is in the right place, I and I respect that, but instead of
trying to right things that are ancient history how about focusing on what IS HAPPENING TO YOUR
PEOPLE RIGHT NOW. Whites are being slaughtered in South Africa. Little children being held
hostage while they watch their mother raped right in front of their eyes, entire families of
Whites being butchered by racist Black thugs. I am all for you pointing out how Whites were
guilty of mistreating the Native American, but I would also ask you to point that passion to
something that is going on RIGHT NOW, something that didn't happen long ago and can't be
changed. YOUR OWN PEOPLE are suffering, does that not bother you?
What a bad joke the dissident right wignat faction turned out to be.
Richard Spencer and the bugger accounts aligned with his views are doing nothing but
spamming straight-up system propaganda, a lot of which has migrated onto these pages.
The author Jonathan Van Maren seems to think the American electorate has realigned itself
with social conservatism + economic populism on the GOP side, and progressivism, elitism and
Big tech on DNC side. Based on this, he calls for the GOP to use social conservatism
specifically anti-abortion, anti-assisted suicide, pro medicare, pro social security to appeal
to a coalition of working class America including blacks and Latinos.
The main reason people like me voted for Trump is because of immigration and
non-interventionism which he promised on his campaign trail in 2016. We want to see America
end the endless wars and the endless immigration . I could care less about abortion,
assisted suicide, medicare or social security.
Once again, the social conservatives missed the boat and are now calling for more coalition
with Latinos, which probably means support for more immigration as George W. did, because
Latinos make good conservatives, right? When will these idiots wake up?! Have they been reading
Ron Unz's misleading articles on Hispanic crime? Ann Coulter was so right. The Republican party
is the stupid party, and it's because it's run by tone deaf "conservatives" that run webzines
like TAC and National Review.
Just read at The Duran: "Obama lackey John Pilger resigns from DOJ election crimes job."
Maybe Mr. Pilger knows something too? Maybe he resigned before being fired? Maybe those
Dominion Voting machines have been compromised using algorithms?
This is heating up. I actually believe Trump will win.
@Tucker y the Jews? Has it worked for European man, or, with its strictures to turn the
other cheek, has it made him a second class citizen? That was my thoughts when I saw so many
disgusting, pathetic whites bowing down and kissing the boots of BLM Supremacists this summer.
In any case, unless one is so hopelessly wedded to Christianity that his mind is closed, an
article written by Thomas Dalton, "Christianity: The Great Jewish Hoax," has taken the
Christian myth head on (National Vanguard, 9 Aug 2020). Indeed, as Israel-first Evangelicals
have taken control of Christianity in the US, we should ask if devotion to a Middle Eastern Jew
named Jesus is helping or hurting our cause.
@Richard B r with the foreigners; and this spirit of wear, principle of any cowardice, is
so natural in their hearts, that it is the continual object of the figures that they employ in
the species of eloquence which is proper for them. Their glory is to put at fire and blood the
small villages they can seize. They cut the throat of the old men and the children; they hold
only the girls nubiles; they assassinate their Masters when they are slaves; they can never
forgive when they are victorious: they are enemy of the human mankind. No courtesy, no science,
no art improved in any time, in this atrocious nation. -- Voltaire, Essai sur les mœurs
(1756) Tome 2, page 83
@Ultrafart the Brave pon its introduction. Since then the government has provided tax
incentives to people paying for private insurance. Basically you pay a reduced medicare levy if
you have private insurance. The Australian medical system has it's faults like long waiting
times for elective surgery etc but it's still pretty good.
On the immigration front though Australia is in worse shape than the US. We have a much
smaller population and it doesn't take as much third world immigration to turn it into a third
world country. Especially since many use New Zealand as a back door into Australia. Australia
is already unrecognisable from even just 20 years ago. In another 20 it's likely to resemble
Brazil.
Trump has now moved over to Gab, a free-speech platform that has embraced thought
criminals of all kinds (so far). Trump's supporters will follow him to Gab -- millions of
them. They will read the other stuff and become more red-pilled. You can almost predict this
one with mathematical certainty.
Lots of conservatives are now departing Facebook and Twitter for other social media
platforms that are less restrictive. This will further separate the left and right in this
country, as they'll have even that much less in common. It will separate families, with
liberals staying on Facebook, and their conservative family members leaving, decreasing
communication between them, especially now with all the Corona bulls ** t being used to
suppress the association of people in meat-space.
But, anyone who actively promotes the idea that Whites should just completely opt out is
pushing advice that is exactly what our mortal enemies want most.
They are oddly quiet about it. Unlike everything else they want.
White people are going to need to get good at living in diaspora, since that's where we are
at now. We need to adopt tribal methods similar to the way other tribes operate. For example,
spending a little more to buy from our own people. Finding a way to brand white ownership.
Finding a way to associate said white ownership with white activism.
It is no good giving money to a local, vice signalling white traitor. It would be better to
get cheap products from a multinational, at least you get value for money. However, we need to
find ways of rewarding our own financially. We need to ensure that money goes out for things of
value – land, buildings, shares of companies, etc. Money comes in from the fruit of our
labor and intellect.
It isn't going to be easy because Jews have attempted to criminalize many of the things we
would like to do (specifically us, while giving other races/ethnicities a pass), but we can
find ways around that.
It will be easier to live in diaspora than via separatism.
The author is an idiot. To begin with, not all 70 million or so people who voted for Trump
were White. He received, what, 30% of the Hispanic vote. Also, approximately 20% of black males
voted for Trump.
Your guy just lost flatout. He was unpopular.
70 million means what? I call that pathetic compared to what Biden got.
Btw, you guys were able to be racist the last four years. Sit your butt down the next 4 years
because you White nationalists suck ass.
Urban Whites don't like you, period.
Whites invented everything? Even if that was the case, it came from URBAN WHITES. You mother
fuckers, whose ancestors are probably farmboys, only take credit.
What have rural whites achieved? Nothing besides taking credit.
Besides all this, due to immigration, most of the entrepreneurs and inventors are liberal
immigrants.
Bottomline is that liverals invented everything. Rural hillbillies did shit!
@randall r n that over the top cartoon character seriously to being with. He reminded me of
some of those (((actors))) who frequented those '90's talk shows like Donahue or Doprah Pigfrey
portraying "White Supremacists" or foaming at the mouth skinhead so called "neo-Nazis." haha. I
think they found out that half of those characters were Jews who worked for the ADL or at least
some them were. All portrayed the same old stereotype of an evil White racist who shocked the
audience by saying "niggers" or just portraying anyone who is pro-White civil rights as a
maniacal neanderthal. My gaydar always went off every time I watched a video of Spencer
speaking that MANUFACTURED horseshit anyhow.
Only the Christians. The rest can "go" back to Arabia.
Mohammedans are our enemy. Their prophet said so. Racially, Arabs are just poor, stupid
Jews– unless they live above oil, then they're rich, stupid Jews. The problem with your
analysis is that it isn't anti-Semitic enough .
And tell blacks that Jews exploit them for profits.
Tell Mexicans that Jews hog all the wealth.
They already know. They don't care. Just someone different to kiss up to.
@tomo istic culture that is foreign to them and which makes them feel alone and inferior.
So they respond accordingly. The same is true for young Canadians in general.
I agree that immigrants are no longer assimilating, but not because Canada lacks a strong
sense of national identity. The main reasons are demographic and technological. Immigrants now
arrive in such large numbers that they end up interacting only with each other. They can also
watch TV programming in their own language, via the Internet or cable TV, and communicate with
people back home via Skype or social media.
Assimilation takes effort, even in ideal conditions, so more and more immigrants are taking
the easy way out. They learn enough English or French for work, and that's usually enough.
@lavoisier he government has to stop shoving diversity down our throats continuously.
I think this is one area where most objective people can agree.
Idiotic attempts by governments at social engineering and correcting past injustices by
penalising the present population continue to be rolling disasters worldwide.
I would think the German people might eventually rebel against their perpetual financial
tribute to the Holocaust doctrine, if not for the current crop of self-inflicted immigration
problems engulfing Europe.
I also suspect that the "white supremacist" propaganda isn't a benevolent attempt to correct
society's problems. Rather, it looks more like part of a coordinated destructive strategy to
dismantle the existing society. Wielgus , says:
November 12, 2020 at 7:49 pm GMT • 1.0 days ago
Miller's maternal grandfather had sought to emigrate to the USA from Lithuania and got off
the ship at its destination, which he thought was New York. It was in fact Cork in Ireland. His
daughter, Miller's father, became a well-known novelist in Ireland.
For me its more about recognition of past evils and their karmic effect on a nation and the
color of skin doesn't come into it at all really but i do have a real soft spot for the native
North American Indian cause because i have had shamanic past life recollections of being one
and so i will always side with the Indians over the disgusting European invaders of North
America and i will never ever forget those photos i have seen of absolutely humungous piles of
shot Bison that were killed in an attempted genocide of the Indians and if the Indians scalped
many out of revenge then i hope that the pain was excruciatingly intense.
Here is something to consider: Liberals in general are happy people. Conservatives, on the
other hand, have a victim mentality.
You could see that conservatives had this victim mentality even under Trump.
Also, from my own experience, the conservative types have fucked up lives. Due to their own
issues, they lash out.
Could it not be that the reason you have a bad life is due to your own problems? Instead of
blaming immigrants or blacks and hispanics, consider looking at your own life.
"It came from urban whites". At the time of the greate innovative wave in the US there was
no such thing as "Urban" citizenry, as almost all major towns were located directly within
farming territory, and a cosmopolitan mentality was nowhere to be found, guys like Edison,
Ford,Tesla, held absolutely no connection to any sort of "Liberal" worldview.
Name a few of "Liberal" "Inventions" Come on give a list thereof.
You are a bloody ignoramous and full of shit up to your ears. You have no clue as to what
you are blathering about.
AJM "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz artist.
Logic is certainly not your strong suit. Why would people of any color capable of anything
worth mentioning bow down to a corrupt senile stuffed shirt?
@Questioner nk it would probably be best for you and all those who agree with you to
kill their family and extended family, and then blow their own brains out. Firstly, to atone
for "white guilt" and "white privilege" and secondly as a constructive means of reducing the
white population in these "stolen" Injun lands. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Of course, if you worthless cunts can't summon the nerve to do that, then you should at the
very least, REMOVE YOUR OWN WHITE ITINERANT ASS from this "stolen land".
@Muaddib The average Biden voter = anti-White and yes there are anti-White white people, I
call them WINOs short for White In Name Only or better yet, white traitor trash
I think liberals have went the way of the Dodo Bird. And no, racist Jews, who PRETEND to
love everyone Black, Brown, etc., anyone except Whites are only pretending to love POC to USE
THEM against Whitey. Case in point, in Israel they export African Jews all the time proving
that Judaism isn't a religion but a race. Nope, I doubt Sammy Davis Jr. would have ever truly
been welcomed to move to Israel. And there is no such thing as a nonwhite liberal, nonwhites
are tribal as hell and only out for themselves.
@Authenticjazzman ated? How about, uh, everything, including the internet you are using?
Yes, and immigants and minorities contributed.
If you don't like liberals, maybe you should start by turning off your computer.
But let me guess, you want to breathe the liberal air.
You brag about your Mensa score. And what did you achive with that? Hatred for liberals? So
what good was your Mensa? It was probably a fraud.
Look around you. The world has changed. You are basically an Amish in a sea of modernity.
This is what you get when you don't meet people of all types.
Just old, disgruntled and blaming others because your life wasn't ideal.
Yeah this is why they fill the waiting rooms of shrinks to be pumped full of psycho-drugs,
and resort to "screaming at the sky" when their political party loses an election.
Liberals are the most disturbed, troubled grouping of individuals to be found world-wide.
They are the nut-cases who stick themselves full of needles and pins , and dye their hair blue
so as to present their deranged worldview for all to see.
Again you are a hopeless moron and have no clue as to what you are blathering about.
Here is something to consider: Liberals in general are happy people. Conservatives, on the
other hand, have a victim mentality.
Yes, we've seen myriad examples of those happy, well adjusted, tolerant "Liberal" people
over the last four years. When they're not freaking out or breaking down, they're "lashing out"
in the form of assaulting, burning, destroying, looting, and murdering etc
Is the author of this article a coward – he attacks the weak blacks – and
ignores the overpowering Jews.
Blacks are not America's problem – Jews are.
Do blacks own and or control social media, print media, broadcast media, Congress, the
president, schools, Wall Street, and the Fed – or is it Jews. Be honest.
It is the Jews who siphon our wealth and divide us.
Jews control the cities that are devastated by black crime. Get the Jews out of control, and
things will improve. Guaranteed!
Societies need both a political left and a political right – the Jew control of the
left is killing America. (Actually, they control both.)
Jeff Costello needs to put on his big boy pants and attack the true evil in America.
Plenty in the US are pure Europeans. Many Nordic and German families are recent immigrants.
Old Colonials often have slight Native admixture. Bantu Africans, Aztecs, ect. need to return
all stolen territory aswell then.
And not so long ago Trump and Netanyahu were such buddies
That, my friend, was exactly why I posted that. Thank you for emphasizing the
point.
In case Wally doesn't get it, new boss is much the same as the old boss, and Netanyahu was
never a friend to either, not that it should come as a surprise to anyone. Netanyahu won't give
Trump a second thought after the "ingrovelation."
Huh?
Jews this and that. This is the problem with White Nationalists. You believe in conspiracy
theories.
Newsflash: Soros does not control anything. He is old, and about to die. He has money. He is
pretty much a moderate.
Qanon is stupidity. If any Mensa guy here believes in the stupidity known as Qanon, consider
a retest.
Comments like this, "while our blacks have been here a long time and some of them do sing,
dance, and dribble well, they are mostly parasites who contribute almost nothing to the society
except grief.", are all too common in white nationalist circles and gives the illusion of truth
to the Jewish propaganda about us.
One has to wonder if that is the intention. It basically says white nationalists hate everyone
but themselves which is exactly what Jews are saying about us in the propaganda system
This is not a closed site! Anyone can come in here and read these tacky remarks.
I think some of you need to follow the Jewish example which is hate the goy while you pretend
to help them
In case you didn't know, non-whites are about 50% of the population now and considering all the
fire power is in support of them against us. perhaps we can find another way to advocate our
predicament
I don't know their political views or what passes for a liberal but one thing is certain
WHITES have contributed more than all the other races combined. Henry Ford, Wright Brothers,
Tesla, Thomas Edison, etc., I don't think those guys were Jews or negroes.
My guess is YOU ARE NOT A LIBERAL, you are either an anti-White racist Jew, and or some
other form of anti-White degenerate who HIJACKED the term, "liberal." In your case the correct
tag would be, LIEberal.
I think the Irish band Clannad wrote songs about and in solidarity with the North American
Indians, so you could be right.
This genocide and the photographic images from it that i have seen will never be forgotten
by me and the color of the faces of the Europeans with guns doesn't come into it and if i
mentioned 'white euro scum' it was to differentiate between northern Europeans and those a bit
darker/olive skinned southern Europeans that invaded lands further south than todays U.S.A.
It's not language or race or skin colour, its CULTURE.
Hate to break the news to you, bossman, but "language, race and skin color" as well as
religion have very much to do with CULTURE.
The author makes a lot of cogent and well-reasoned points, but his delivery lacks nuance
and has a coarseness which suggests prejudice to the point of racism.
I'm afraid any jackass who accepts or gives credence to the enemy's descriptors of those who
naturally honor and favor their own race to others, does not really deserve to be taken
seriously.
Fwiw, I'm willing to go the step further and view the author as a likely racist and
supremacist. Most people like that have lived sheltered lives and had little exposure to a
variety of peoples. Many of their assertions are simply empty and unaware of ahem the real
world.
You shouldn't make personal statements about people you don't know. You could read more of
this author's work to discover his ideological evolution and that his views result from life
experience and not the lack of it.
The Indians didn't scalp out of revenge, they scalped because they were primitive
savages.
On or about the year 1,300 AD long before the Siberians saw a single white man, one tribe of
Siberians murdered, scalped, and ate every single one of the 498 women and children of the
losing tribe whose men the victorious Siberians had slaughtered.
And we know this because we found the bones of the women and children at Crow Creek in
1978.
Tell me, when you were a Shaman in your past life how much Man Corn did you eat?
@Peter Frost ly of all ages as well as tourist to hear their opinion – and I have
never met anyone who does not agree or has similar stories. People are very lonely here and
there is too much virtue signaling without any virtue. I spent a few months on a placement in
one of the biggest hospitals in Toronto – and what I have seen there confirms my
experience. Every day there was one or two teenagers (white) trying to kill themselves. That's
only what I have seen while on ER. I spoke to mental 'health' patients too.
There is far too much passive aggressive backstabbing here in Canada – definitely more
than I have seen anywhere (I've lived in London, LA, SF, DC, Serbia , Germany etc)
@Trinity ve equal rights. Immigrants have equal rights. DACA folks who came here due to no
fault of their own need to be given a chance to stay here, etc.
2. Social programs can be good for society. Think not just social security, but also healthcare
for all.
When you treat everybody with respect, by nature you are a happy person.
I will tell you something. If somehow all immigrants and minorities were kicked out, you would
still be unhappy. The reason is that you are by nature unhappy.
So think about where your life is. Whose fault is that? Put your ego aside. It was YOUR
decisions.
So why blame anybody else?
Trump did not do much to curb legal immigration especially H1B and international students
until the very end, a couple of months before the election. Now Biden is about to undo
everything and let the MexChindian third world horde wash over us. The dumb millennials who
complained about being unemployed or underemployed with massive student loan debt will have an
even harder time finding a job now. I've often wondered why these idiots still insist on voting
for Biden.
Another regulatory change, now in the proposed rule stage, would eliminate the H-1B visa
lottery in favor of prioritizing applicants earning higher wages.
"It basically will again ice out anyone who's entry-level," said Sharvari Dalal-Dheini,
director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Many
international students use the H-1B visa as a pathway for staying to work in the U.S. after
they graduate.
The least Trump could do on his way out is to finalize this crucial rule as a parting gift
to his base which largely stuck by him. It took him long enough to finally get to this. He
should've cancelled H1b and OPT on Day 1. If he had done that he might have won the
election.
@christine frican children and women, as well as adult males being slaughtered in South
Africa by marauding racist genocidal Blacks?
Hmm, IF you are TRULY concerned about injustice in a demonic world, why aren't you concerned
about Whites?
Do you feel for the Whites who endured the Holodomor? Did you know that Genrikh Yagoda and
Lazar Kaganovich, two chief architects of the systemic starvation of MILLIONS of Ukrainian and
Russian Whites were Jewish?
The FACT THAT YOU DID NOT ADDRESS WHAT IS HAPPENING IN SOUTH AFRICA, just shows me that you
are MORE ANTI-WHITE than someone who really cares about humanity, truth or justice. Hell, you
probably are not even (((Irish.)))
That you americans vote for that mafioso, is beyond comprehension.
You are so extremely stupid, and I am sorry to say, you bring it on all of us!
Why do you even vote for Bidén!?
Vote for Trump and after half term, create a more representative party.
The freest country in the world, and you just let it happen.
Anyway, I dont believe the official result.
You americans have not been that stupid.
Take the banner of Christ!
And reject zionism.
And reclaim youre country!
The world is waiting.
Complete drivel. As a German-American of almost two centuries of heritage, I don't identify
with your labels, priorities or prejudices.
If you're concerned about certain colors of people having more children than you, the
solution is simply to be generous with the Creator with your families. Have more children.
We're dealing with serious control freaks here people. I wish people would just realize that
the COMMUNISTS stole the election and are about to go full Bolshevik on us.
YT is already petrified by blacks at work. One slip up, and it's off to the HR gulag
archipelago, then full termination. Anyone who is not a "true believer" in the Revolution, will
be scheduled for termination.
Amazing how history repeats itself. YT has been so programmed to think of everyone as
"nice," that they can't even come close to imagining that Satanic Marxist pedophiles just stole
a national election.
As if anyone could make peace with such Hellspawn.
That's the facts, Jack. Who gives a Fiddler's fuck if it offends your delicate
sensibilities?
White Christian European people, and White Americans in particular, will apologize when
every other race, nation and religion are duly scrutinized and exposed for their "crimes" and
"atrocities".
Which will most likely happen in the reign of Queen Dick lol
We are not now, nor will we EVER be, ashamed of our history or our people, despite the best
efforts of the Jew Globalist Left.
I would not count on the GOP, even with a 52 vote majority, to stop any attempt at
immigration reform by the Dems. There are enough RINOs in there including both of the R from
Utah(Mike Lee, Mitt Romney), Marco Rubio, Lindsay Graham, Lisa Murkowsky, Joni Ernst, to name
but a few, who could easily go with the Dems on reform.
Mike Lee (R-UT), one of Trump's faves, has been trying to push through the Indian green card
bill S. 386 for at least the last two years. The bill was originally to give employment based
greencards, some 140k per year, to Indian nationals only for the next ten years. After
being blocked 3 times by 3 different senators – Perdue(R-GA), Dick Durban(D-IL), Rick
Scott(R-FL), the bill has morphed into a monster.
With each blockage, the bill keeps getting changed to include more and more beneficiaries.
In its final iteration, it will now 1) up the per country limit for family based greencard from
7% to 15%, 2) completely eliminate the per country cap of 7% for employment based visa, 3)
remove an offset that reduced visas available for Chinese nationals, 4) Reserve a
percentage(didn't say what %) of EB2 and EB3 visas (both for high skills) to nationals from
outside the top two countries (which I am guessing are India and China), with max of no more
than 85% from any single country.
Most importantly, the latest iteration of this bill will treat any Indian who has applied
for a green card as already having one, with all the benefits of a greencard while they wait,
incl. being able to travel, change jobs.
More Americans need to wake up to this type of treasonous bills being pushed by GOP
senators:
There is many Jews here but I see nothing untrue about stating the fact that Blacks
contribute very little. You've stated nothing Blacks contributed and merely whined about Whites
doing what every non-White race does more than Whites. No race has been more of a
"schwartze-lover" than Whites. Whites should be more honest about race and stop believing
Blacks are magical. Whites should not tolerate any bad behavior from Blacks or any non-White
race for that matter.
This is a joke, right? Millions of non-whites are simply going to get up and leave their
homes, jobs, schools, neighborhoods so that Whites can have a little patch of paradise? Has our
dear article author been hitting the crack pipe again?
I got news for you. The world is not flat. Leeches do not suck disease out of humans. The earth
is brown, no longer yellow, red, black, and white. It gets browner every day.
As for a shared culture and a homeland, the whites were the only race dumb enough not to
preserve theirs. Japan is almost 100% Asian. China is Asian. Africa is black. India is Indian.
The USA is a mixture of everything. Europe is a mixture of everything. The whites were the only
race with the inability to preserve a homeland. Hence they are too shortsighted to deserve
one.
Whites need to get increasingly audacious using insulting humor of the Charlie Hebdo, or SNL
kind. It's free speech, right? I feel empowerment growing among Whites during the Voter Fraud
Saga and I think there will be a lot less self-censorship from now on. The hate speech laws
need to be brought to court so that a charge of "racism" has to be substantiated, or otherwise
ruled as a federal hate crime. Who started the whole Racism Industry? Could it have been Jewish
intellectuals in their pursuit of the cultural and economic genocide of Gentiles?
@Felix Krull or more items according to specified parameters.
In common usage, though, "discriminate" is taken to mean the unfair treatment of one party
compared to another. Again, typically regarded as an uncivilised activity. And again, this may
be pertinent within a given context, but is not automatically true.
So, strictly speaking, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with "racism".
However, IMO the author uses language which suggests disdain for black Americans (for
example). If that is an expression of "racism", then it would be in the colloquially "bad"
context.
Regardless, IMO the emphasis on the racial dimension limits the article's perspective. Is
"Trumpism" just a white movement, or is it an American movement, or is it something more (or
less)?
"The Stolen Election Will Red-Pill 70 Million Americans"
Here's a real "red pill" for murkans [and the rest of the world], stated 3 different ways:
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure" Robert LeFevere
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to
differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a
professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores,
100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed"or "improved",simply because of their
innate criminal nature." onebornfree
@anon He's the one the people voted for, not them, and they are just waking up to this now.
It's the same type of diversion the Democrats just tried to pull off with Antifa and BLM.
They got everybody looking at "White Supremacy", racial and identity issues so that you
wouldn't be looking at the money the elites are skimming off the top. I'm sure they could have
cared less about the POC.
The elites are fighting Trump hard; they don't want him changing anything. They knew it
would be mainly "Whites" voting for Trump, so they invented this White Supremacy bullshite.
Yes, the people who voted for Trump ARE interested in immigration, and so is Trump.
stick themselves full of needles and pins , and dye their hair blue so as to present their
deranged worldview for all to see
Yep, that describes it. I understand that a lot of people cannot help being stupid, but I
never understood why people want to aggressively advertise their stupidity. Perverted
exhibitionism, maybe?
Costello seems a strange choice of nom de plume for a white nationalist. I at least identify
the name as Shepardi Jew. The J word never comes up in the article with its problematic issue
of where Jews fit in a white nationalist homeland. Has anyone noticed the only high profile non
retired public figure left with a wasp name and is not black is Homer Simpson? I am of course
exaggerating but the signs are there. With the demise of the white wasps has come the fall of
foundation America. The non wasps don't really share its cultural sentiments. Its sobriety is
lacking except among the best black people who share its names. I am thinking of Ben Carson.
Homer Simpson is a cartoon of a simple slobbish white American. There is no public movement to
remove him of course. So it isn't really surprising America is going the catastrophic way of
her sourthern neighbours.
Q Anon is clearly JFK jr. His crash and recovery was prophesised in the Nostradamus Quatrain
for July of 1999. He carries on the legacy of the Kennedys since grandfather Joe as does his
cousin Robert Kennedy.
Brother Nathanael's latest instalment is a doozy, FAKE NEWS, FAKE ELECTION :
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/LRQK9TfcNJM2/
Hardest-hitting passage:
Cackling Commie Kamal, who humped her way to the top, married Big Tech lawyer Jew, Douglas
Emhoff, a few years back.
The Jew would be "First Man" and you can kiss your First Amendment goodbye.
Big Tech -- (with Emhoff's impending high position and legal conniving) -- will be free to
ban all 'hate speech,' which is 'speech' Jews 'hate' to hear.
And the entire Jew-owned media and their leftist political machine operatives will decide
all elections from henceforth now and forever.
You are about to enter the Twilight Zone -- a Jew-ruled, Jew-ruined, Jew-controlled
America.
@DaveE an mean the need for white unity & power. Or it can mean white power as the
basis for world domination. Nationalism need not be imperialist but often took an imperialist
turn in the past when a nation became very powerful.
In contrast, 'liberation' emphasizes the need for whites to seek emancipation from the current
power that dominates the West and the World which is Jewish Power. (Even 'white national
liberation' sounds better than mere 'white nationalism'.) White Politics that only focuses on
whites and white power is less likely to be appealing than White Politics that seeks freedom
from the actual tyranny that rules the world: Jewish Supremacist Power or JSP.
[MORE]
I think more likely, whites will sink into despair and return to a state of apathy for
politics. I don't see any Republican being able to generate the kind of enthusiasm Trump did.
Tucker Carlson does not have the financial backing or the personality cult. Josh Hawley and Tom
Cotton are two Zionist social conservatives who will revert back to the GOP's standard
abortion, abortion, abortion and say nothing about immigration or non-interventionism to rouse
enough interest from Trump's base.
The only way for white nationalism to stay alive is if Trump stays politically active
through outlets like Newsmax TV and Gab.com ,
and return for another run for office in 2024. However he needs to be very careful. Once he
leaves office he will no longer have the kind of security protection given him as POTUS. There
had been many assassination attempts while he's in office (at least 6 I've heard of), he could
put himself in great danger if he continues to stay in the limelight to position himself for
2024.
As far as a separate whites only nation within the US, look at states that are probably the
whitest – Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, all are heavily (D). A fat lot of good that
does. TX will be (D) by 2024, too many Hispanics and CA transplants, like AZ and NV. Whites are
too splintered, thanks in large part to single white women, who voted 62% in favor of Biden,
compared to married white women who went for Trump 55%. White women are marrying and having
children at an ever lower rate due to lack of eligible men. White women graduated from college
at 60% to 40% compared to white men. As most women only want to marry up, college educated
women rarely want to date much less marry non-college educated men. Due to height issues, most
white women would only date white men or occasionally, black men. Asian and Hispanic men are
too short and unromantic. Meanwhile more and more white men are marrying Asian and Hispanic
women. White women are running out of men to date, marry and start a family. More unmarried
white women means more white votes will be going for Biden.
October 25 (November 7 NS): The October Revolution begins when the Bolsheviks take over
Petrograd (also called the November Revolution if following the Gregorian calendar).
@Thomasina two months before this election that he proposed some rule changes to H1b, and
still none of those rules have been finalized and probably never will. He made these tech
plantation owners many times richer through the stock market, while they treated him with
contempt and helped bring him down. What an idiot!
If Trump had cancelled H1b, OPT, L1 and all other work visas and forced our employers to
hire and train US workers on Day 1 as he promised, he might have won by a landslide by now. The
only group that went down in votes for him in 2020 is white men, because too many feel betrayed
by him in immigration. All he cares about is taking care of Jews and blacks, both Jews in
Israel and on Wall Street. He trusted wormtongue too much, and that's his downfall.
Richard Pilger is (was) the top DOJ Official investigating voter fraud who resigned after
Barr authorized federal prosecutors to pursue "substantial allegations" of voter irregularities
before the election outcome is certified. He is a swamp rat, a cretin, one of many who should
have been drained from the swamp long ago.
John Pilger, on the other hand, is a hero, a filmmaker and journalist with a long, excellent
record of shining light on malfeasance and bad behavior of politicians of every stripe.
The culture of the Chosen people does not understand the concept of compassion. This is
why the world has been in a very sad place for the last hundred or so years since
12.23.1913.
@Priss Factor the white race and goyim in general. Just ask the Palestinians about the
nature of Jewish Power.
Spot on here. Don't expect Biden to let up though. The Jew owned media (both msm and
"conservative" media e.g. Zerohedge, Breitbart, National Review, Fox News) will keep up the
pressure. I see a future, perhaps in two decades, where East Asian immigration to the US will
come to a screeching halt, and most likely even go into reverse as more East Asians return to
their homelands because Jews, negroes, homos, trannies, stupid white women, Latino drug gangs,
Muslim terrorists, Sub Saharan African welfare leeches, Indian H1b slaves with their
clannishness, collusion with Jews and caste-ism make the US an increasingly unlivable hellhole.
Oldtradesman ,
says:
November 13, 2020 at 12:28 am GMT • 19.6 hours ago
I won a lottery given by the renters, and was given free transatlantic transport.
Your line's post-African existence and ability to publicly complain like little girls owes
much to the transatlantic slave trade. Thank the niggas who sold your ancestors into slavery,
nigga.
There's plenty of majority-white states you can move to if Pale Skin is so important to you.
Go to West Virginia, for instance.
Majority-white states with conservative governments tend to be dull, economically depressed
and stagnant. The same will characterize the imaginary white secessionist state you
fetishize.
It's amazing to me that someone could speak with such satisfaction about other people being
subjugated simply because of their color. But then again, animals like you have no morals nor
any decency.
That's why the vast majority of whites in this country will say "no thanks" to your ugly
message.
A lot to unpack by the author, who is simply stating things we already have heard
previously.
"A White Nationalist is someone who believes that white peoples have a right to their own
homelands."
You do have your own homelands. It's just that in a number of cases, you invaded other
homelands for gimmedats and free stuff.
"So that, as a White Nationalist, I am a German nationalist, an English nationalist, a
Scottish nationalist, a French nationalist, etc. Or, at least, I support all those
nationalisms."
And what about Eastern and Southern Europeans? Why no example of you being a Polish
nationalist or a Slavic nationalist? Remember, these groups were deemed to be other than
heritage Americans–dirty, filthy papists who should have never entered our shores with
their alien mannerisms.
"To be a white nationalist in America is really to recognize that the core "American people"
are the white people whose ancestors built the country and who continue to pay for it. Thus,
American White Nationalism = American nationalism."
The reality is that American nationalism is defined by each person and group how they view
it.
"Since it now looks impossible to go back to the good old days when we had blacks in
complete subjection"
Slavery and Jim Crow laws were decidedly anti-American nationalism, and were patently unjust
and immoral.
"white Americans will never work toward a white American homeland unless they are aware of
themselves as White Americans"
We are aware of ourselves as white Americans, just not in the manner you prefer. Do we not
have agency? Must we submit to your definition of what is and what is not a white
nationalist?
"that we effectively secede from the USA and carve out our own white space (or spaces)
within North America. It is this latter option that now seems like it may be our only option,
and something we must work toward."
It will take a fight. Will you be front and center, or far away from the hostilities?
"The country was already fractured along political lines. Now it is completely broken Now
their faith has been completely and irreparably shattered. And this is hugely significant for
us And those many millions of whites are now choking down a gigantic red pill. As we all know,
the red pill is the path to liberation."
What you are doing here is ASSUMING. The "us" is not "we". It's only those people who you
know for absolute certain are on your side.
"It seems that there is credible evidence that there was voter fraud in the election"
More like accusations that need to meet the burden of proof.
"Take it from me -- from my own personal experience: once you have accepted that one big
thing is a total sham, you begin to wonder whether everything else is."
So why would we want to be duped like you?
"It would take whites being pushed to a point where they are so angry they speak and behave
imprudently, damning the consequences."
LOL. I've heard this argument for the past 40 years! It's always a "well, we are upset now,
but just want until we really get mad, then we will put heads on pikes". Either put up or shut
up.
The situation is somewhat better for young whites whose parents were immigrants. Their
family structure is more stable, and they have a possible escape route. I know several who have
"returned" to Europe, even though they were born here. But it's stupid and ignorant to tell
old-stock Canadians they have that option. My ancestors left England in the 19th century, and
the ancestors of French Canadians left France in the 17th and 18th centuries. We're
indigenous.
I agree that "people are very lonely here" but that's relatively recent. The breakdown of
the family began in the 1960s and became "normal" in the 1990s. Again, it has nothing to do
with climate or geography -- other than the fact we're next door to the United States and its
culture.
tomo, I have been thinking a great deal about income inequality lately (especially the
relative income hypothesis (i.e., all of our social problems are caused by differences in
income)). I would love to hear your comments on this question given your wide ranging
experiences around the globe. Would life really be better for us all if we
Scandanavianized?
Brazil (Portugal) was the largest consignee of African slaves in both absolute numbers and
on per capita white colonizer basis. The Anglo North American mainland was far less of a slave
based economy. Brazil was also the last nation in the Americas to outlaw slavery -- and it was
done without 600,000 white men slaughtering each other and burning the defeated side's country
to the ground.
"I think more likely, whites will sink into despair and return to a state of apathy for
politics."
If you are someone who "doesn't want to get your hopes up" or "is afraid to be disappointed"
or "is concerned that it might be a trap" or "seriously hope you're wrong", or sees doom in
every direction, then this is not the place for you. I'm not saying that you're a bad person or
that anyone here wishes you ill. I'm simply stating a simple fact: this is not the place for
you. No one here is interested in your fears, your worries, your psychological vagaries, or
your concerns.
My ancestors didn't own slaves, but it wouldn't matter if they did. The statement remains,
Troof's post-African line owes its very existence and ability to complain like little bitches
to the transatlantic slave trade. Falsify it or fuck off, traitor.
The Dems were quite determined to remove Trump from office by hook and by crook. First by
the fabricated Russiagate fake story When they did not succeed by impeachment. Now today by a
fraudulent election. They, the MIC appear to have succeeded. We are back in the Bush/Obama
era.
Your point about the slaughter in the USA is well taken. Nevertheless, I believe it was
unnecessary and that the war there wasn't truly about slavery. Hell, I lived in an African
nation for three and a half years and saw some slavery first hand; that was 40 years ago, mind,
and the slaves were by and large as happy as clams. WASPy culture is peculiar if you ask me,
which of course you didn't, but even so Who are the "slaves" now in the USA? Hmmm?
Corvie's "moral authority" is equivalent to the Negro chieftain who sold Troof's Negro
ancestor into slavery in exchange for pretty rocks and trinkets, and less than the
"white-debils" who bought him.
@Corvinus those people worried about kissing Black ass are either COWARDS like all those
white traitor trash rich kids or Jews who really use Blacks as pawns. More than likely that
rich leftist self hating white trash is the person who owned slaves or some Jew who blames it
all on Whitey. Either way, Whites have been enslaved themselves by Arabs and are in some ways
slaves today in their own land.
You worried about Blacks, sucka, why does Israel push out Black Jews? Jive talkin', sucka,
keep it a hunnert up in here, turkey. Why did Leo Frank try to blame a Black man for his crime?
lololol. Cue the Bee Gees "Jive Talkin" for all the (((trolls))) up in here. Yo, playa, we gotz
dis.
"Because it was cheaper to have nigger's do it, so your type could purchase it."
I know, it is the inherent nature of Southrons to be lazy. It's in born.
"You are a disgrace, Corvie,"
I'm not the one who has made empty threats of violence on a opinion webzine against a woman
(snicker snack). You said, "Nancy, you are definitely the type of Irish I would have no trouble
killing, along with Joe Biden and John Brennan". You've sunk to a new low.
@Montefrío he bulk of black slaves went to the Spanish colonies, not the American
colonies"
Could you please cite supporting evidence for this assertion?
All the academic accounts I've read indicate that only about 5% of the African slaves shipped
across the Atlantic were sent to the mainland English colonies that became the United States,
while the rest went to areas of Latin America and the Caribbean. However, these latter included
Portuguese, English, French, and Dutch colonies, as well as Spanish ones. The reason their need
for slaves was so enormous was that the death rate in the plantations producing sugar and other
lucrative crops was extremely high. Rogue , says:
November 13, 2020 at 2:15 am GMT • 17.8 hours ago
Did lactase persistence originate in southern Africa?
Egalitarian response:
Oh but that's the exception along with any other non-cognitive changes we might accept if you
prove they exist. But we won't talk about them and will keep telling children that everyone is
African.
Imagine if other fields of study had to follow this insanity.
American wolves don't exist unless you are talking about DNA changes in American wolves that
separate them from European wolves. But other than those changes that would denote a different
subspecies they don't exist.
"""But all the voices on the far-Right who labeled Trump "a distraction" have now been
proved correct. Trump actually wound up doing little for white people -- despite being
continually vilified by the Left as a white supremacist""""
At least the author got that right. Trump was elected to remove the illegal aliens (almost
all of them non-white) and he did practically nothing in 4 years. It would have been easy to
make them self-deport by taking away their jobs and freebies but he didn't do it.
Thank you, sir, particularly for the multi-national breakdown, so to speak.
When all is said and done, it was an ugly business, but long ago was long ago, and imho it
has little to do with the world today. I'm Irish, and "we" weren't well treated long ago
either, but we don't whine or whinge much. I wish that were true of others whose ancestors
suffered hard times.
Me? At 74, life is wonderful! May it be so for all here!
The Stolen Election Will Red-Pill 70 Million Americans is what the Establishment/Trump hope
actually means The Stolen Election Will Keep 70 Million Americans on the Republicrat
Plantation
Imagine thinking rich white conmen like Trump give a shit about you as a "white nationalist"
or that Trump or GOP are against non-white immigration. Hahahahahahhahaha
Delusional. Trump wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. He and everyone around him have
already made it clear you racist cracka ass niggaz aren't welcome in his circle or the GOP.
Oprah Winfrey, Lil Pump, Lil Wayne and Kanye have more clout with Trump than you clowns. You
should ask yourself why that is.
You, average white guy are no better than a dindu or a beaner in the eyes of rich
capitalists. In fact you're less to them because you demand a living standard and wages that
the beaner doesn't.
Let me know when Trump invites some homeless white veterans or any poor cracka for that
matter to fill his hotels, you know since he cares so much for the white race. Yall should
really take a look around if you believe these rich white guys are your allies. "White
nationalism" is a hoax.
The rich white capitalist will stab you in the back every time, history has proven this over
and over again, you're nothing but wage slaves, tax donkeys and cannon fodder to them,
cracka.
Every election is stolen by the rich capitalists that own all the candidates and all the
media. The CIA and Wall St run the country, not puppet politicians
This is not your country. It is up for sale to the highest bidder, welcome to capitalism.
There are despots in Saudi Arabia that "own" more of this country than you losers. Poor low IQ
right wingers, keep believing those fairy tales your owners like telling you. Hahahahaha
@Anonymous ards possessors of illicit drugs, but no -- Hunter is special!). Biden loves,
loves the bomb, and he supported all 'humanitarian" interventions (mass-slaughters) on behalf
of the war profiteers and zionists. Or perhaps you are fond of the murderous Clinton, and the
Schiff-Schumer-Nadler triumvirate of traitors working diligently to destroy the US Consitution?
Do you really believe in the patriotism of McCabe, Strzhok, Comey, Brennan, and Dm.
Alperovitch? Too much FakeBook can be detrimental to one's cognitive function.
The woke crowd of 'progressives' is too much into the cheap revolutionary rhetoric
skillfully inserted into their brains by Bernays' pupils working for MSM.
The whole premise of the multi-cult Left is that divers racial minority groups,
sanctimonious yankees and perverts join together under the aegis of Jewry to socially
marginalize the rest of society. You cannot listen to these people for more than a minute
without hearing them vent hatred against the NORMAL people. There's a reason the Jews are so
dead-set against the way the white world was not too long ago. It's normal, it's sane, and they
DON'T FIT IN. Their depraved appetites and megalomania don't fit in with Western, Christian
Civilization.
@Corvinus s))) and many of them looked and acted like Corvinus.
Slavery is ANCIENT HISTORY and your kind was very well involved in it, same as a lot of
pompous Yankees who claim they fought to end slavery, blah, blah. The fact of the matter is
that only a tiny percentage of Whites ever owned slaves in the South. Poor Whites weren't
treated much better than Blacks for that matter, maybe YOUR ANCESTORS OWNED SLAVES, Corvie,
just like good ole SJW Anderson Cooper.
Fact is Blacks are not exactly saints when it comes to the African Slave Trade
themselves.
How about we stick to this century, (((Corvie.))) I don't see or hear Whites whining about
being enslaved by Arabs.
The MSM, FakeBook, Twitter, and Google must be demolished, considering their willful
treasonous activities during the American color revolution (Russiagate).
By their vicious attacks on the First Amendment, the MSM, FakeBook, Twitter, and Google have
rivaled the Lobby. Or perhaps they are, in reality, an extension of the Lobby.
It took your self righteous Yankee retards four long bloody years and eight successive
commanders to defeat the "Lazy Southrons". Despite having a GDP five times as large and nearly
twenty times the amount of military age males lol
All the while devastating the homes, towns and cities of the people in the South.
This next time around, you will get a taste of war and hate, Mr Corvinus.
Of course, I doubt a pussy ass bitch like you will stand and fight.
@Muaddib synonymous with abolishing social standards. We see the poisonous fruits of giving
everybody respect rather than on conduct: an inability to use force in the face of rioting and
looting instead focusing on people who call others harsh names, rewarding family breakdown,
government debt, women screaming in the streets through bullhorns demanding that other people
pay for their fornication, an unwillingness to condemn homosexuals for deliberately spreading
AIDS for fear of being homophobic.
I will tell you something. If somehow all immigrants and minorities were kicked out, you
would still be unhappy.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
Its a good place to start
Robert Putnam said in his book Bowling Alone that the more diverse a society, the less trust
there is between people. He also found that in diverse communities, even whites distrust other
whites, which makes them even more alienated, because the immigrants at least form their own
ethnic communities. This is what is happening now in all Western countries. Whites are
increasingly alienated in their own countries and societies due to over immigration, leading to
depravity, depression and suicide. It's why birthrate is so low in Western European countries.
It's also why immigration must stop, not just to bring back homogeneity and kinship, but to
reduce the population so each life means more.
Again, you're asking gimme dat while oblivious to the fundamentals. Social programs aren't
payed for by the government the government doesn't make profits, it spends other peoples money
which it collects at gun point . In order to satisfy you thirst for privileges the
government has to literally rob someone else at gun point. Don't people have the right not to be
robbed? Again, only criminals think the "right" to rob is more important than the right not to
be. Moreover, the "good social programs" now stand at $185 Trillion of debt and other
liabilities. Do you know what that number means? Nothing "good" about it. annamaria , says:
November 13, 2020 at 3:23 am GMT • 16.7 hours ago
@Muaddib MSM? The dimwit wokes who avoid like a plague any discussion on Obama/Clinton's
'humanitarian interventions' in faraway countries, which resulted in a multitude of dead
civilians, many of them children.
Biden is ready to intensify the illegal war against Syria (why his progeny has not joined
the 'moderate terrorists' White Helmets is a mystery, don't you think so?). The old corrupted
opportunist would begin a hot war with Russia without understanding what he is doing.
Sure, the MIC has been terribly unhappy with Trump -- not much of 'humanitarian
interventions' during the last four years.
I suggest adjusting the author's arguments to recognise the actual fundamental issue in
play, which is not skin colour or race or language, but CULTURE.
Culture is everything! Culture determines how you treat your neighbor.
Hmm -- the average black in Mississippi has more Euro white Christian culture in him, then
the average white in NY City. Hence NYC's dysfunction.
Anti-Christian Jews are responsible for black disfunction in NYC – period!
@Muaddib -- are you a whiny liberal of lgbtq variety, demanding a special bathroom and
denouncing white privilege a la hypocritical Meghan Markle (and her ridiculous duke 'just
harry'), or you used to be a 'conservative' but it was too boring for you? You know, family
responsibilities, decent education, work ethics
California is the most liberal state in the US. But for some reason, Californias have been
fleeing California like crazy. And you know what, the happy Liberal Californians have been
fleeing to conservative states, without being invited. Last year, "the negative migration was
the 9th year in a row for California."
Ron Unz allows a base, boring, bitter troglodyte like you to post your rude and insulting
garbage on HIS site where he accepts no advertising and runs out of his own pocket so all
viewpoints can be discussed with a light hand and open mind.
I agree with the article but this election isn't actually over outside of the CNN
newsroom.
If the powers that be want to weaken the right they will give Trump his (obvious) win but
only after deluding democrats into thinking that they won the election. I think we are
watching that play out right now.
@Muaddib Some of the 'immigrants' were from the Soviet Union where they received a
fantastic education for nothing. The development of the Internet was conducted under the
watchful eye of intelligence services; the involved have profited handsomely on the enterprise.
Long before the 'immigrants' and their handlers made the killing, there were brilliant people
like Ada Lovelace, Turing, and others who have prepared the ground for modern information
technology.
Today, the woke profiteers ('liberals') at FakeBook and Google religiously follow the diktat
of the CIA/FBI that serve war profiteers and financial Squid. These 'liberals' have been
betraying the interests of human society at large.
@christine what is now North America wanted to stay in the stone age. They live in houses
and drive cars. If whites had never came to what is now North America the people living here
would still be stone age. It took Europeans over 6000 years to go from the iron age to the
industrial age where we were when we founded the USA. There is no way the natives who were
stone age would have been living modern lives.
Colonization was white people going around the world pulling stone age people into the
modern world. Whites are non whites benefactors and only morons cannot see this.
You are not a good thinker. You should be posting on a cooking or sewing site. Politics is
beyond your ken.
@christine your enemy in a hide bag over a roaring fire and letting them roast to death.
The ant trap: coating your enemy in a sticky resin from trees and restraining them over ant
mounds
The head bury: burying your enemy at low tide and allowing the tide to roll in and drown
them.
The horse pull: tying each arm and leg to four separate horses and letting them go four
separate ways.
But our Anglo Western criminal justice system of the 8th Amendment, bonds, free lawyers ,
probation, counselors and medical care in prison is much more savage.
Karma? The crystal ball it's fuzzy but an image is coming in wait .I see a dung beetle in
your future.
I'm not the one who has made empty threats of violence on a opinion webzine against a
woman (snicker snack). You said, "Nancy, you are definitely the type of Irish I would
have no trouble killing, along with Joe Biden and John Brennan".
Why do you respond to "empty," traitor?
Either the threat was empty or it wasn't.
It certainly wasn't a personal threat.
Looks like a threat against a "type of Irish."
What I see is a cucked, traitorous e-activist misrepresenting a threat to pose as a
chivalrous defender of e-womanhood.
This might not be directly relevant, but let me tell you a story.
The Island of Hispaniola was the site of the only known successful slave revolt in history.
So far, so good. The victors where blacks and whites ('hispanics'). Well, that did not work out
well. The whites ('hispanics') revolted and carved out their own nation, it's called the
Dominican Republic. The blacks were left in their own nation, it's called Haiti. The Dominican
Republic has problems, in particular a very high murder rate, but compared to most of the rest
of the world, is not doing so bad. Haiti is an unspeakable cesspool of poverty and filth.
Of course, the Dominican Republic has a viciously effective border control policy preventing
Haitian blacks from moving in. Why doesn't our corporate press complain about this anti-migrant
xenophobia? Maybe rich Americans like the beaches in the Dominican Republic as they are.
Is that something that could – or should – happen in the Untied States? Probably
not, circumstances are different. But still
Christine: I too have experienced at least one native prior lifetime and my home is almost
exactly halfway between two reservations. Friends. Currently I'm reading a book you would
likely enjoy–perhaps thoroughly: "Listen to the Wind: Speak from the Heart" by Roger
Thunderhands Gilbert, who is Metis and has been very close to both the Apache and Lakota
cultures. Publisher is Divine Arts Media.
Always love the comments here, a great range from bright to not so bright to downright dim.
But no matter who you are I'm sure you'll all agree we went from being Bozos on the bus to
being Dr. Zeke's lab rats.
@James Scott t (which liberals are not) all of the stone age people currently living in
Christendom . ride in cars, use computers and cellphones, travel in jets .have access to the
white man's brilliant technology ..it's like we allowed them to jump into our time machine so
they could fast forward into the future we created.
You could also add that we have the patent on high trust culture based on Christian values
of industriousness, honesty, fairness, and decency ..though much of this is being wrecked by
Jewish multiculturalism.
If not for the subversion of organized Jewry, whites would still have the respect of the
stone age non-whites instead of their hatred and contempt.
However, IMO the author uses language which suggests disdain for black Americans (for
example). If that is an expression of "racism", then it would be in the colloquially "bad"
context.
Black Americans kill, rape and steal in huge disproportion to their numbers. Why should I
not disdain that?
You shouldn't make personal statements about people you don't know.
He put himself and his views out there, as any author does, and this is a Comment Board. I
made my comments and observations. Are you new to venues like this? That's how they work
@Muaddib onestly about their failures? They don't support it. In fact they despise free
speech.
Social programs can be good for society. Think not just social security, but also
healthcare for all.
Social programs can be good for society. But liberalism is not about finding good programs.
It is about trying to denigrate and demoralize White people in an attempt at creating equality.
Most liberals are White but they see themselves as the "good Whites" and all other Whites must
be taken down. Liberals are nihilistic egalitarians. They will do anything for equality. They
would sacrifice our children just for some fleeting feeling of equality that doesn't exist.
@Muaddib ily life but in your mind all progress is held back by those other Whites .
I saw that all the time. Urban Whites get "celebrate diversity" bumper stickers and then hang
out with Whites 99% of the time.
More inventions came from WW2 than any other period and Whites on both sides during that
time would think that today's urban egalitarian Whites are total morons.
P.S. your women aren't sexually attracted to you if that wasn't obvious by how they boss you
guys around.
I lived around urban Whites for years. What a soulless and pathetic existence the typical
urban White male lives. The homeless Blacks seem happier than you guys.
The father of Jonathan Miller's mother wanted to emigrate to the USA but got off in Ireland
instead, when it was under British rule. Miller gave an account of this during an interview. I
can't recall whether his grandfather got off in Cork by mistake or whether the person who
arranged his ticket cheated him and others by putting them on a boat to Ireland rather than New
York. For Miller this was an amusing anecdote he told on TV.
At any rate the mother of Jonathan Miller was one of the relatively few Jews living in Ireland,
although Miller himself was born in England.
You've never been around any American Indians or their national autonomous homelands aka
rezess have you? As a group, they're probably the most contented of all definable American race
and ethnic groups. At least they're not endlessly bitching whining and kvetching like the rest
of us.
You should spend a year driving around their rezess and talking to them. Try to fit in as a
tourist or something. Don't be rude and just inform them you're some kind of social scientist
studying their exotic oppressed abused soon to be genocided tribe. Don't insult them. Be
polite. They are regular people just like the rest of us.
We weren't Americans and America wasn't America when the Africans were brought over. We were
English citizens subjects living in separate English colonies known as Massachusetts
Connecticut Virginia Maryland etc.
If only the vile white northern Euro invading scum had come with pipes of peace instead of
guns and i find it poetic justice how guns and more guns and yet more guns are the scariest
part of modern central North America.
May the spirits of those that suffered genocide and holocaust at the hands of gun wielding
invading Northern Europeans be smiling from ear to ear at todays United Gun States of
America.
They are the nut-cases who stick themselves full of needles and pins , and dye their hair
blue so as to present their deranged worldview for all to see.
You forgot the utterly worthless dye disfigurement known as tattoos. All this probably has
roots related to the mutilation known as circumcision as well.
@tomo
Talk to them about Louis Farrakhan. He has the Nation of Islam ( https://www.noi.org/ ] eating out of his hand. The videos are out
there.
Louis names the Jew without disaster resulting. Tell them about The Secret Relationship
Between Blacks and Jews, a splendid book, available from Amazon – at a price or direct
from the https://www.noi.org/final-call-news/
@Peter Frost e US along with the breakdown of the family, loss of the work ethic, a rampant
sneering at honesty, and almost total lack of basic civility. One of my sisters attributes a
lot of that to the effects of casting infants into daycare where it's "dog eat dog" from the
beginning and which I believe is reinforced by years of exposure to the sinecure and benny
seeking bureaucrats in the baby sitting and brainwashing institutions known as schools.
We have ourselves to blame for our choices both as individuals and as a society and we can
whine all we want about blacks and others, but in the end we're paying for our worship and
pursuit of "cool," or self absorption, or whatever.
No, I agree -- a purely "racial" response should not be tried. It will lead to
failure (which is not to say that things like race, culture, values, beliefs etc are not
important)
I suggest you also do a search on the infamous Jew, Aaron Lopez, and work out why he chose a
Spanish name to hide behind rather than an Anglo-Saxon name.
The large majority of TrumpBoomers are screaming at the sky right now with this fraud cope,
because it is inconceivable that a wave of brown, angry youth and affluent whites like myself
have eclipsed them as a voting bloc. The white working class has been melting down worse than
the 2016 SJW trannies for a week now.
Yes of course i would be polite and come in peace and i would make sure not to point a rifle
or pistol at them and start shooting them and then start raping their women and children and i
wouldn't slaughter any livestock that they may have to try and starve them because what decent
white Northern European would do that in central North America anyway?.
If i came in peace and harmony like this they would naturally be far more likely to respond
in kind and share with me what they may know about nature/god, just like what their wonderful
ancestors learnt about from their use of plant medicines/entheogens/sacraments like the Peyote
cactus for example that was used by the Apache Comanche and Kiowa tribes but if i was pure evil
and slaughtered them then of course i wouldn't get to learn from their wisdom and i would
deserve to remain in complete darkness (spiritually speaking) just like most everyone alive is
in the U.S today.
His daughter, Miller's father, became a well-known novelist in Ireland.
Who is the subject in this sentence? Was it someone's daughter or Miller's father who became
a well-known novelist in Ireland? The structure of your sentence makes it unclear.
As I said originally, that doesn't automatically make the author a "racist" in the "bad"
sense, but the suggestion is implicitly there for anyone who wants to make it.
Maybe the author is being emphatically practical in his analysis. FWIW in the past
Australian experience, cohesive immigrant populations have taken at least a couple of
generations to fully naturalise in Australian society. And there does seem to be a lot of
cultural clashing going on in the USA. So maybe a coarse exclusionary approach to reclaiming
power for the American people is the shortest path to a solution (albeit with potential for
collateral damage).
Or maybe one has to read between the lines to get the full sense of what the author is
trying to say.
@christine igners; and this spirit of wear, principle of any cowardice, is so natural in
their hearts, that it is the continual object of the figures that they employ in the species of
eloquence which is proper for them. Their glory is to put at fire and blood the small villages
they can seize. They cut the throat of the old men and the children; they hold only the girls
nubiles; they assassinate their Masters when they are slaves; they can never forgive when they
are victorious: they are enemy of the human mankind. No courtesy, no science, no art improved
in any time, in this atrocious nation. -- Voltaire, Essai sur les mœurs (1756) Tome 2,
page 83
Was it EVER possible to pronounce Mitt Romney's and John McCain's names without gagging?
News to me
Also I disagree with the main premise that can be expressed in the ironic Russian saying:
"They are fucking us, and yet we are just getting stronger". Unfortunately it doesn't work like
that. Success begets success, failure begets failure. With the machinery of state in the
DemocRATs' hands, will they really allow their enemies to take back the levers of power? Last
time was a fluke because Hurricane Donald had caught them by surprise.
@Rogue ck of critique of their own past, lack of any sort of conciliatory moves towards
past victims, dooms them.
And this when the entire world rejects globohomo (and usury) with disgust. They have all
sorts of potential allies a home and abroad, and do not use them. Having lived in the Detroit
area for decades, for example, I can tell you that local Muslims are ready-made allies. They
are hardly the only ones. Count any working Latino and all people of Asian descent in this
group, as well as all people of Eastern European descent. They even have allies among working
blacks for christ sake. You are in the fight of your lives, and you don't even think about
allies.
I would say productive non-executive suite Whites are the new slaves in the Waspy-Jewy Anglo
world. But Brazil isn't that far behind either with all of its Sherwin-Williams color sample
shade cards being used in its own affirmative action programs.
Unlike the profitable fables of holobiz, the Jewish rabid hatred towards Palestinians and
the destruction of Palestinian lives is true. Thievery, sadism, torture of teenagers in Israeli
prisons, desecration of Palestinian cemeteries, the intentional handicapping of Palestinian
children Are you ready to talk about the Jeiwsh State's crimes against humanity, committed in
the context of international law? (The US and Israel 'are joined at the hip' according to US
Congresspeople). If not, then your 'righteous' diatribes are cheap.
And don't forget to check the amazing results of the Obama/Clinton's color revlution in
Ukraine.
@Truth irst son of a bitch who was foolish enough to bring over the African for cheap labor
( yes, the African did receive a wage in food, shelter and medical care), these fools using
Mexicans for dirt cheap labor are ruining this nation because of greed and the love of money.
That poor beaner busting his ass for 12 bucks an hour? Don't worry about him folks, he's living
large because he's more than likely being paid cash or he's gaming the system and receiving all
kinds of freebies along with a regular paycheck. I drive by a chicken processing plant daily
that employs nothing but our friends from south of the border and I see some damn fine trucks
and other nice looking vehicles.
The white working class has been melting down worse than the 2016 SJW trannies for a week
now.
Is that right? So why were there no massive chimpouts and looting? Why was it not necessary
to board up the stores, as it would have been had not the ZOG stolen the election?
Stupidly, I think Trump tried to win over the corporate elite, Big Tech, Big Ag, etc.. Maybe
bad advice from his son-in-law? Didn't listen to his intuition? Who knows.
If he is reelected, he will not make the same mistake twice. I think they know this too.
@christine ringing a force of about five or six to one against his enemy; kills helpless
women and little children, and massacres th e men in their beds; and then brags about it as
long as he lives, and his son and his grandson and great-grandson after him glorify it among
the "heroic deeds of their ancestors."
If you came in peace, do you think the Stone Age Siberians would have also shared their vast
knowledge about the Wheel? Or metal smelting? Or writing and math?
People like (((Christine))) always bring up atrocities committed against Indians and they
make some valid points, HOWEVER, as we saw, (((Christine))) had nothing to say about Whites
being butchered by racist Black homicidal maniacs in South Africa nor did she address the
Holodomor. This leads me to believe that (((Christine))) the self proclaimed "Irish" lass is
more than likely just a (((troll.)))
And of course, people like (((Christine))) don't talk about so-called Jews stealing the
Palestinians land and brutalizing Palestinians, instead they focus on ANCIENT HISTORY. And
these people will never talk about Black guys executing little white boys or Black guys
snatching a little white boy from his white mother and throwing the kid off a balcony. Or how
about when a black woman kidnapped a white boy in Texas and burned him to death with a
blowtorch. Oh, yeah, lets focus on ancient history, which unless you lived back then no one
really knows what the damn truth was, we know we certainly can't rely on (((historians))) or
mainstream (((history books.))) Unless things change, 100 years from now, people will be
reading about how 3 Black women sent America to the moon.
Obvious LIES that will be told or have been told
6 million Jews were gassed in concentration camps during WWII
Germany started WWII
the official 9-11 narrative
Osama Bin Laden was killed * that dude probably was dead years before he was claimed to have
been killed, the guy was in poor health.
James Earl Ray did not kill MLK * the dude said so on his death bed, why would you still
keep holding on to the same story if you were going to die anyhow?
And when it comes to Presidential elections.
JFK didn't beat Nixon
Dubya didn't beat Gore
And Joe Biden sure as hell didn't beat Trump, hell I would admit that if I hated Trump's guts.
Don't like Gore, voted for that sorry sack of shit, Dubya, but no way in hell, Gore lost.
Some more code words we can start using ((( ))) for are (((SJW))) or (((military industrial
complex.)))
@Ultrafart the Brave people too, patriotic or otherwise. White nationalism is a political
stance, of course it will exclude people who are not white nationalists, duh!
Indeed, one bad thing leads to another. Once the dynamics are set in train, it will take
generations to unravel (if ever).
What "bad thing" lead to blacks people committing heinous amounts of murder, robbery and
rape? Slavery? Colonialism? Affirmative Action? Must be something whites did, right?
As I said originally, that doesn't automatically make the author a "racist" in the "bad"
sense.
You have not explained what's bad about racism. And what are those quotation marks for?
You've never been around any American Indians or their national autonomous homelands aka
rezess have you? As a group, they're probably the most contented of all definable American
race and ethnic groups. At least they're not endlessly bitching whining and kvetching like
the rest of us.
Aldey, having lived in the most Indian state in America for the last 17 years, I can assure
you that that is patently ridiculous.
Some things never change. As Mark Twain wrote in his Essay about The Noble Red Man;
He is ignoble–base and treacherous, and hateful in every way. Not even imminent
death can startle him into a spasm of virtue .
With that Twain appears slightly ahead of his time. He could have just as accurately been
describing other "Reds," such as the Bolsheviks and their supporters most of whom could have
taught the Indians a thing or two about terror and torture especially the mass varieties.
I drive by a chicken processing plant daily that employs nothing but our friends from
south of the border and I see some damn fine trucks and other nice looking vehicles.
Whites are storming ballot counting centers instead of looting their own businesses. Whites
routinely chimp out, they just pick different targets. Look at the devastation around Hockey
arenas when teams win the Stanley Cup.
As far as the election being stolen, well, you sound like a crazed conspiracy nutter.
They are ALWAYS hiring, breh. Maybe you can tell some of da homies. But I doubt da homies
could cut the mustard. I worked with tons of Mexicans and El Salvadorans and I can tell you
from experience they really look down on lazy negroes. My gawd, some of the things I heard
these Brown folks say about Black folks had me blushing crimson. I went from Donald Trump
orange to the color of my favorite soda, cherry red. Cue: You Can't Always Get What You Want by
Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stoooooooooones.
The Second Guy: Kamala Harris' husband, Douglas Emhoff, is Jewish; he will not only be the
"second gentleman" (caveat: No one has settled on a term for the job), he will be the first
Jewish second spouse. Emhoff has been vocal about his Jewish identity, and it will be
interesting to see how that plays out in a role that has been used to advance education
initiatives.
Yet, there do remain groupings of well-rooted people who are able to cope with a clinically
insane "white" culture which surrounds them physically and throughout most electronic mediums.
Their struggle is huge, yet they persist in reconnecting with traditional tribal values, with
powwows, drumming fests and even -- gradually -- re-learning their indigenous languages.
There are still waaaay too many European-descended people in my area who retain an ignorant
, discriminatory and even prejudicial attitude towards these, our neighbors and in some cases,
potential teachers. But those who reach out do tend to reach those who also reach out. So hope
remains.
HATER -- perhaps not without some viable personal reason/s, but nevertheless one incapable
of discriminating between individuals and devolved into rank prejudice.
I spent time on the other side of the wall early seventies, and I will never forget the dead
eyes of the oppressed citizenry and the morgue-like atmosphere of the grey cities, and these
lunatic Democrats are now pushing to create such a scenario in the US
Excellent article and explanation of procedure, Mr. Redmayne-Titley. On Tucker Carlson's
show about six weeks ago, Tucker had on guest Darren Beattie to describe the specific type of
color revolution that the Democrat Party appeared to be planning to proceed ahead with to
usurp this election:
Tucker's show tonight will be as clear as could be as to which Tucker he is going to be
selling to his huge audience: independent journalist or Fox News/DS apparatchik. I will be
watching and hope that he will continue to be the voice of much of the people, though his
letting up on the Hunter Biden story was troubling to say the least.
Even with Pennsylvania and Georgia, the 2 most likely to flip imo, trump would still lose,
unless he miraculously flips Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, or Michigan.
The fix was in no doubt and trump won all those states fairly, but its a tall order and
I'm skeptical that trump can pull it off.
Thanks to the Trumpet, the CIA/FBI/NSA, etc., have now been able to clearly identidy the
sections of the populace that feel their pure whiteness is being victimised,
Were you in a coma for a number of years? For 20 years, starting with William Binney
through Edward Snowdon and Dave Montgomery, there have been warnings that the alphabet
agencies have been illegally spying the US citizens. Montgomery pointed out they spied on
Trump before he became a candidate.
The Trumpian corporate party's biggest sin was trying to get in on the Republocrat –
Demican Uni-party corporate party action.
Never gonna happen.
I believe that US are truthful when they talk about "free" elections. Theoretically, the
only way you can get something "free" in life is – if you steal it, or if somebody
gives you something as a gift. This "election" has fulfilled both of these 2 criteria. First
the deep state stole the election from Trump and then they presented it as a gift to Biden.
So it's all good. It was a free election for Biden, Trump got robbed – but hey, you
can't please everybody.
Karma's a biatch. All those color revolutions in Ukraine, Venezuela, Iran, Hong Kong,
propped up in one way or another by Mike Pompeo when he was head of CIA continuing into
Secretary of State, is now coming back to haunt Trump. Good job appointing that fat fuck.
If Trump loses, it would be his own doing in some ways. He has failed to roll back legal
immigration esp. H1B/OPT until a month before the election, and spent most of his time
catering to the Zionist filth with all the nauseating sycophantic overt pandering to Israel
and the Wall Street Jews. Wormtongue's pandering to the blacks by letting all the drug
dealers out of jail is backfiring big time too. 92% of blacks still voted for Biden so fuck
you Kushner.
If Trump somehow survives this and actually comes back to win, I hope he learned from his
mistake in the first term. Instead of spending all 4 years pandering to Jews and blacks who
didn't vote for him, spend his time taking care of those who did vote for him, his white
voting base, and we want an end to H1B, OPT, EB5, L1, illegal immigration. No more green
cards for the next 40 years! Begin mass deportation. Most importantly, fire Pompeo and
Javanka!
Many thanks, Mr. Redmayne, for this overview-cum-dissection of the recount scenarios.
That all of these counting-stopping orders took place in swing states defies
credulity.
Surely poll workers were being paid to continue counting throughout the night. Not to go home
and catch 40 winks. Lord knows we have plenty of night-time workers in this 24/7 country.
It is ironic that in the context of the USA's overseas military disasters, the common
advice when the home team is obviously getting pounded has been "Just declare yourself the
winner" and get the hell out.
Seems like the Dems are using this playbook and hoping they can create a new reality by
declaring it so.
The spectacle of Joe Biden calling for "unity" after the shitshow following 2016 is
rich.
I doubt that this richness is going to be lost on the "losers" in this election.
The country is very n eatly divided between blue urban and red countryside. I would not
county on "unity" rearing its head anywhere in redland.
The only people loyal to Trump is the working class. No one else gives a damn whether he
lives or dies, including the vast majority of Republican officials and office holders
concerned only with keeping what they have.
Yes, the disgusting PC CBC reporters display their contempt for Trump at every turn, and
are complicit in obscuring Democrat misdeeds, whether by uncritically parroting the Maddow
ravings on Russiagate or ignoring the influence peddling of Dems from Biden to HRC. CBC
reporters are repeatedly characterizing charges of election fraud as groundless. Clearly they
are unaware of Pelosi's admission of how the public is misinformed, with her description of
'leaking' fabricated allegations to MSM insiders, then using the subsequent MSM reports as
'evidence' of veracity.
@GMC ciders). The not-so-youthful Obamas the Fraud and the badly aged Clintons have been
liberally using revolutionary rhetoric a la Che Gevara, never mind that the Obamas and
Clintons are major war criminals guilty of the mass slaughter of civilian populations
(including the multitude of children) in the brown countries of Syria and Lybia and non-brown
countries of former Yugoslavia and Ukraine. They, Obamas and Clintons, are murderers,
cannibals. Yet for the 'progressive' wokes, the history of the US is not known and is not
interesting for knowing. The wokes like the keto diet, mild psychedelics, cool outfit, and a
special set of words, including 'solidarity, social awareness, political correctness,
LGBTQIA' and such to stroke gently their, wokes,' egos. The aroma of rot is in the air.
@The Alarmist ake-sure-trump-supporters-receive-accountability
Emily Abrams can not forgive Trump for being so ineffective in the Middle East. Unlike the
Obama/Clinton administration, Trump has not started a new War for Israel. And for this, Trump
and "anyone who took a paycheck to help Trump" must be punished.
Meanwhile, the reality is hitting up:
After Attorney General Bill Barr authorized federal prosecutors to pursue "substantial
allegations" of irregularities in the 2020 presidential election, the head of the DOJ's
Election Crimes Branch [Richard Pilger] has decided to resign.
Vote fraud is as American as apple pie. Just remember how JFK and George W. Bush manged to
sneak into the White House. America has always bee a banana republic, now it has just become
more evident.
BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Analysis of Election Night Data from All States Shows MILLIONS OF
VOTES Either Switched from President Trump to Biden or Were Lost -- Using Dominion and Other
Systems By
Joe Hoft
Published November 10, 2020 at 6:32pm
2080 Comments ,
BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Analysis of Election Night Data from All States Shows
MILLIONS OF VOTES Either Switched from President Trump to Biden or Were Lost -- Using Dominion
and Other Systems By
Joe Hoft
Published November 10, 2020 at 6:32pm
2080 Comments ,
BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Analysis of Election Night Data from All States Shows
MILLIONS OF VOTES Either Switched from President Trump to Biden or Were Lost -- Using Dominion
and Other Systems By
Joe Hoft
Published November 10, 2020 at 6:32pm
2080 Comments ,
So despite the help from the massive software "glitch", Biden fraud machine had to dump
late night dump ballots all for Biden only in a hurry. How bad did he lose? It almost looks
like most of his votes are fabricated. I would not be surprised if he were 20 points behind
in legal votes.
I think the ballot dumping was the side show to keep us from finding out about the vote
switching and deleting. How can this be verified, and how can this be seen on the machines
now?
Badass American of Indian decent (actually was born in India I believe but family came
here legally when a young child). Ran for senate in Massachusetts as a Republican and was/is
a big Trump supporter. Blew the doors off the Covid 19 scam, not that it wasn't real but how
it was being treated and handled by MSM and the Socialist Democratic Party, ie, by those who
hyped the whole thing.
EventBrite just told everyone that "March for Trump" was cancelled. It is NOT
Cancelled.
The Elites / Big-Tech / MSM (including Fox) are TERRIFIED We Will Show Up - doing everything
possible to shut us down.
Don't let them. Break their Narrative.
Get to DC or the nearest contested state-house This Weekend, or we hand Biden the WH.
CORRECTION!! We hand the WH to Kamala, the most leftist (socialist) senator in the Senate!
She falls right in line with Hugo Chavez and Nicolás Maduro, Fidel,Stalin and other
(in)famous dictators politically. If you are a veteran, have a CFL, have made a firearms
purchase from a dealer, etc. - your personal information WILL be found and used to confiscate
your arms if these socialists gain enough power. They have already stated that they will
rejoin the 'climate accords,' restart 'fair trade' with China, move our embassy out of
Jerusalem, restart nuclear 'cooperation' with N. Korea, pass 'common sense' gun laws to
protect our citizens (never mind the THOUSANDS of gun laws now on the books that are NOT
ENFORCED,) tear down 'Orange Man Bads' border fence, open up our borders to all comers, and
amnesty all illegals now in the nation - and that's just for a start.
You are so right ....but the Marxists better ask the British what happened when General
Gage sent British regulars to DISARM AMERICANS at CONCORD . THAT is when the Revolutionary
War turned into a REAL SHOOTING WAR .
Avoidance of War is Not Peace. While I am praying for Honest Election Results that = Trump
Victory, the NWO Deep State must be stopped Now.
Marxist democRats and Quisling repubs are Bought and Paid for by their NWO Oligarch
Masters.
Never Submit, Never Surrender.
If they mean to have CW, then let it begin with this Coup if it is accomplished in Jan of
21
He also doesn't believe AIDS is caused by HIV... really?! And that we should expand the
USPS by having them set up and regulate a national email service. Broken clock, twice-a-day,
etc.
H.I.V was found to be nothing more than Biologically Inactive Gunk by Nobel Laureate
Professor and Cancer specialist Doctor Peter Duesberg and his work was backed up by Nobel
Laureate Doctor Carey Mullin. The H.I.V hypothesis proposed by the Fraudulent Doctors Gallo
and Anthony Fao-Chi[ yes! That Fao-chi] never passed the Koch Postulates, so they turned to
the MSM to pressure the Reagan administration into acceptance of their Hypothesis and that is
the most important part of the H.I.V Hypothesis...
Yesterday on hannity's radio show, John Solomon was severely downplaying the software
problems. Never trusted that guy. Does anyone ever say, "hey, you have to check out Just the
News?!". NOPE.
John Solomon was an integral part of uncovering the SpyGate scandal. Just because he says
something you disagree with does NOT make him a partisan hack.. He's one of the last
investigative reporters left in the U.S.
He speaks the truth and the truth is that as of now we have zero evidence of wrongdoing
other than hearsay. "Data passed around" analyzed by some guy does not cut the mustard in
court. Actual proof is needed and as of now we are just spouting BS. I am not delusional as
most of you and understand that as we sit we are losing big time. He does not say everything
I need to hear......WAAAAAAAA.
I don't really trust him after watching him on Lou Dobbs A LOT. He squirms out of tough
questions. I agree about the investigation into obamagate with Sara Carter. Why is he now
putting a liberal (UNTRUE) spin on the software problems?
No spin, Just the truth. The evidence as of now would get thrown out of court as it is
hearsay. Get the data looked at by a real analytics team not some random guy sitting in his
basement.
He ran hard against Pocahontas up here in MA. Brilliant man! Someone had to step up with
indisputable proof and stop this charade now! OT: Watched a bit of Tucker Carlson
tonight...the bosses got to him. He's talking about senile Biden's virus response. No Tucker,
President Trump is in charge.
I agree! Tucker was singing the praises of FNC several nights ago about their truth
telling...what garbage! Tucker can go too with FNC, I'm done with them!
I read an email on the laptop from Tucker to Hunter the day after he said that on his
show. It was just thanking Hunter for writing a letter of recommendation to Georgetown for
someone. Nothing bad, but Tucker would not touch the photos on the laptop of incest with
underage family members.
"... ...BIDEN, SPEAKING DURING SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: Within 100 days, I'm going to send to the United States Congress a pathway to citizenship for over 11 million undocumented people. And all of those so-called dreamers, those DACA kids, they're going to be immediately certified again to be able to stay in this country and put on a path to citizenship. ..."
This is a corporate takeover of the country. Joe Biden's transition advisers include
executives from Uber, Visa, Capital One, Airbnb, Amazon, the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation and the
nonprofit run by Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Are you surprised? No, you're not.
...According to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal, at least 40 members of the Biden
transition team announced earlier this week either were or are registered lobbyists. You won't
be shocked to learn that the government of China looks on at all this and is highly pleased. A
weak, divided America obsessed with narcissistic identity politics is good for them and very
different from them.
... Joe Biden has announced that as president he will not deport a single illegal alien from
this country in his first 100 days. It doesn't matter who they are, it doesn't matter what
they've done. It doesn't matter whether they were convicted of crimes such as rape and murder
or not. Literally, they can all stay here.
This is great news if you're Silicon Valley. The tech companies wanted this because they
rely on cheap labor. But for the rest of us, what's the upside exactly? By the way, if you live
anywhere along the U.S.-Mexico border, good luck to you. Also, don't bother locking your doors
or pining for a border wall or thinking that immigration restrictions might improve your
life.
...BIDEN, SPEAKING DURING SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: Within 100 days, I'm going to send
to the United States Congress a pathway to citizenship for over 11 million undocumented people.
And all of those so-called dreamers, those DACA kids, they're going to be immediately certified
again to be able to stay in this country and put on a path to citizenship.
TUCKER CARLSON PROVIDES COMPLETE TOTAL PROOF OF WIDESPREAD DEMOCRAT VOTE FRAUD THAT STOLE
THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Paul Craig Roberts
Tucker Carlson is the ONLY honest media figure in the United States. No wonder the
presstitutes want him arrested. I am concerned that the criminal Hillary DNC will have him
assassinated. You are simply not permitted to tell the truth in the United States. To tell the
truth in the American media is a capital offense.
This had to be posted on Parler because Twitter, FaceBook, and YouTube will not permit the
Fox News report on Vote Theft to be posted. What more evidence do you need that there is a
conspiracy to steal the presidential election from Trump? If the treasonous and criminal
Democrats get away with their coup against democracy, the United States is finished as a
country. No Trump voter will ever again think of the US as his/her country.
The Dem/ Main Stream Media Complex is infuriated that President Donald J. Trump will not
concede the 2020 election. This is a Sign of Contradiction that he is
doing the right thing. This does not yet mean that Trump won enough votes in key states, as
Tucker Carlson has noted, but we also can't say with confidence that Trump lost [ Tucker
Carlson Says There's Not Enough Fraud to Change Election Results, by Jacob
Jarvis, Newsweek, November 10, 2020]. And here appears to be solid evidence that there
was at least some wrongdoing -- far more so than for the Russia Hoax that paralyzed
Trump's Administration for three years. The same neoconservatives who are demanding Trump
concede would be insisting the U.S, invade another country to "bring democracy" if we saw its
government behaving this way. Ultimately, the entire battle is about who is sovereign in this
country -- American citizens or the Dem/ MSM complex, including Big Tech oligarchs. They
ensured it was not a "free and fair" election, and President Trump should never concede.
Let's consider the almost hysterical fury from the MSM telling us that President Trump has a
duty to admit defeat because Biden "won."
In fact, of course President Trump isn't doing anything illegal. No one has won or lost.
Senate Mitch McConnell may be afraid to defy Trump because he doesn't want to lose the two
Senate seats in
Georgia and thus, his status as Majority Leader. But he's absolutely right when he says
that the Electoral College determines the winner and, until that happens, "anyone who is
running for office can exhaust concerns" [ Mitch McConnell says Electoral College will determine 2020 election, by Lisa
Mascaro, Fox6 Milwaukee, November 10, 2020]. The Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore
that settled the 2000 election didn't come to an end until December 12, 2000.
Media outlets "declaring" the winner have no legal significance, especially when their
projections seem to be based on polls that have proven to be inaccurate [ Professional
pollsters blew it again in 2020. Why?b y Matthew Rozsa, Salon, November
4, 2020].
As of this writing, Arizona, Alaska, Pennsylvania, Georgia are all undecided. North Carolina
was just called for Trump
(and underwhelming Chamber of Commerce GOP senator Thom Tills managed to win a narrow victory
over Democratic challenger Cal Cunningham [ Cal
Cunningham concedes to Thom Tills in North Carolina Senate race, by Evie
Fordham, Fox News, November 10, 2020]). Joe Biden's lead in Arizona is narrow and
shrinking dangerously.
President Trump has a strong legal case in the key state of Pennsylvania, where it appears
that the state Supreme Court simply created a new power to count votes that arrived
after election day. The U.S. Supreme Court (without Amy Coney Barrett) deadlocked over
this, but the Trump campaign will almost certainly take this case to SCOTUS again [ Byron
York's Daily Memo: The election lawsuit Trump should win, by Byron York, Washington
Examiner, November 10, 2020]. As Senator Ted Cruz has said, there has thus far not been a
"comprehensive presentation of evidence" [ Ted Cruz: Trump Election Fraud Allegations Will Be Resolved In Court, Not By Persuading You
Or Me, by Tim Hains, RealClearPolitics, November 10, 2020]. Republican
leaders in Pennsylvania have already called for a recount "in any counties where state law was
broken" [ Senate Co-Sponsorship Memoranda, Pennsylvania State Senate, November 6,
2020].
However, there are more fundamental issues at stake. Thanks to the Sem/ MSM complex's
campaign of COVID-19 hysteria, the country engaged in a massive experiment with mail-in voting
[ Are We Sure About All Those Mail-in Ballots, by Josh Hammer, The American
Mind, November 10, 2020]. Different state requirements add to the confusion. There have
been specific claims of outright fraud, notably the inclusion of dead people on the voter
rolls, reports that local officials gave voters instructions that would invalidate their
ballots, and open theft of ballots [ On Electoral Fraud in
2020, by Pedro Gonzalez, American Greatness, November 9, 2020].
Critically, in several of the states where President Trump is launching legal challenges, the
common factor is a company called Dominion Voting Systems. In one proven case, a "glitch" in
its system awarded 6,000 votes to Joe Biden rather than President Trump [ Republicans expand probe into Dominion Voting Systems after Michigan counting snafu, by Zachary Halaschak and Emily Larsen, Washington Examiner, November 8, 2020].
One former Deputy Attorney General for Michigan says counters in Detroit outright provided
fraudulent ballots to non-voters [ Ex-Michigan Deputy Attorney General Alleges Detroit Counters Assigned Fraudulent Ballots To
Non-Voters, by Kyle Olson, Breitbart, November 9, 2020].
The truth or falsity of these claims must be shown in court. Of course, anti-Trump groups
are trying to prevent any legal challenges by individually targeting the law firm that
President Trump is using [ Inside the
Lincoln Project's new campaign targeting Trump's law firm, by Greg Sargent,
Washington Post, November 10, 2020]. No one seems to have considered that such a
strategy ensures that most Trump supporters will -- correctly -- consider a Biden
Administration utterly illegitimate.
Twitter and other social networking oligopolists are currently putting their thumb on the
scale by censoring posts or by claiming there are "election integrity" issues with posts they
dislike, even posts by President Trump himself [ Tucker Carlson: Big Tech Took Part in 'One of the Worst Forms of Election Tampering, by Mary Chastain, Legal Insurrection, November 10, 2020].
This control of information both before and after the election renders democracy pointless.
If Tech oligarchs can control what the voters see and hear, we might as well put them in charge
and dispense with Election Day altogether. It would be simpler and less time consuming than
going through a farce where both the exchange of information before an election and tabulating
of votes on Election Day itself are apparently too much for the world's sole superpower.
If this is the way the system works, then, as President Trump has been claiming for years,
it is "rigged" and illegitimate. If this is how it is going to be, whatever the Regime on the
Potomac says in future should be considered as foreign to the Historic American Nation as
governments based out of Brussels, Moscow, or Beijing.
Indeed, one can't help but wonder whether the historic American nation would fare better
under outright foreign occupation than a hostile elite which considers itself our rulers and
treats us with open contempt, if not hatred.
President Trump and outraged Republicans do have a card to play even if all the legal
challenges fail. State legislatures must certify a state's electors before the College can vote
for the next president. If state delegations believe the vote has been corrupted, they can send
their own competing slate of electors [ Donald
Trump's Stealthy Road to Victory, by Graham Allison, National Interest,
November 6, 2020].
President Trump also has powers that he can use to change the political environment,
especially by destroying hostile institutions and declassifying documents that the Deep State
really doesn't want to be made public [ Reflections on the late
election, by Curtis Yarvin, Gray Mirror, November 8, 2020].
If a rigged system is going to take President Trump down, he can take it down with him.
Arguably, if President Trump had the will to do something like that, he would not be in this
mess. He did not bring Big Tech to heel. He did not ensure that the bureaucracy was filled with
people loyal to him. He kept hiring people who were his enemies and then acted surprised when
he was rewarded with treachery. He governed like a conventional Republican while talking like a
nationalist, the worst of both worlds [ The Tragedy of Trump, by Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, November 16, 2018].
Nonetheless, with his back to the wall, Trump can and should fight. Even now, he has a
popular movement behind him -- all he needs to do is lead them against the System that they
thought they had defeated in 2016.
The reason I want to see Trump win is to see if anyone like Brennan or Comey end up in
jail. If not then it's proof this is all smoke and mirrors on behalf of the usual
suspects.
A new issue has turned up in Pennsylvania putting another 100,000+ ballots in line for
exclusion: (1)
Over 51,000 ballots were marked as returned just a day after they were sent out -- an
extraordinary speed, given U.S. Postal Service (USPS) delivery times, while nearly 35,000
were returned on the same day they were mailed out. Another more than 23,000 have a return
date earlier than the sent date. More than 9,000 have no sent date.
"Since October 1, the average time of delivery for First-Class Mail, including ballots,
was 2.5 days," USPS said in an Oct. 29 release.
Impossible and improbable return dates indicate there's something wrong with either the
database or the ballots.
Objective facts show that Trump won Pennsylvania.
-- Will the system work?
-- Or, will the Blue Coup cause the Constitution to collapse?
Why should he concede when he won the elections? In fact, Dem crazy policies and senile
half-dead nominee resulted in them losing votes. Apparently, they believed their own lies,
taking their own psyop "polls" at face value. Massive fraud needed to push their corpse ahead
was so crude and ham-handed because it was perpetrated in a hurry. If the fraud stands, the
US is kaput. If Trump succeeds in insisting on real results, the US would keep sliding down
slowly. Either way, the direction is down, the only difference is the speed.
@Verymuchalive US elections because you back both horses. It doesn't matter about where
the "Jewish" vote goes. It's not about ordinary Jews. It's the Zionist power structure and
the big money: Adelson for the Repubs, Saban for the Dems = both bases covered.
Even a not sufficiently Zionist like Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish himself, is blocked
because he's not subservient enough to be a minion and horror of horrors, supports a few
basic Palestinian human rights and a more balanced policy.
It's easy. They only have to cover 2 bases because there are no viable 3rd parties nor
will there ever be under this system, nor is it a direct vote anyway. There will be no change
as long as this duopoly persists.
I absolutely agree with this author's conclusion, the president should fight.
Absolutely, he won the elections. However, he thinks that the fight is for him, but in
reality it is for the American electoral system in particular and the whole political system
in general. If this obvious fraud is allowed to stand, the Empire is doomed. If true result
is recovered, the slide down would be slow.
If those clever wascally Ds so easily rigged the Prez race for Joey Depends, then why
didn't those same clever wascally Ds also rig a few more Senatorial races and capture the
Congress?
@nsa ad to manufacture hundreds of thousands in each swing state. Apparently, the supply
of the cheaters was insufficient, and dishonest poll workers were available only in several
places (hence the turnout in some places went way above 100%). Sloppy job. Next time they
might prepare better. Say, they had more time manufacturing all those mail-in ballots from
dead people (naturally, all dead people voted for half-corpse). If mail-in voting remains on
the books next time, I expect a lot stronger turnout among the dead.
A single frog is worth more than Joey Depends and Poor Widdle Donnie put together
Now, that is true, but the frog was not on the ballot. It could have won.
The presidential
election was on Tuesday and we still don't know the outcome. If you followed the Florida
recount 20 years ago, you probably assume you've got some idea of how this will play out.
Officials in contested states will carefully count all the available votes, supervised by
bipartisan observers from both campaigns, to reassure all of us it's on the level. If they find
irregularities or they see questions of fraud, we'll all get to learn exactly what those
allegations are and how they were resolved. That's what we did in 2000. Remember hanging chads?
We put them on TV so people could see the ballots for themselves.
In the end, the dispute between Al Gore and George W. Bush continued all the way to the
Supreme Court. It took 36 days to resolve and every one of those days, if you remember them,
seemed like a month. That process was excruciating, it required patience and calm, but in the
end, it was well worth it.
For the record, the news organizations in this country covered every moment of it. No one in
any newsroom in America even considered censoring information about what was happening. That
would have been regarded as grotesque and immoral. Then, as now, almost everyone in the media
was a partisan Democrat. But in 2000, they understood that preserving the public's faith in the
system was more important than getting Al Gore or anyone else into the White House. So they
pushed for openness and transparency in the process, and thank God they did.
A lot has changed over two decades. It's entirely possible now that someday soon the news
media will decide to shut this election down. Believe it or not, they effectively have the
power to do that. Let's say officials in Philadelphia produce a large number of newly counted
votes. The Pennsylvania secretary of state hastily ratifies them, puts a seal of approval on
them and then declares Joe Biden the winner.
Winning Pennsylvania would put Joe Biden over the threshold of 270 electoral votes, so Joe
Biden is now the president-elect. But how many of the 69 million Americans who voted for Donald
Trump this week would believe that and accept it at this point? Not very many. Not that anyone
cares, and of course, the fact that no one cares is the reason they voted for Donald Trump in
the first place.
I think Tucker Carlson is wrong. I believe there are enough fraudulent votes to
change the result -- if the recount is done honestly. WI, MI, GA, PA could all flip, even AZ
and NV. The DNC is run by End Justifies Means people who believe everything they do is
justified due to Holocaust, Slavery, yada yada.
MSM is working hard to try to make this a foregone conclusion. Each day we hear about
Biden this Biden that, Biden's Transition Team, Biden's New Cabinet, Biden's Foreign Policy,
Biden's Trade policy Instead of feeling discouraged, I hope this actually gets Trump and his
lawyers fired up to push for recounts. He just filed a new lawsuit in MI. There is no reason
why the recounts have not started in WI, GA and PA. It's total BS. The longer this drags on,
the harder it'll be to overturn the results. They need to press on.
Going forward the GOP needs to push hard for a Voting Integrity Act that mandates all
voter registration must be approved by social security office to verify citizenship status. I
suspect a high number of voters esp. in blue states like CA and WA are non-citizens, from
tens of thousands to millions, since the DMV asks everyone to register to vote and never
check their citizenship status. In WA the ballot used to ask people to confirm they are US
citizens before signing the ballot with indication of fines/jail time for non-citizens who
vote, but they've removed that warning entirely in all ballots since 2016.
The Voting Integrity Act should include a mass audit of the voter registration in every
state, with a national database that detects people who are registered to vote in more than
one state. Even if Trump doesn't prevail due to mass cheating in the recounts, the GOP needs
to put this Voting Integrity Act in place or they will never win another election.
Also, Mayor Giuliani has claimed mamy Cases of Fraud and is Filing Lawsuits as Trump's
Lawyer.
Also, Tucker Carlson has also claimed that his Team have verified a good number of
Reported Incidents.
Statistical Analyses Claimants are coming forward as well.
Those who claim that there were none or not enough - including you, B - need to read
around a bit more and wait before making presumptive assessments when we don't have All the
Claim Cases, related Data, and Votes Affected.
Personally, I've seen enough to believe this Election is Compromised. Dominion are
allegedly vested by the Pelosis (which alone raise a few Red Flags for a RICO
Investigation).
It may be Prudent to Not only Hold Audits; but Redo the Federal Election Seats (WH and
Congress) again with Federal Ballots Monitored by Federal Personnel.
Biden should have been sent to Bethesda/Walter Reed/Hopkins for an Alzheimer's/Dementia
Review Panel (put my Own Mother through the Drill every several years prior to her going to
her Nursing Home); and Hunter should have been Arrested for Crack/Child Molestation while
being further investigated for MoneyLaundering/RICO with Pops.
Giuliani is Confident Here As Well. One thing for Certain, B, is that Giuliani has an
Outstanding Reputation as a Federal Prosecutor; and Does. Not. Bπ££$#!+.
Around. When it comes to Criminal Cases.
I'll rely on Giuliani's Assessments more than anyone else's on this Matter.
Look either way the Banker Oligarchs win. Why fight over the scraps, neither one party or
leader represents the little guy (defined these days as those with less than 100m USD in
assets).
A new issue has turned up in Pennsylvania putting another 100,000+ ballots in line for
exclusion: (1)
Over 51,000 ballots were marked as returned just a day after they were sent out -- an
extraordinary speed, given U.S. Postal Service (USPS) delivery times, while nearly 35,000
were returned on the same day they were mailed out. Another more than 23,000 have a return
date earlier than the sent date. More than 9,000 have no sent date.
"Since October 1, the average time of delivery for First-Class Mail, including ballots,
was 2.5 days," USPS said in an Oct. 29 release.
Impossible and improbable return dates indicate there's something wrong with either the
database or the ballots.
Objective facts show that Trump won Pennsylvania.
-- Will the system work?
-- Or, will the Blue Coup cause the Constitution to collapse?
In today's episode of America's Next Zionist President, we have an insider giving us all
an accurate description of our beloved US constitutional republic and democracy which we must
fight to protect:
For rational people, the media's outlandish bias and presumptive misinformation will not
end well for their handlers. True, in a fake new soylent green economy, businesses don't need
customers and politicians don't need constituents – you can just manufacture them, and
pay yourself with your own money by decree. But reality has a way of eventually creeping in
(as you gag on your fake beyond meat burger).
The reality here is that we need to take a step back from the media frenzy and recognize
rule of law. Concession cannot even be legally possible for several weeks as it stands today.
And the only excuse for Biden falsely claiming victory is that he is too senile to observe
Constitutional law.
The Don is done. Lindsey and Mitch and their Dem co-conspirators will be thrilled to get
back to business as usual. Motives aside he did change things a bit in between hiring and
firing everyone in sight.
To much of a rocky ride Washington doesn't like that no criminal enterprise does.
Don't cry for Don he'll bounce back this is a man who lost three casinos then went on to
hawking steaks and finally ended up as President. A real life 21st. century Jack Armstrong.
He can write a book play some golf, Melania can go on doing her Eva Gabor impersonation and
Don Jr. and Eric can do whatever it is they do. And as for us we're all on a slow boat to
China most likely to work at one of those Sino-Ivanka Fashion Inc. factories.
Big Brother has spoken. Even Fox News has kicked Trump's ass into the shithole and called
the election for Biden. Tucker Carlson may also be looking for the exit or he has been
instructed to change his tune if he wants to keep his job which in all likelihood he will
comply. Trump lovers and sympathisers better face up to the bitter reality and take to the
hill to prepare a defense against brutal persecution by their enemies who will come after
them with unimaginable passion right after Jan 20, 2021. They already have THE LIST and names
are being added to it fast and furious. Bread and circus, people!
Come on, get real. American voters were presented with two donkeys and puppets of Israel
as candidates. Millions voted for one or the other of two donkeys both of whom dance to the
beat of Jewish drums. Come to think about it, which American president in recent memory has
not outfawned his predecessor on Israel? Jewish power owns us. End of.
Tucker Carlson said, " At this stage , the fraud that we can confirm does not
seem to be enough to alter the election result." That's a far cry from, "There's not
enough fraud to change the election results." Newsweek's paraphrasing is, therefore, itself
fraudulent and part of the gigantic Democrat gaslighting campaign to convince the nation Joe
Biden is the legitimate winner. It should not be repeated here without the actual quote and a
caveat.
This also goes to the wider issue of trying to be reasonable and fair when dealing with
Democrat cockroaches who are anything but. They will unfailingly distort measured and
diplomatic language. It's best to make no concessions to them.
I don't give a rat's butt about trump or biden. As far as I'm concerned they'll always be
two draft dodger/shirkers and nothing more. Interesting how both of them hid in college in
the 60's and refused to serve as privates in the army but think they should be able to have
the power to send men in harms way.
Actually, the Zionists and the Jewish vote generally were overwhelmingly for Biden. They
were very hostile to Trump. Why would they do this if Trump were a Zionist minion ? Because
he's not.
Trump wants to normalise relations with Russia and pull US troops out of the Middle East,
including Syria. These moves are very much opposed to Zionist aims and the interests of
Israel. Unsurprisingly, Netanyahu was very quick to recognise Biden as the winner. That's
because Biden really is a Zionist minion.
@Roacheforque every TDS normie discussed it like it had a real chance of occurring
despite not having thought out how exactly how such a ridiculous event would take place on a
practical level. Added to which the 'homey' comments coming from diaper Bill and Kameltoe
Harris have a overly saccharine flavour to them, more likely scripted with great thought put
in as opposed to spontaneous quotes from some gosh darn nice people who want to heal the
nation such that anyone trying to prevent them from doing so necessarily must be evil.
If the Zerohedge article is accurate, thank you for posting it. If it has weaknesses
perhaps some poster could point them out. It is the most sane thing that I have read on the
topic since the 3rd.
No Surrender! President Trump Should Not Concede -- No Matter What
Sure just like Hillary should not have conceded in 2016, when they had strong evidence of
electronic vote rigging.
Look either way the Banker Oligarchs win. Why fight over the scraps, neither one party or
leader represents the little guy (defined these days as those with less than 100m USD in
assets).
The Zio Banking elite wins hands down right now Biden or Trump. At least Biden might keep
some social services like Soc Sec, Medicare, and Obama Care!!!! Yes the public deserves to
get something for paying all these taxes not just the Oligarchial super rich who were openly
looting the Fed budget under Trump. The unthinking and unemployed working/middle class,
especially the Whites amongst them seem to put their crisis of identity ahead of their well
being. Daaah.
What did Trump (led by his handlers Kushner/Ivanka) do for the little guy except fill
their heads with racial antagonisms and anti-government innuendo (some true but most false).
For sure he fulfilled every Zio-Israeli fantasy at the expense of US interests. Yes, no
problem for the unquestioning MAGA types, but where did he lead America to, to the precipice
of a pending national disaster?
So stop tearing down the constitutional republic, preserve what the general public still
has left to protect their individual rights and economic well being. Obviously the elite is
pushing for civil unrest so they can bring on a military and dictatorial regime, where all
sorts of new control straps can be implemented.
Kirkpatrick you are shameful for stoking the embers of civil unrest! Nobody is calling for
unity and statesmen like leadership these days on RU report. Biden is looking much more
leader like than cry baby Trump. Trump as you like to say -- -- -- -- – YOUR
FIRED!!!!!Man-up and get out and move on and get a life.
Only idiots and fools still want to carry Fake and Slimy Politicians on top of their
shoulders. Find some brains and lobby for your own interests, no politician in this system
will work for you unless forced to by their electorate.
[Reflections on the late election, by Curtis Yarvin, Gray Mirror, November 8, 2020].
Because I began my journey to 'red-pilled' awareness thanks to Curtis 'Mencius Moldbug'
Yarvin, I naturally clicked on the link and read his piece. One has travelled far since
reading his 'Unqualified Reservations' blog way back on 2007-08, and I now agree with much of
Andrew Joyce's recent critique of Yarvin ( https://www.unz.com/article/jews-in-the-cathedral-a-response-to-curtis-yarvin/
)
However, I frequently chuckled while reading Yarvin's piece linked by James Kirkpatrick,
and marvelled anew at the quality and brilliance of his insights. In this regard it rather
took me back in time twelve or so years.
A sample or two:
After describing how Trump could legally take full and absolute personal power for the
length of his second term, Yarvin points out that what is required amounts to nothing less
than 'regime change', and states that 'A true regime change must be a revolution in every
sense of the word Of course, since the right is order and the left is chaos, the left-wing
revolution is a butcher and the right-wing revolution is a surgeon. If ours needs to keep its
bandages on for a few days, theirs can barely be sold as hamburger. And even before her
stitches are out, America feels and looks better than ever.'
He goes on:
'One lesson that should be appreciated by all sides in all civic conflicts is that force
is not another word for violence. Force is the opposite of violence. Violence is bad, and
force is good. Violence is chaos, and force is order. Violence is slow and force is fast.
'If you can win by force, what are you waiting for? Do it immediately. If you can't win
without violence, you probably can't win at all, and you probably shouldn't try. Much
bloodshed could be saved if all young persons were educated with these simple and timeless
Machiavellian principles'.
And earlier, he explains the role of elections in a 'democracy' as being to assess the
power of each side's support, and that this power ought to reflect actual physical strength
and or courage, remarking:
'The fundamental purpose of a democratic election is to test the strength of the sides in
a civil conflict, without anyone actually getting hurt. The majority wins because the
strongest side would win. Better to measure that by counting heads, than knocking heads; and
counting heads produces a reasonable guess as to who would win a head-knocking contest. Same
outcome, fewer concussions: a Pareto optimization.
'But this guess is much better if it actually measures humans who are both willing and
able to walk down the street and show up. Anyone who cannot show up at the booth is unlikely
to show up for the civil war. This is one of many reasons that an in-person election is a
more accurate election. (If voters could be qualified by physique, it would be even more
accurate.)
'My sense is that in many urban communities, voting by proxy in some sense is the norm.
The people whose names are on the ballots really exist; and almost all of them actually did
support China Joe. Or at least, preferred him. The extent to which they perform any tangible
political action, including physically going to the booth, is very low; so is their
engagement with the political system. The demand for records of their engagement is very
high, because each such datum cancels out some huge, heavily-armed redneck with a bass
boat.'
Your obsession with Jews is really misplaced here. As soon as anyone starts blaming the
Jews, that person has immediately branded himself unfit for further comment.
Trump had four years to do something about election fraud. Didn't do a thing. Kinda funny
Trump and those Senator Georgians that sucked up to blacks thought blacks would actually vote
for them. Georgia and trump lost! Maybe taught them a lesson! I doubt it. Georgia has been
overrun with Hispanics and absolutely flooded with H-1B Indians for years too . The GOP has
committed suicide and taken the rest of America down with it. But hey, they made a few bucks
doing it! Maybe trump can do another publicity stunt with a rapper to save his campaign.
The problems with the election are just a mirror image of the problems with this country.
Fake money, fake border, fake pandemic, fake scholarship, fake news, fake food, fake votes.
Did I miss anything?
@TheTrumanShow ll decide. and failing that, the congress shall decide.. If a candidate
interferes with that constitutional process, changes or alters it to suit a personal
circumstance, he or she invites the crowd operated guillotine, i fear.
I agree the election process in many states is subject to corruption.. but Trump had four
years to change that process. like most things he did not provide the leadership needed to
get the masses to help him do just that.. Now Trump complains ..to the very people who
expected more from him .. and seeks to circumvent their intentions. I hope not?
I learned long ago: the pilot that does not pay the mechanic, pays the undertaker, when
the engine quits at 15000 feet.
I am an Australian living in an Australian country town. My email address is recognisably
Australian. I have never lived in the US. I have never even been there in fact.
Yet I have been inundated with election propaganda from the Democrats (from the other side
nary a peep).
Recently an organisation that goes under the name "Fight for Reform"invited me, as a "Top
Democrat in your state", to sign a card to congratulate "Joe and Kamala" testyifying that I
too had been crying "tears of joy" about their election.
When I didn't react I was asked, virtually the day after, why I hadn't done so. They were
"running low on support from"registered Democrats" "so please
Well, if you think that Biden and Harris will serve Israel any less than Trump, then you
should be willing to purchase my Jewless estate of 500,000 acres in NY, which comes with 6000
square foot fully restored 19th century house, a 2500 square foot guest house, and a horse
barn. It also comes with both a real pond and a ce- ment pond. I'm asking only
$600,000. It's a steal of a bargain.
In other words, according to you, the Jews as individuals, organizations, or as a people
may never be blamed for anything. Methinks it is YOU wearing the brand that says "unfit for
further comment".
Ultimately, the entire battle is about who is sovereign in this country -- American
citizens or
LOL! I haven't seen the words "sovereignty" and "American people" in the same sentence for
quite some time. Unfortunately, this phenomenon is not simply restricted to American people,
as it applies to all peoples of the West.
We must muster the will to shift this balance of power.
Whining about jail time over tax laws is why Trump has to fight? He can tell us
deplorables it is for us. Its not. It will be about preserving his empire. As much as I want
the corrupt PA democrats to finally get theirs in this legal process, I support Trump in his
fight for himself. If you twerps are allowed to destroy someone like a President Trump, just
imagine what you will do to a mere lunch lady for using the wrong pronoun. Please for once in
your miserable life admit your side is not made up of good people but rather a whole bunch of
totalitarian dictatorial wannabes. Scarily you keep moving the goalposts of your endgame
because every victory is never enough to satiate the rumble in your hollow souls.
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her website
is here and you can follow her on
Twitter @caitoz
'Trump
derangement syndrome' didn't come from Trump. It came from abusive media trying to spin the
evils of his presidency as somehow worse than any other US president's.
The word "coup" is being thrown about in American liberal media today, not because US
liberals suddenly became uncomfortable with the fact that their nation constantly stages coups
and topples governments around the world as a matter of routine policy, but because they are
all talking about (you guessed it) Donald Trump.
To be clear, none of the high-powered influencers who have been promoting the use of this
word actually believe there is any possibility that Donald Trump will somehow remain in office
after January of next year when he loses his legal appeals against the official results of the
election, which would be the thing that a coup is. There is no means or institutional support
through which the sitting president could accomplish such a thing. This is not a coup, it's a
glorified temper tantrum. Trump will leave office at the appointed time.
The establishment narrative managers are not terrifying their audiences with this word
because they believe there is any danger of a coup actually happening. They are doing it
because it's their last chance to use Trump to psychologically abuse their audiences for
clicks.
... ... ...
It is not Trump himself who's been making people feel terrified of a tyrannical Russian
agent ending democracy in America and ruling with an iron fist, it is years of shrieking,
hysterical coverage about Trump from the mass media.
Without all the deranged and persistent fearmongering, driven by a disdain for Trump's
unrefined narrative management
style and an insatiable hunger for ratings and clicks, it would never have occurred to
Americans that they should be more terrified of this president than of any other sh***y
Reaganite Republican. The Russian collusion narrative which dominated most of Trump's
presidency
turned out tobe essentially
nothing . The concentration camps, millions of deportations and armed militias driving
non-whites out of the country that we were promised never came; he never even
came anywhere close to Obama's deportation numbers and his
support from minorities actually went up. He hasn't been any more warlike than his
predecessors overall, and by some measures arguably less so. Most Americans actually reported that
their lives had improved over Trump's term before the pandemic hit.
If people had just been given raw information about Trump's presidency, they would have seen
a lot of bad things, but things that are bad in the same way all the horrible aspects of the
most destructive government on earth are bad. They wouldn't have known to be horrified and
anxious and have headaches and irritable bowel syndrome. They would have handled themselves in
about the same way they always handled themselves during the administration of a president they
didn't like.
Instead, they were psychologically terrorized. Made frightened, sick and traumatized by mass
media pundits who only care about ratings and clicks, as was made clear when CBS chief Les
Moonves famously
said that Trump is bad for America but great for CBS. Dragged through years of Russia
hysteria and Trump hysteria with any excuse to spin Trump's presidency as a remarkable
departure from norms, when in reality it was anything but. It was a fairly conventional
Republican presidency.
In reality, though most of them probably did not realize it, this is what Americans were
actually voting against when they turned out in record numbers to cast their votes. Not against
Trump, but against this continued psychological abuse they've been suffering both directly and
indirectly from the mass media. Against being bashed in the face by shrieking, hysterical
bull***t that hurts their bodies and makes them feel crazy, and against the unpleasantness of
having to interact with stressed-out compatriots who haven't been putting up well with the
abuse.
It wasn't a "Get him out" vote, it was a "Make it stop" vote.
Meanwhile, another pernicious effect of making Trump seem uniquely horrible has been
retroactively making his predecessors seem nice by comparison, which is why George W Bush now
enjoys majority support among Democrats
after years of unpopularity. Their depravity is hidden behind a media-generated wall labeled
"NOT TRUMP" . And when Biden steps into office, his depravity will be hidden from view in the
same way, neutering all mainstream opposition to his most deadly and dangerous
actions .
The First Rule , 5 hours ago
I certainly hope this isn't True. You should never surrender to Evil.
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.
Did anybody vote FOR Biden or Harris?
The DemonRats have the Deep State covering, aiding and abetting their insurrection. As we
have seen, the stupid white people support the peaceful protests and are played like a violin
by the professional agitators likely trained by the CIA & FBI. The BLM aristocracy claims
to be "trained Marxists". Trained by whom? Nobody asks.
The cops are used like trained dogs to attack everyone who opposes the BLM/Antifa
sanctioned riots to the point where citizens are afraid of the cops and the BLM/Antifa people
use the cops for target practice, and the cops just take it. Nobody really respects the FBI
or the cops anymore.
Then there is the constant 24/7 drum beat of propaganda from the MSM and social media
driving people crazy.
Welcome to the world of Kamala Pelosi.
With Trump gone, who will they hate next?
DemonRats: The Party of Lies & HATE
Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of
your own choosing.
- Orwell
archon , 2 hours ago
Every time Maddow speaks she reminds me that we're living in clownworld. Lets not forget
this is coming from people who spent the last four years attempting their own coup.
cankles' server , 4 hours ago
I'm not sure if twitter deleted but here's the youtube link
Rubert's media empire was just a stepping stone for gigs like a sitting board of director
with Genie Oil. Even with that Fox News has always been neocon. If most conservative types
weren't enamored with supporting the troops, who will be just like the cops in supporting the
establishment in any civil war, then they would have known Fox News was controlled opposition
for the deep state.
Rupert Murdoch's heirs are #NeverTrump Libtards. They have been systematically
installing SJW Globalists for some time. The day-to-day programming has flipped to Fake
Stream Media propaganda. It is no surprise that they went full TDS for election coverage.
The above link will provide you with a FREE KlowdTV subscription to OAN and eleven other
channels for the remainder of 2020. Easy to do, two quick steps. DUMP FOX! Pass it on.
Tucker Carlson may also be looking for the exit or he has been instructed to change his
tune if he wants to keep his job which in all likelihood he will comply.
Yes, Carlson's program last night was decidedly more milquetoast than the night before.
His choice of topics was much more mundane. Perhaps he has gotten the word.
Tucker Carlson is toeing the Fox editorial line by claiming not enough fraudulent votes to
change the outcome. The only question is how was he coerced into making this statement -- was
it the carrot or the stick? Both? The stick would be he gets fired from Fox. The carrot would
be he gets major pay raise, promotion, or even getting help set up as front runner for
2024.
TC is no longer to be trusted. I have felt that about him for some time as his website
Daily Caller started toeing the Zionist line with increasing hostility towards China this
past year. He's now just controlled opposition like Stephen Miller, Breitbart.
Note that Carlson did NOT say, as the article falsely states, "Tucker Carlson Says There's
Not Enough Fraud to Change Election Results", he said:
At this stage, the fraud that we can confirm does not seem to be enough to alter the
election result . We should be honest and tell you that. Of course, that could change,"
he said, on his Fox News show Tucker Carlson Tonight.
I believe Carlson will spotlight the fraud claims on his program tonight.
By C. J. Hopkins , award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His dystopian novel, ' Zone 23 ', is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. His essays and other works can be found at,
and he can be reached via, cjhopkins.com
or consentfactory.org . OK, so,
that was not cool. For one terrifying moment there, it actually looked like GloboCap was going
to let Russian-Asset Hitler win.
Hour after hour on election night, states on the map kept turning red, or pink, or some
distinctly non-blue color. Wisconsin Michigan Georgia Florida. It could not be happening, and
yet it was. What other explanation was there? The Russians were stealing the election
again!
But, of course, GloboCap was just playing with us. They're a bunch of practical jokers,
those GloboCap guys. Naturally, they couldn't resist the chance to wind us up just one more
time.
Seriously, though, while I enjoy a good prank, I still have a number of liberal friends,
many of whom were on the verge of suffering major heart attacks as they breathlessly waited for
the corporate media to confirm that they had successfully voted a literal
dictator out of power. (A few of them suffer from IBS or other gastrointestinal disorders,
so, in light of the current toilet-paper shortage caused by the Return of the Apocalyptic
Plague, toying with them like that was especially cruel.)
But, whatever. That's water under the bridge. The good news is, the nightmare is
over! Literal Hitler and his underground army of Russia-loving white supremacists have been
vanquished! Decency has been restored! Globalization has risen from the
dead!
... ... ..
Meanwhile, the GloboCap propaganda has reached some new post-Orwellian level. After four
long years of "RUSSIA HACKED THE ELECTION!" now, suddenly, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
ELECTION FRAUD IN THE USA!"
That's right, once again, millions of liberals, like that scene in ' 1984' where the
Party switches official enemies right in the middle of the Hate-Week speech, have been ordered
to radically reverse their "reality," and hysterically deny the existence of the very
thing they have been hysterically alleging for four solid years and they are actually doing
it!
... ... ///
Marian1637 7 hours ago
I can not comprehend
that democrats do not blame Putin for Biden winning!
Reilly 3 hours ago
Very funny, bravo!
Nothing like a bit of slapstick, with a dose of reality also in the middle of a waking
nightmare about to happen. ;))
DeoGratias 4 hours ago
One correction : it is not GloboCap it is
GloboComs. The objective of communism is to create two classes of a society : rulers and
workers. Thus GloboCaps are GloboComs.
Winter7Mute 5 hours ago
A reliable way to make people
believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished
from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact. I'm not even
sure if most journalists or reporters know what their even talking about, when writing these
articles.
Vidarr Kerr 5 hours ago
There is such a thing as Too Much Sarcasm.
EarthBotV2 Vidarr Kerr 4 hours ago
I disagree. The liberazi "thinks" with the gut -- as in "What does your gut tell you?"...
"... But while they now have the power, globalists do not have solutions to the country problems, and the crisis of neoliberalism (which started in 2008) will continue, the far-right nationalism will stay and may even gain strength. This suggests that in 2024 is somebody like Tucker Carlson will lead the ticket. And Tucker is a more dangerous opponent to neoliberal Dems than Trump ever been. "Trumpism without Trump" will live, so to speak. ..."
Interesting piece by Beinart about the obvious question that isn't being asked: Why did
Trump lose? After all he had the advantages of incumbency, until February the stock market was
booming, wages were rising, things were going great.
Answer: because he was not nearly radical enough. Because he was a weak leader who was
captured by the Republican elite (not the other way round). Also (rather ironic this) because
he was and is a terrible negotiater. He continually caved into the likes of Mitch McConnell,
and, well the rest is history.
Question: will 'super Trump' in 4 or 8 years time manage to follow the Eastern European
template and create a genuine populist party? (economically social democratic, particularly
concentrating on pensioners: extremely hostile to immigration, skeptical of environmental
issues, culturally conservative?). If so the future is the Republicans' but it's a big if.
...he was a weak leader who was captured by the Republican elite (not the other way
round). Also (rather ironic this) because he was and is a terrible negotiator. He
continually caved into the likes of Mitch McConnell, and, well the rest is history.
All true. But Biden victory in some ways looks like Catch 22 for neoliberal Dems (Will the
Democrats Ever Make Sense of This Week? – New Republic):
In sum, if the results we have hold, Joe Biden will win the election and preside over a
divided Congress. A chastened and anxious Democratic caucus will continue to hold the
House.
A triumphant Senate Republican caucus will obviously destroy his major legislative
agenda. Biden will assuredly turn to policy by executive action, just as Barack Obama did
late in his legislatively stymied administration.
When he does, Republicans will do all they can to send those actions to a 6–3
conservative Supreme Court Biden will be unable to pack or meaningfully reform.
In defeating Trump, Democrats will have avoided their worst-case scenario. Instead, they
will have won the worst possible Biden victory, a political situation that will be a
nightmare all its own.
Trump, with his "national neoliberalism," was an anomaly in its own right. And such things
do not last long. So this is a kind of "return to normal" -- return to power of the
"internationalist" faction of Oligarchy who is linked to globalization (and constitutes the
majority of the US oligarchy), which was unexpectedly defeated in 2016 and since then foght
tooth and nail for the return to power. And such "normalization" is the most logical outcome
of the 2020 elections and is to be expected.
But while they now have the power, globalists do not have solutions to the country problems,
and the crisis of neoliberalism (which started in 2008) will continue, the far-right
nationalism will stay and may even gain strength. This suggests that in 2024 is somebody like
Tucker Carlson will lead the ticket. And Tucker is a more dangerous opponent to neoliberal
Dems than Trump ever been. "Trumpism without Trump" will live, so to speak.
That may spell troubles for the well-being of the PMC (professional and management class)
to which we all belong.
I would add that the fact that Biden victory legitimized Russia-gate and abuse of their
power by intelligence agencies is also a problem. I suspect that Neo-McCarthyism, in the long
run, might backfire.
Fox News Channel's Tucker Carlson says Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is "happy to sell out his voters with an amnesty deal" after
he suggested finding "common ground" with Democrats on immigration.
During a segment Friday night, Carlson called out Graham -- who just won reelection in South Carolina --
for suggesting to the Senate Republican caucus that their agenda next year could include working with Democrats on amnesty for
11 to 22 million illegal aliens. Carlson asked:
Who's excited to greet our new corporate overlords? Who plans to collaborate, particularly who on the right side, the Republican
side, the side that said it was defending you. Who's happy about all of this? That seems worth keeping track of just so we know
who we're dealing with here.
I was particularly interested in the comments of Lindsey Graham who just won reelection in the state of South Carolina because
conservatives voted for him the people around Trump put a great deal of pressure on Lindsey Graham to send them money, so after
a day or two, he made a great show of sending them $500,000.
But then on the issues that matter, Lindsey Graham immediately ran away from the ideas that he claimed to support and said
that he would be happy to sell out his voters with an amnesty deal, like within hours of the election.
You have a deeply flawed party that refuses to protect its own voters and represent their legitimate interests but they are
the only hope that this country doesn't descend into something unrecognizable. It puts 70 million decent people in a tough spot.
Already, America First conservatives and immigration reformers are
pushing back against Graham's comments.
"The new base of the Republican Party is the American working class, of all races. 'Common ground' on immigration reform is code
for amnesty, and amnesty is an insult to the millions who voted GOP in the election," Bostonians Against Sanctuary Cities President
Lou Murray told Breitbart News.
Currently, there are about 20 million Americans who are jobless or underemployed, mostly due to the Chinese coronavirus crisis,
but all of whom want full-time jobs.
Economists have found that their
job opportunities and wages can be easily diminished by
high immigration levels.
One particular study by the Center for Immigration Studies' Steven Camarota revealed that for every one percent increase in the
immigrant portion of American workers' occupation, their weekly wages are cut by perhaps 0.5 percent. This means the average native-born
American worker today has his weekly wages reduced by potentially 8.75 percent, since
more than 17 percent of the workforce is foreign-born.
The high immigration policy is a boon for giant corporations, real estate investors, Wall Street, university systems, and Big
Agriculture that can cash in on an economy that offers low wages to a flooded U.S. labor market.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder .
To start one's own party is not so easy and outright impossible under the current conditions. If the majority of GOP supports
him then the best course would be to purge and reinvigorate GOP: he should issue a call of action to his supporters and create the
situation when those who use their membership to their own benefits will be forced to step down or cancel the membership. By purging
I don't mean filling it in with 'yes-men': they don't have to be obliged to love Trump; criticism is essential, but these people
have to be able to differentiate between the personal and common when on service. They all have to be loyal to the America First.
If you call yourself 'Republican' then behave like one or choose another party. Such RINOs are materially motivated - they never
couldn't build a career in the Dems Party, especially now, with the Squad; they can't start their own Party - nobody will vote them,
because they'll be the party of traitors and sell-outs. Benny Too Too
deploritarian •
2 days ago
No your corrupt corp fraud media did it to him along with hussein osama's weaponized US agencies! Now go back to watching CNN
lying hate media to get even more stupid
With 25 Million Illegal Aliens in our Country the Democrats have an absolute Lock on this and future Elections by enabling them
to Vote. No Voter ID laws, Sanctuary Cities awarding them all Privileges of US Citizens from Drivers Licenses and access to all welfare
state programs. We are not a Sovereign Nation any longer. ANITFA called it in their Protests "No More BORDERS. Democrats support
this Treasonous Group because it gives them perpetual control of Washington.
Elibar deploritarian •
2 days ago
Better European papers? LOL! I live in Europe and can tell you they're every bit as lying and partisan as the MSM EVERYWHERE!
Practically every European national broadcaster and newspaper gets s o r o s funding, unless you happen to read Hungarian. For instance,
the long defunct Italian Radical party's radio station was close to collapse due to lack of support. They are now back on air admitting
the Hungarian pos gave them almost 400,000 euro if they supported 'immigration'. Read the Beano, it's far more informative.
The GOP will stand with Trump, and Trump will be legally reelected. The Michigan Legislature
just convened a special session to consider the widespread ballot stuffing, technical
"glitches," and other suspicious activity in their election. Everyone in Michigan knows that
Trump and James won that election in a landslide.
The Democrats all stopped counting in numerous states on election night to give them time to
"create" some extra mail-in Biden votes.
The legislature, controlled by the GOP, will invalidate the election if there is evidence of
fraud. They have the Constitutional right to instruct the electors. America will not let the
Democrats steal an election the way they do in Venezuela. THIS JUST IN: The Wisconsin
legislature, controlled also by the GOP, has been called to investigate voter fraud too!!
Milwaukee had an unprecedented 91% return rate, more than any precinct in history by 20 points.
No fraud? We'll see. TruLogix Dennis
Mastin •
2 days ago
Yeah good luck. The work has been done. The ballots removed are long gone. GOP is to blame
this was obvious and they put nothing in place to stop this knowing it was most likely part of
the plan with all of the dems fighting tooth and nail for mail in. Bullet2354 Avery Bierce •
2 days ago • edited
In places like Michigan, more republicans requested Absentee Ballots than Democrats...
And More republicans returned their Absentee Ballots than Democrats....
The 20% could be mostly Biden... but 80-20%. Dems did pick up votes... but so did Trump!
And while I know you feel some republicans did not like Trump... all polling done this year
shows 89-94% of Republicans were supporting Trump - actually much higher than Dem support for
Biden...
- the Trump 'Voter Enthusiasm was off the charts"..... Biden had historic LOW 'voter enthusiasm
most of the summer.
Also - many Bernie People (about 25% in spring) stated they would never vote Democrat after
what the DNC did to Bernie in 2016 and 2020. Maybe the came back to Biden - but I don't know...
I did not see Bernie people rallying for Joe at all.
I think the "ILLEGAL BALLOT ISSUE" IS NOW WHAT THE FOCUS is moving too...
Voting Laws were abused... Late ballots, fake registrations, 'the dead,' ghost mail in
ballot.... -and intentionally and illegally manipulated ballots - even poll workers admitting
they tossed Trump votes because they hate him so much...
Of course, support for Biden isn't in issue. Exasperation with Trump is clearly the
issue.
Independents don't generally support Trump this year.
I don't think many Bernie people would vote for Trump. That doesn't make much sense.
Yes, clearly Trump wants lawyers to argue about ballots being illegal. I guess he thinks they
might be able to show enough ballots were illegal, and that most of the illegal ballots were
for Biden. Ball is in their court on that, I guess. But in court, Trump won't be able to argue
in the form of tweets that say "we've been hearing about so much fraud." Time to put
up.
Court challenges are coming.... that is for sure...
Supreme Court already has the PA rulings and is looking at that.
I do think overall Election Integrity has been compromised... at almost every level and
every step of the process. Ghost ballots sent out, Mail in ballots sold for cash, 'the dead,'
Fake Ids', out of state voters voting multiple times, dates and signatures altered, ballots
trashed by partisan poll workers, ballots altered, software 'errors' (that seem to favor one
party about 100% of the time) ...
It is too much.... I have seen a few poll workers arrested for trying to slide multiple
votes through a machine - and I though 'well just few votes won't matter' - but now... the
Trust is broken...
If anything good can come of all this - I hope the "Voting Process" is overhauled 100%...
maybe even to the level of BlockChain.... Bullet2354 Mike •
a day ago
My concern is not the actual count... however.
My concern is that Voter Laws were abused... significantly.
illegal votes counted, illegal processes used - a really corrupted vote system..... The Law
was not followed.
2016 MI was bad enough with the failed RECOUNT.... Detroit has always had massive counting
errors, bribery scandals, constant inconsistencies, pay to vote schemes, 'walking around money'
- and the STATE has know this for 60 years! ... yet never moved to fix it. I think it has grown
'out of control' in 2020.
I used to 'give a little' for a few fraudulent votes here or there.... a few Dead people get
a ballot... a few data base errors.
This year - the Fraud has crossed the line.
I don't trust the count. - VOTE INTEGRITY HAS COLLAPSED.
In the aftermath of the 2016 election, analysts on both the left and right noticed that
President Trump had the potential to grow his base of white working-class voters. Five
Thirty-Eight's
David Wasserman noted that over 44 million non-college-educated white voters who were not
even registered to vote before the 2016 election concentrated heavily in the Midwest, including
2.6 million in Pennsylvania, 2.2 million in Ohio, 900,000 in Wisconsin, and 500,000 in Iowa.
All the Trump campaign needed to do was locate them and register a fraction of them, and it
would be smooth sailing till election day.
Rather than employing a strategy that looked to find the missing white working-class voter,
the Trump campaign devised a plan to drive support from minority voters. They released both the
Platinum Plan for black Americans and the American Dream plan for Hispanic Americans, promising
hundreds of billion dollars to revive their communities and a series of other identity-driven
policies.
This was successful to a point. The Hispanic turnout in Florida and Texas were large enough
to deliver Trump a much larger victory than most people expected and helped keep Arizona and
Nevada competitive even as he shed voters in the suburbs and among Independents as well as
college-educated whites. Among black voters, exit polls showed Trump received 19 percent of the
black voters between 25 and 44 years-old. However, he didn't budge the number of older black
Americas who make up a majority of voters in their racial group.
That plan was always doomed to fail due to the small share of minority voters in the Midwest
that were up for grabs. There weren't enough Hispanic voters or black Americans willing to flip
to the GOP in those states. So they relied on their pool of existing voters and resting their
fate on a ground game.
To the Trump campaign and the Wisconsin Republican Party's credit, they ran a fantastic
operation in the state. The President's campaign increased his support and turnout in 22 of the
23 counties he flipped from President Obama in 2016. Even more astonishing, only two of those
counties had turnout under 90 percent. Some counties like Price, Marquette, and Pepin had close
to 95 percent turnout.
In the county of Kenosha, which saw race riots and acts of violence from Black Lives Matter
supporters and members of Antifa, Trump increased his margin from .3 percent in 2016 to 3.2
percent in 2020, becoming the first Republican to win the county in back-to-back elections
since 1928.
The ground game and high level of support from working-class white counties couldn't make up
because the missing white vote stayed missing. In the 23 Obama-Trump counties, the number of
registered voters declined by nearly 8,000 voters from January 2017 to November 2020 even
though the population increased in these areas.
So Trump's campaign had to work harder with a smaller group of people. Most of the
non-college-educated white Wisconsinites that didn't vote in 2016 remained untapped in 2020.
For over three years, the campaign spent hundreds of millions of dollars chasing phantom voters
in deep blue states like New Mexico rather than looking at their natural base sitting
underneath their nose.
Had those funds been redirected to registering and turning out between five and ten percent
of those non-college-educated white voters they missed in 2016, they wouldn't have to worry
about suburbanites defecting to Biden. Fears of voters fraud or illegal vote count wouldn't
have been a concern if they just reached out to their natural constituency.
There's a good chance that the same story could be told in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and
Minnesota. This election wouldn't have been close if they only worked on registering the people
most likely to vote for them, rather than banking on minority voters who just weren't in the
Rust Belt.
As a boomer, I learned very early how evil and corrupt the democrat party can be. Never
voted for a democrat traitor my entire life. Maybe get a little experience under your belt and
you'll learn. Unless you're already a straight up Commie.
As Tucker said it's fact that Detroit and Philadelphia have a history of rigging elections.
doesn't prove they're doing it this time, but people worried about it are as far from crazy as
it gets.
Why are Democrats descending into entitled rages at demands for transparency, or even just
explanations of what they are doing? We told to be patient with the mail-in vote for weeks,
then they are totally impatient and seething outraged hatred with working through our concerns
about fraud. Their protesters are already taking to the streets chanting "count every vote,"
which is where Trump's slogan, "every legal vote" comes from. Did they have the same emotional
outbursts in the past times when we know for a fact they were rigging urban elections?
Trump was an outsider. The deep state won. There's never been such a relentless,
full-spectrum media propaganda campaign against a president such as this. Americans are
mostly dumb media creatures, especially the ignorant young who are infantile consumers of
Facebook and other twaddle. Corporations such as Apple poured hundreds of millions into BLM
and other front groups. And don't forget the massive terror campaign in the streets.
Capitalist globalism has retaken the presidency.
The white men who failed to vote for Trump in this election are incapable of grasping the
concept of 'Incrementalism'.
How do you think the Frankfurt School's virulently anti-White Cultural Marxists managed to
achieve the success that they have achieved since the 1960s? These subversive termites did
not go full bore and try to shove their anti-White, anti-Western agenda down the throats of
an America that, at the time, was still almost 90% White European. Instead, they began their
steady 'march through the institutions' using stealth tactics – relying on
incrementalism. One tiny step at a time, so as to not alert their target of destruction
– White Americans.
Trump is not the savior of White America – he proved that over the last 4 years.
But, he was a step in the right direction and these White males who were not 100 percent
satisfied by his performance while in office lack the intelligence and patience that is
necessary for TeamWhite during this fight for our very survival.
Our objective is to make sure that the Trumpism – populism, nationalism, rejection
of globalism, rejection of massive third world immigration into the USA, and a cessation of
fighting endless wars for Israel's sole benefit – these concepts must not be dumped by
the GOP. If a Republican politician starts spouting globalism – or supporting amnesty
– or calling for more wars – he or she needs to be thrown OUT of office as soon
as possible and replaced by a Trumpist candidate.
Brad Griffin is an extremely low IQ, dangerously clueless, checkers playing retard who is
too stupid to comprehend the strategy of the anti-White enemy and he thinks he can throw a
hissy fit and somehow boost the amount of respect that other pro-White people have for
him?
It is due to sanctimonious morons like him that the White race is in the existential
crisis situation we now find ourselves in. These 'absolutists' and 'purists' are going to be
the death of our race of people.
By the way, there have already been observations elsewhere on the fact that White men
supported Trump less than before. Not a revelation.
I had no idea if he would lose White men prior to the election, but I thought it a
possibility. I'd see him stand up there at rallies in front of a massive sea of White people
and he'd start bragging about all the shit he'd done for Blacks, Hispanics, and Women, but
nary a mention of White men.
And what's with his hangouts with Kanye West? Saying he's the least racist person in the
room. And the Platinum Plan? Is this shit why we elected you, chief?
I guarantee that no White men were thrilled to hear about blacks being let out of jail.
The more blacks in jail, the better. They need to be kept where less of them can procreate.
If I were POTUS, I find out which crimes black women were good at and increase the penalties
for those, so we could lock up the breeders.
The old guard wants us to lay down and take it, but this election is far for over. It's time
to fight, and Trump is our man.
Mitt Romney would have conceded by now. John McCain would have conceded Tuesday night.
George Bush would have called it quits, and then invaded Iraq for good measure. Thank God in
heaven for Donald J. Trump.
Speaking late Thursday from the White House, President Trump predicted that, if all legal
votes (and only legal votes) were counted, they would show that he has won the election.
Over the past few days, former Vice President Biden has consistently made similar claims,
without the caveat that votes must be legally cast. As has become the norm when conservatives
voice concerns over a questionable election, the president's observations and forecast were
quickly "fact-checked" by the mainstream media and censored by Big Tech platforms -- while
Biden's went unchecked.
The facts, we are told, show a clear Biden victory. Any suggestion to the contrary, any
attempt to investigate reports of Democratic misconduct, is dismissed as right-wing
conspiracizing, or the petulant protestations of a sorry bunch of sore losers. (Russiagate, it
seems, has been memory-holed.) The decent thing, they say, would be concession -- take the
numbers at face value and call it a day. To his great credit, it looks like Trump will do no
such thing.
This election has essentially come down to six states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Of these six, only Arizona and Nevada really remain question
marks. Michigan and Wisconsin have already been called for Biden by most sources, and
Pennsylvania and Georgia are expected to follow close behind. Even if Arizona and Nevada both
went for Trump in the end -- the latter seems likely, while the former is a long shot --
victory in the other four would secure Biden a comfortable electoral college win at 289. It can
hardly be ignored that the major blue cities in each of these states -- Atlanta, Detroit,
Philadelphia, and Milwaukee -- are all dominated by strong, old-school, Tammany-style machines.
It can hardly be forgotten that urban Democratic machines are not exactly known for the
integrity of their elections.
This is the question being asked by Trump and other right-wingers: not whether some massive
conspiracy has been orchestrated at the national level, with Biden pulling the strings from a
basement in Delaware, but whether the substantial misconduct that has long defined city
political machines is influencing outcomes in these four key locations. This is not a question
on which we can play it safe and civil. We need a full court press to get answers from people
who have shown themselves unwilling to provide them.
Pay attention to the mainstream argument: Trump's claims have not been conclusively proven,
and so the mere suggestion is considered far beyond the pale. For many, the president's
assertion that 1) misconduct has been observed on a large scale in all of these key locations
and 2) this misconduct will be challenged in court, is the conclusive proof they need that we
are sliding into the dictatorship they predicted four years ago. The concerns are rebuked with
the usual dismissals -- unfounded, unproven, unsubstantiated, "without evidence" -- and the
narrative that Biden is the clear winner tightens its grip with every word out of every
anchor's mouth. But more than enough preliminary evidence has been provided in each of these
places to justify -- no, demand -- investigation.
The fundamental reason all these claims remain "unsubstantiated" is that the very people who
reject them on this basis are the ones who are supposed to be substantiating them -- and
they have absolutely, entirely abandoned this basic duty. Anyone who tries to look into the
evidence is denounced as a kook or (in Trump's case) a caudillo. We can hardly expect an honest
accounting of what's happened in the blue cities when talking about what's happened in the blue
cities has suddenly become the eighth deadly sin.
This is why -- besides his unique perspective and approach drawing together the broadest
coalition a Republican has built in sixty years -- Trump is actually the perfect man for the
moment. The entire media establishment is aligned to declare a Biden victory prematurely, with no
intention of investigating election inconsistencies. Local and state governments in the places
that matter are hardly more reliable -- Michigan Attorney General Jocelyn Benson is an alumna of
the SPLC, and Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro promised four days before the election that Trump
would not win the state. The docile functionaries and milquetoast figureheads of the pre-Trump
GOP could not have handled the fight ahead -- and likely would have run from it.
In fact, we know that they would have, because that's exactly what they're urging Trump to do
now. If you Google "trump+thursday+speech" or any similar query, it's going to take a whole lot
of digging to actually find the speech Trump delivered on Thursday. What you will find instead
are abundant "fact-checks" of the speech that don't actually check any of the facts, and page
upon page of ritual denunciations by the chattering classes.
These denunciations are hardly limited to the left-wingers behind the anchors' desks at every
major network. CNN is proudly touting a clip of Rick Santorum, former Republican senator from PA
and current senior political analyst at that esteemed news source, expressing his shock and
disappointment that the president would call into question certain aspects of the election.
Santorum voiced his hope that "Republicans will stand up at this moment and say what needs to be
said about the integrity of our election." (The irony is apparently lost on him.)
Similarly, Scott Walker, who was one of the first to exit the Republican primary field in 2016
and lost his reelection bid for governor of Wisconsin in 2018 to Democrat Tony Evers, has issued
a number of tweets insisting that a recount -- which the Trump campaign has already called for --
would be pointless. He has observed that, in normal elections, recounts have done very little to
alter tallies. There's no sense to this line: this is not a normal election. Delays in ballot
counting alone are enough to cause concern. Add to that the occasional full stops, after which
huge quantities of Biden ballots conveniently appear. Add to that Wisconsin's level of voter
turnout -- not over 100%, as some online rumors earlier suggested, but still near unbelievably
high. It would be the farthest thing from a surprise if a more careful inspection really did
shake things up this time around.
The same is true in Michigan, where Biden has made similarly stunning gains in witching-hour
ballot dumps. On top of that, the transposition of a few thousand Trump votes to Biden in Antrim
County has now been chalked up to a glitch in the tabulation software -- software that happens to
be used in 46 other counties. We now know there is a problem with the way the votes are
counted, and even the slightest chance that even the smallest repetition of that glitch has
occurred elsewhere demands the strictest scrutiny be applied to the Michigan vote.
All this and more can be said for Pennsylvania and Georgia, the two states most vital to the
president's reelection. Pennsylvania in particular is playing fast and loose with mail-in
ballots, and dubious rules changes need to be challenged in court. Philadelphia has a reputation
for machine-style corruption that puts Daley-era Chicago to shame. Election workers there have
also repeatedly blocked GOP poll watchers from observing the process they are legally entitled to
oversee. The same thing is happening in Detroit, where cardboard has actually been placed over
the windows to prevent people from seeing inside the central counting location. If you have
nothing to hide, right?
The president has every reason not to take the narrative at face value. This doesn't mean we
throw out the election, and it doesn't mean we're undermining democracy. It means we need to
exhaust every avenue and turn over every stone. Everything that can be brought before a court
needs to be, and every ballot that raises red flags needs to be explained. Put the screws to
every machine operative from Milwaukee to Atlanta, and make sure every word holds up.
Somebody needs to give a very good answer as to why the number of ballots left to count in
Fulton County keeps changing every time we go to sleep -- and changing by margins that boggle the
mind. Force the people who run the machines to speak, and see how long their story lasts.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Declan Leary is the Collegiate Network Fellow at The American Conservative and a
graduate of John Carroll University. His work has been published at National Review ,
Crisis, and elsewhere.
The fundamental reason all these claims remain "unsubstantiated" is that the very people
who reject them on this basis are the ones who are supposed to be substantiating them --
and they have absolutely, entirely abandoned this basic duty.
This is such a bizarre sentence. Why would government officials, investigators or
journalists or whoever be duty bound to substantiate the existence voter fraud.
They've basically done the opposite actually, and debunked the claims. Nearly every
single case of claimed voter fraud has been shown to be inaccurate, a lie, simply misleading
and/or a misunderstanding.
"Suitcases" of ballots? Actually it's photography equipment of local news broadcasts. Poll
watchers getting "pushed out" of wards? Because PA law says you are legally only allowed a
set amount of pre-certified watchers in each precinct, who must wear face masks. "Dead
voters" appearing in ballot rolls? Could exist, doesn't matter though because votes are
crosschecked with databases, and even if you died on the way home from dropping off your
mail-in ballot , your vote will be deleted, let alone if you're some potential fraud
voter who died 30 years ago.
In fact, here's a good nice long Twitter thread explaining most of the major accusations
flying around social media:
I'm just going to reply to my own very long post with an addendum:
The example of Detroit is given in the article as if papering the windows over was some
heinous thing. The reason why we have to protect the identity of poll workers is intimidation. We
already have a situation in Fulton County, GA where some enterprising conservatives have
doxxed a poll worker and actually sent the poor man into hiding.
His license plate number was posted onto Twitter, and he is now hiding at a friend's
house, because conservative activists falsely accused him of throwing out
ballots.
You are a liar. You obviously have never actually WORKED an election. I have. Several,
in fact.
I have personally witnessed ballot fraud on a large scale, coupled with utter
incompetence. Palm Beach county, 2012.
I oversaw the correction of 60,000 "defective" absentee ballots. Each correction table
was to be staffed with 1 Dem, 1 Repub, who cross-checked each others work. The corrupt
Supervisor of Elections harassed and threatened Republican workers and monitors. Nasty as
hell. Corrupt as hell. AND SHE NEVER FOLLOWED HER OWN INSTRUCTIONS, AND WHEN CHALLENGED
POLITELY, SHE THREATENED TO THROW ALL REPUBLICANS OUT OF THE ELECTIONS SITE.
I PERSONALLY witnessed CORRECTED ABSENTEE BALLOTS taken to the back where the voting
TABULATORS were, and watched as each ballot was removed from the box, examined, and some
were thrown in the trash can. And I had seen a lot of ballots with Romney marked for
President, with a straight Dem ticket down-ballot races all Dem. This is a BLUE
county.
I reported this, and nothing was done. Cowardly Republicans do this... Nothing. I
often wonder how many other blue cou ties have threatened Republican poll watchers &
workers.
Your slander of decent people means NOTHING, except that you are a liar of gigantic
proportions. Go over to Daily Kos, where you can fellowship with your vile compatriot
scumbags.
I support the view that it is entirely possible for a county full of good people to
lean hard against the "other side" in a hot disputed election. In 2014 and 2016 the
polling place was a strange church miles away; the workers there had a hand-lettered sign
posted that demanded driver licenses as ID, even though State law did not demand that
form of ID alone. This year I was one of the people who were locked out of the voting
process; the details do not matter, but it happened, and I refused to kowtow to the
system to get my registration card renewed. My county went 80% for Trump, so in fact my
lone vote would not have mattered for much anyway.
No doubt some people were denied the right to vote. Historically, the right to vote is
denied blacks and latinos more often than whites. But to make a blanket claim of a stolen
election, just the President, mind you, is an extraordinary claim that demands
extraordinary proof. Trump does not even claim that any of those down ballot Repubs,
candidates who did just fine for themselves, were denied votes. Just him.
If the democrats rigged the election then why didn't they give themselves the Senate?
Why did they lose seats in the House? And why did they not take back a single statehouse?
Trump lost because the DNC opened their arms to the Bush-era neocons from the Lincoln
Project. They're all republicans that voted for Biden and down ticket republicans and now
Biden will be putting them in his cabinet. If the election was rigged then you can thank
the those republicans for betraying their party, but the DNC is incapable of rigging
anything without help from the other side.
Your mistake is conflating "Republicans" and "republican voters." Not the same thing.
Trump was sent to DC to deal, among other things with the "Republicans."
Why didn't they give themselves the senate? A couple of hundred thousand ballots with
a 100% tally for one side were manufactured to influence one election. Only one really
mattered. Several million Americans were impoverished and terrorized all year long to
ensure this result.
In any case, they don't need the Senate -- the "Republicans" will simply roll
over. They always do. Cocaine Mitch is already signaling his intent to do so.
I saw his spokesperson the other day said any Biden cabinet picks will have to be
approved by him. Doesn't sound like Mitch is rolling over at all. We're going to see the
Lincoln Project repugs (Bush era neocons) in his cabinet and giving the MIC a seat at the
table again.
Just another 4 years of Bush/Obama policies. I think we can agree that both
sides lost this election and that's sadly not new either.
Maybe its time the for
"fringes" to unite against the center.
Speaking as a progressive myself, I dont feel like we united as much as we stayed
home. No one in the 2016 election was representing anything we wanted. The only thing
that united us was our hatred of Hillary. ;) hahaha
We can't unify under either established party. I'm talking about really uniting and
taking both out with a real populist platform (healthcare, ending our wars and getting
money out of politics), all things most Americans are in favor of. What do we have to
lose at this point? There's something horribly broken with our government when every 4
years both sides are left frustrated when the will of the people is never represented in
our supposed representative democracy. We gotta try something different.
Fox News has aired video of certified poll observers in philly being prevented from
entering polling places. but keep running interference- its obvious you wouldn't care if
you KNEW fraud had taken place...
Other Murdoch-owned news companies have done much worse! In England, his reporters
spoofed a call from a dead girl's phone, giving her parents false hope. They bugged and
bribed politicians, pretty ugly stuff. Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
Fox News is a subsidiary NewsCorp, peddler of tabloid propaganda , promulgated by an
Australian plutocrat Rupert Murdoch, who is no friend of the USA. He has been ripping us
apart now for decades for his profit, power, and ego. He has made the GOP his b**ch. Note
how recently he has turned on Trump (not that I mind).
Why would government officials, investigators or journalists or whoever be duty bound
to
the existence voter fraud.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Those who claim to "speak truth to power" have as
their function the investigation and reporting of charges of voter fraud.
Instead, they are nothing but rank partisans, licking the government hand that feeds
them, and simply memory-holing anything that might damage their boy or be thought helpful
to their opponents. Liars and frauds, every last one.
simply memory-holing anything that might damage their boy or be thought helpful to
their opponents.
Whatever you want to claim about lefties with "TDS" or whatever you want to label
them, this sentence is literally a word-for-word description that applies to Trump
supporters.
Just endless ranks of simpletons who will thrust off every piece of evidence and
correction to their accusations.
Write out a comment to debunk things being misconstrued, twisted or lied about, and
Trumpists will waste your time blathering and ranting on about "rank partisans" without
even a hint or lick of irony and self-reflection about how their entire post is actually
about themselves.
I can just as easily dismiss you the same way, but the idea that FB, Twitter, CNN, and
yes -- even Fox -- aren't nakedly partisan is ridiculous nonsense. The least you could do
is pretend to understand what got Trump elected in the first place.
Wall St and the MIC work hand and hand with our corporate media, an industry that's
dominated by 6 corporations. They're not liberal nor conservative, they are only
motivated by money and power and keeping the population divided so that they dont unite
and come for them all.
One only has to look at the Citizens United Supreme Court decision to see how far down
the US has fallen. Now a corporation is a person? If that is so, can't they get
20-to-life when they kill someone? Can't they get the death penalty? NO, they can't; but
they can get all the good things that come from that ruling, without any of the negatives
at all.
Not every last reporter is a rank partisan, but many of them prefer the easy route to
a paycheck. Look up Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Tom Engelhardt, and others like them.
There are honest historians like Howard Zinn and Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. There are also
honest whistleblowers who get a bad rep, like Chelsea Manning, Eric Snowden and Julian
Assange. There are still a few journalists of the old school in the world. But they have
to be careful less they find themselves charged with treason under an old law, and spend
the balance of their lives locked down 23 1/2 hours per day in a tiny cell in a US
SuperMax prison.
Excellent article. I am very happy Trump is pushing to open up this election to legal
review, public inspection, recounts, bipartisan review of the ballots, process
violations. We were supposed to be patient and wait for the count, why not the recount.
What is the hurry. If he lost, fine, I want to know that, not just trust anti-Trump,
Democratic activist officials telling me that. There are so many oddities - the Biden
surges coming after down time, always so conveniently. Software turning Republican votes
into Democrat votes. The dead voting. Blocking access to GOP observers. Given the
closeness of the results in the key states that are determining the outcome, it is not
that hard to turn things one way or the other.
The state legislators decide when the mail in ballots are counted. For Florida,
Oregon, Colorado they are counted when they come in and are verified as legal votes. For
Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin the legislature decided they could not start
processing the ballots until election day, thus it is impossible get a count of those
ballots before the in person voting was counted.
Barr is asking, "how many people who sent late-arriving mail-in ballots also showed up
to vote on election day?"
It matters because it's the law we all agreed to, and you need to respect the process
to retain the other side's confidence, which your side has not done.
But one thing which may be behind the law is these 100%-Biden ballot dumps that don't
vote for congress. Do you see what's behind Barr's question? Mail-in ballots make ballot
stuffing almost trivial because you can just dump them into the mail. The one problem is
that each envelope has to have a registered voter's name on it, and that name is compared
to who voted in person. To get the mail-in vote counted, and to avoid suspicious
patterns, you need to put a name on there that didn't vote in person. That's much easier
to do after the polls close, and you have collected all the signature books to start
doing the mail-in count.
Maybe they wouldn't have had to skip steps in the process if Trump should have
appointed someone better than DeJoy, and maybe Congress (Republicans in particular)
shouldn't have spent the better part of the last two decades screwing with the USPS.
Delays in ballot counting alone are enough to cause concern. Add to that the
occasional full stops, after which huge quantities of Biden ballots conveniently appear.
Add to that Wisconsin's level of voter turnout -- not over 100%, as some online rumors
earlier suggested, but still near unbelievably high. It would be the farthest thing from
a surprise if a more careful inspection really did shake things up this time
around.
Yeah, what kind of insane ballot-counting system would allow the poll workers to
sleep ? They should be legally required to mainline stimulants until their work is
done! And the only honest way to deliver counts is to transmit each individual ballot one
by one to the state: sending counts in batches must be evidence of fraud! And how is it
possible that after vocally discouraging his voters from voting by mail, there are
relatively few Trump mail-in votes? Very suspicious! Oh and by the way, turnout in
Wisconsin was quite normal:
jeez, it is amazing how uncurious everyone has become...
Uncurious? The uncurious are the people who take videos shared by Steven Crowder, or
whatever right-wing grifter they like, and believe them as gospel truth without verifying
it.
I have literally spent the better part of my precious Friday evening reading and
watching a trove of claimed voter fraud incidents, and I have yet to find a substantially
supported example.
But...duh? You absolutely do have some ballots thrown out in every
election, because they're improperly marked or otherwise somehow invalid. That's not a
conspiracy, that's literally what poll workers have to do. I don't get it, if we think
there are dead people voting (per the above conspiracy) wouldn't we want the workers to
throw them out? Or do we not want them throwing them out? Can't have it both ways!
It doesn't exactly take a brainiac to realize what's happening in the video. The man
on the right is holding a damaged ballot, and reading off the marked selections to
the woman on the left so that she can transcribe the damaged information to a new,
undamaged ballot. You then mark the serial number for the new ballot onto the original,
damaged ballot to keep them together.
And of course, as an extra bonus, the video is zoomed in purposefully to crop out the
bipartisan poll-watchers that are standing right by this duo to make sure that they're
properly transcribing the votes.
This is literally election 101 stuff, but apparently people don't know how it
works.
Come on, you can literally verify or debunk this on the County website. Yes, one claim
going around is that Wards 273 and 274, which was located at the Spanish Immersion School
reported 200% turnout.
Ward 273 had 671 registered voters, and 612 actual voters; Ward 274 had 702 registered
voters and 611 actual voters.
So congratulations, you bought into another easily disprovable lie. I've also seen
claims that the 272nd, 277th, 269th, 234th and 312nd Wards overrated, but you can check
and see that none of that is true either.
And, all of these claims are leaving out an important detail anyways: Wisconsin has
same-day voter registration. It is possible , albeit perhaps unlikely, to have
higher voter counts than number of pre-registered voters because of that.
Ballot harvesting is real:
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/20... This is but one example in my state, and we're also aware of certain places sending
out unrequested ballots. They all deserve jail time.
Let's say I was. Would that make any of the proof I linked untrue? Or is truth only
something that comes out of a party-flag waving conservatives' mouth?
And no, I'm not. I've pretty openly stated multiple times that I voted ASP in the
Presidential race, and both R/D in various spots down the ballot.
Oh, and just in the interest of fairness, there were some conspiracies going
around on the left too on election night. One that I saw was that 300,000 ballots were
undelivered. While yes, many thousands of ballots were likely undelivered, what was
happening wasn't that they were undelivered,
it was that the USPS was skipping scanning the ballots to expedite delivery. That's
why DeJoy likely won't actually get in trouble, because postal branches were
specifically going out of their way to hand-pick ballots and expedite their delivery.
The reason a recount doesn't change anything is because it's just that--a recount.
They take all the ballots that were counted before, and count them again. They're not
looking at whether any ballots should have been thrown out. Fraudulent ballots that were
counted the first time around are counted again.
A recount won't do anything about what the Democrats pulled in Milwaukee.
I also don't understand it. Hasn't the mail-in envelope with the signature and the
voter's name already been thrown away? How will they remove the votes by dead people?
I have heard they're using some procedure intended for ballots that won't scan to
conceal ballots with missing or invalid signatures by copying them at desks that are
supposed to have bipartisan teams. I guess they throw out the original ballot when they
do that to prevent the recount from checking signatures properly?
I guess they throw out the original ballot when they do that to prevent the recount
from checking signatures properly?
No, they do that to prevent any possibllity of the original being mistakenly counted
twice.
As you yourself pointed out, the copying takes place in front of a bipartisan team of
watchers. So for your fantasy to have any validity, you have to believe that BOTH parties
are conspiring together to rig the vote. In which case, your vote is irrelevant, anyway,
right?
If you really care about this, then instead of believing all of these ridiculous
conspiracy theories, why don't you try to actually become educated about how the process
works, and next time volunteer yourself to become a certified poll watcher? Then you will
KNOW the truth.
Those checks were made before the ballot was accepted and counted. They include
checking that it was a legal ballot sent to a specific person. And that the signature
matched that of the registered voter. Only after those checks is the ballot removed from
its envelop. While there may be a few mistakes there aren't anywhere enough to be
material to the final results. The ballots from in person voting are similarly
dissociated from the voters' information.
A big thank you to Mr. Maheras commenting below. Listen to him. He is our savior.
I am close to 80 years old. Old conspiracy advocates began to make extraordinary
claims about most everything when photographs would appear in newspapers. Rorschach
tests. Then came videos , or movie clips on TV. Think the Kennedy tape. Pretty soon we
had personal video equipment. And now cell phones. All Rorschach tests. But those crazy
conspiracies were the fringe long time ago. True belivers. Ideologues. But not the
Republican party leaders.
About 30 years ago the new world order, illuminati, the Bilderbers, now the Davos all
became the subject of the go to conspiracy advocates. Take your pick. One or all . But
one thing for sure, a cabal is taking over the world. Throw in a few Clinton, or Obama
conspiracies. Catch a sighting of Elvis for good measure.
Now all rolled into the Qanon cabal. Democratic pedophilia scum raping children. What
they all have in common is that they are right wing conspiracy advocates. And they all
are foolish.
This article fits in with those conspiracies. And by right wing
advocates naturally. When Clinton lost , her margin of defeat was similar to Trump's
projected defeat. Clinton and the Democrats never asserted fraud. Nor suggested
conspiracies. The political system worked, Trump won.
Now we have a reputable magazine publishing similar outlandish conspiracy theroies to
the ones mentioned above. All without a scintilla of proof. The President of the United
States for months has been setting his base up to claim fraud. And he has. And they have
blindly bought into it.
Long way to tell you that the greatest disappointment of my lifetime is the validation
by conservatives of these kooky ideas. 30 years ago even conservatives would call these
conspiracy peddlers nut jobs.
Now we have a nut job in the white house. The birther in chief. And he just gets
worse. But no one in the Republican party, except for a few tepid critics, will call the
Predident out.
This is the same guy who saw videos of Muslims dancing on 9/11. Or an inaugural crowd
rivaling the largest gathering of human beings ever assembled in the whole history of
mankind. The greatest. The most perfect and strongest
I have never been so disappointed in my President. He has enabled Mr. Leary to peddle
his nonsense. And tragically Leary believes his blather. This is truly heartbreaking. But
it is the world that Leary and his ilk will have to live with.
Me, l'll be gone. Forgetting my own name soon. Someone tell me that what I just read
is a part of my onset dementia.
Lifelong stutterer? What a load of crap. Just watch some old videos of Joe in his
arrogant days on the senate judiciary. He and his good buddy Ted Chappaquidick Kennedy
didn't stutter when they were trashing Clarence Thomas and Judge Bork. Hey it's your
right to vote for a lifer politician who's way past his prime and suffering from a tragic
disease. Climate change - right. More likely God's judgement on a godless nation.
Now we have a reputable magazine publishing similar outlandish conspiracy
theroies
As someone who started reading TAC a long time ago when it really WAS a reputable
magazine, I'm afraid that particular ship started sailing several years ago, and is
almost out of the harbor by now. There was a time when you could come here to find
intelligent, educated, and thoughtful conservatives setting out their views and being
unafraid to engage with responses from all across the entire political spectrum. Now,
Larison is the only one left who consistently meets that description, a couple of others
dabble in reality once in a while, and the rest are descending into Breitbart levels of
paranoid lunacy.
I look forward to seeing the evidence of fraud in a court of law rather than just
circulating on twitter where the standards are somewhat less stringent.
And the president said BEFORE the election that any election he lost would necessarily
be rigged/corrupt. So of course that evidence was going to be found if he lost.....
You can put this is the same category as all these white guys who lost a job because
they were white men. Of course the couldn't possibly make these claims in a court where
discovery could happen and their BS would be exposed.
1. He is a victim/martyr to his right-wing constituency, in much the same way that Erdogan
has always portrayed himself as a 'man of the people' and representative of the poor
conservative rural Turks and still an outsider in comparison to the secular urban elites.
This 'otherness' or being separate from the establishment/elite/'swamp' is very good for
Trumps' image. Even though he is a billionaire and has been part of the US elite for
decades.
2. With the economy going to go through problems due to covid and other issues, Trump can
try and attribute blame for the then incumbent Biden/Harris regime and free himself of any
blame and say that he has better answers.
3. He may well go on to forming his 'Trump TV' with Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Laura
Ingraham as is the current chatter amongst some and be seen as the de facto 'leader of the
opposition', a term not really used in the (dis)United States but common in many/most other
countries.
The United States is a monopoly two-party fascist system. It is a nexus of profiteering
corporate power, and a two-party cabal of American Exceptionalism. The idea the Democrats are
'commies' is laughable and shows how deeply red the Kool Aid runs. The Democrats just told
the Bernie wing of the Party to shut-up or leave. And why not? The Democrats will tally up a
five million vote plurality over Trump by playing to the right. It got them a President
without a Congress. Thank the "Karen" constituency. Mission Accomplished.
Sure, bring on Tucker as the next Trump, or Don Jr or whatever other celebrity fascist you
want. This particular bell of Pavlov's doesn't work on all the dogs. There is a seething
anti-fascist sentiment out there against for-profit healthcare, politics and war. Before a
4th Reich takes hold in the USA, a Civil War will be fought and the left, verified by study
after study, is more intelligent as a group.
The foreign policy of the USA is fully bi-partisan. Did a Democrat make a peep about the
all the weapons-based 'peace deals' Trump made with the Oil Kingdoms? No. Do the Dems
disagree about regime change anywhere the USA contemplates it? No. Do the Dems want to get
rid of anything but bad manners? No.
So please, knock off the existential BS about Dems 'stealing' the election. Stealing what
exactly? The high ground of plausible deniability? Hilarious.
The result of this election can be summarized with one phase "Strange non-death of
neoliberalism."
Joe Biden win is a win the tech companies, the big banks, Beijing, as well a PMC
class.
likbez 11.07.20 at 5:37 pm ( )
It's entirely possible that Biden will be a 1 term President, and this is something that
Democrats should have given some thought to. But they had other, sillier, things on their
mind, and, well, here we are.
They don't care. It is return to business as usual -- classic neoliberalism with the
classic neoliberal globalization on the agenda. And this is all that matter to them.
The people behind Joe Biden are Clinton classic neoliberals. Who ruled the country since
1990th with a well known result.
It is unclear what will happen in 2020 as Biden is a weak politician clearly unable of
dealing with the current crisis the country faces. He is kick the can down the road type of
guy.
And some start speculate that Dems the might get Tucker Carlson in 2024 as the opponent to
Kamala.
(2) From an American perspective, Republican control of the Senate means that the Dems
have limited scope to carry out grandiose economic and social experiments. Which I doubt
Biden is much interested in anyway. (Incidentally, the idea that Biden or Copmala is in any
way a "socialist" is yet another far-fetched MAGA fantasy just ask the folks at Chapo Trap House ). The idea that he came to
power via fraud will not be quite enough to delegitimize the Biden Presidency – it's
not like George W. Bush's narrow and contested victory over Al Gore in Florida remained
much of an issue after a couple of months – but it certainly wouldn't hurt
Republicans to have that as an additional rhetorical tool.
(3) Most consequentially, this substantially discredits American soft power and its
"democracy promotion" efforts.
Who exactly is Joe Biden , the man who may be
our
president come Jan. 20? The truth is, as of right now, we don't really know.
We have no clue what Joe Biden actually thinks, or even if he's capable of thinking. He
hasn't told us and no one's made him tell us for a full year. In fact, it's becoming clear
there is no Joe Biden. The man you may remember from the 1980s is gone.
What remains is a projection of sorts, a hologram designed to mimic the behavior of a
non-threatening political candidate: "Relax, Joe Biden's here. He smiles a lot. Everything's
fine." That's the message from the vapor candidate.
So who's running the projector here? Well, the first thing you should know is that the
people behind Joe Biden aren't liberals. We've often incorrectly called them that. A liberal
believes in the right of all Americans to speak freely, to make a living, to worship their God,
to defend their own families, and to do all of that regardless of what political party they
belong to or what race they happen to be born into or how far from midtown Manhattan they
currently live.
A liberal believes in universal principles, fairly applied. And the funny thing is, all of
that describes most of the 70 million people who just voted for Donald Trump this week. Most of
them don't want to hurt or control anyone. They have no interest in silencing the opposition on
Facebook or anywhere else. They just want to live their lives in the country they were born in,
and it doesn't seem like a lot to ask. So by any traditional definition, they are liberal.
However, our language has become so politicized and so distorted that you would never know
it. What you do know for certain is that the people behind Joe Biden are not like that at all.
They don't believe in dissent. "You think one thing? I think another. That's OK." No, that's
not them at all. They demand obedience to diversity, which is to say, legitimate differences
between people is the last thing they want. These people seek absolute sameness, total
uniformity. You're happy with your corner coffee shop? They want to make you drink Starbucks
every day from now until forever, no matter how it tastes. That's the future.
Now, if these seem like corporate values to you, then you're catching on to what's
happening. The Joe Biden for President campaign is a purely corporate enterprise. It's the
first one in American history to come this close to the presidency. If a multinational
corporation decided to create a presidential candidate, he would be a former credit card shill
from Wilmington, Del., and that's exactly what they got. What's good for Google is good for the
Biden campaign and vice versa. We have never seen a more soulless project. They literally
picked Kamala Harris as Biden's running mate, someone who can't even pronounce her own name.
Not that it matters, because it's purely an advertising gimmick.
We watched all of this come together in real time. We stood slack-jawed in total disbelief
as a man with no discernible constituency of any kind rose to the very top of our political
system, as if by magic. It's possible in the end that Joe Biden himself never convinced a
single voter of anything over the entire duration of the presidential campaign, but he didn't
have to. Joe Biden won the Democratic nomination because he wasn't Bernie Sanders. He came to
where he is today because he isn't Donald Trump. It's the shortest political story ever
written.
Now, whatever you may think of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, they did it the
traditional way. Each one of them had the support of actual voters. Living, breathing people
loved them, believed in them, vested their hope in them, and, by the way, agreed with their
ideas, which they articulated clearly.
But corporate America hated them both. They couldn't be controlled, particularly Donald
Trump, whose complete unwillingness to submit made him the greatest possible threat. That's why
they hate Donald Trump, because he won't obey.
It's insulting to say that Joseph R. Biden won this election, if that is what comes to pass.
The tech companies will have won. The big banks will have won. The government of China, the
media establishment, the permanent bureaucracy, the billionaire class -- they will have won,
and not in the way that democracy promises. If a single person equaled a single vote, a
coalition like that could never win anything. There aren't enough of them.
But as a group, they have something that Donald Trump's voters sadly do not have, and that
is power. They have lots of power and they plan to wield that power, whether you like it or
not. It's all starting to look a lot like oligarchy at this point. The people who believe they
should have been in charge all along now may actually be in charge.
So what does that mean for the rest of us? Will corporate America declare victory and back
off? Can we speak freely again? Will they take the boot from our necks? Can we have America
back now that the Great Orange Emergency has passed? Well, the mandatory lying orders finally
be lifted?
Those are the questions we'll be paying attention to, since we plan to stay in this country.
And one other thing while we're at it, who's excited to greet our new corporate overlords? Who
plans to collaborate, particularly of those on the right side, the Republican side, the side
that said it was defending you? Who's happy about all of this? That seems worth keeping track
of, just so we know who we're dealing with here. Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of
FOX News Channel's (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network
in 2009 as a contributor.
I think calling it Harris (Biden) administration is a bit childish. Harris will have about as
much effect on policy as Pence had during last 4 four years. Certainly nothing like Cheney.
And she won't be the Dems candidate in four years.
Chris Sweeney, UK reporter, says" Britain died for me, its become a Covid-obsessed police
state."He further writes that the courageous spirit that defines Britain is disappearing. Do
you feel the same about the US. I do. The response to the lockdown and masks etc. sends brave
loggers here in the Catskill into a state of child-like fear . Who said there is a sucker
born every minute.
On the eve of the election, for example, Politico published a fawning
profile of Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who is laying the groundwork to become
speaker of the House in a future Republican majority. An ideological mirror of her father, she
and her cohort long for a restoration of the early 2000s Bushite foreign policy of
globe-trotting regime change and democratic nation building administered by a national security
state in Washington D.C.
Their cause, however, is as infertile as their past efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is
because despite his poor record, Donald Trump has created a permanent and growing disconnect
between the War Party and the GOP.
There is no need to sugarcoat how Donald Trump has squandered four years of opportunity in
foreign policy. His promises to bring the troops home have not materialized and remain
"promises" to be kept at a permanently delayed date. He has intensified U.S. interference in
Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Venezuela. He's overseen the continued deterioration of relations
with Russia, while leaving North Korea at the diplomatic altar. And he's brought the United
States and Iran into a first exchange of direct, open conflict.
A big-picture assessment, however, requires not looking at how Trump failed to bring what
restrainers wanted, but how he succeeded in destroying what they needed gone.
Trump's election caused the departure of the most loathsome of the war peddlers -- including
Bill Kristol, David Frum, Jamie Kirchick, Steve Schmidt, and Max Boot -- from Republican ranks.
United under the banner of "Never Trump," for four years they used every inch of column space,
every CNN interview, and a small fortune to cleave off a portion of the Republican base that
they believed would be happy to return to the world of 2006.
The result? Exit polls show Trump winning 93 percent of the Republican vote, a higher
percentage than he won in 2016. As an election post-mortem summarized,
Never Trump hawks "basically do not exist anywhere outside of the Washington Beltway or cable
news green rooms -- and after tonight's results, we shouldn't have to see them on TV or even
see their tweets ever again."
That the average American has the same respect for the War Party's minions as they have for
a tobacco executive should come as no surprise.
Polling continually shows a supermajority of Americans ready and eager to withdraw from
Iraq and Afghanistan. That includes 77 percent of Republicans, 40 percent of whom want to
decrease military engagement with the rest of the world as well. These voters are a vanguard
that will stop any future Bushite ascendance, whether from Nikki Haley or the spawn of Dick
Cheney.
Slowly, Republican members of Congress are beginning to reflect the wishes of their voters.
One year ago this month, I wrote about the
emerging cadre of antiwar conservatives in the House of Representatives. While most broke
under pressure to support Trump's escalation with Iran, not all did. It's a more active and
vocal Republican contingent than has existed for decades and it's growing fast. Following
Tuesday's results, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming will join Rand Paul and Mike Lee in the U.S.
Senate, while Nancy Mace of South Carolina will lock arms with Representatives Thomas Massie
and Matt Gaetz. Both women are vetted and proven war skeptics who are determined to challenge
Liz Cheney at every turn.
Beyond government, the creative destruction brought by the Trump presidency in conservative
circles has given a new lease on life to restrainers long excluded from the Beltway's
incestuous institutions. That includes the continued ascension of publications like The
American Conservative , which has become a wheelhouse for the
most important foreign policy conversations happening on the right; Tucker Carlson, whose
program has become the highest rated in cable news history, no doubt aided by his antiwar
opening monologues; the Quincy Institute, which is dragging other think tanks kicking and
screaming into dialogues about shifting U.S. positioning overseas; and activist organizations
like BringOurTroopsHome.US , a
collection of right-of-center veterans who are lobbying to end the country's unconstitutional
wars.
The American empire was formed over the course of a century, and currently encompasses over
850 overseas military bases. Hundreds of billions of dollars are exchanged every year through
facets of the military-industrial complex, while thousands of very powerful people make their
cushy salaries off the current imperialistic system (and will fight tooth and nail to keep it
that way).
One election was never going to change that. Donald Trump was never going to be a miracle
worker. But he's kicked in the door and let us in, even if we wish he'd tidied up better before
he left.
We have principled leaders in government. We have the infrastructure. And most importantly,
we have the voters. Liz Cheney and her misbegotten hangers-on may not realize it yet, but their
heyday has long past. It's our party now and we're going to bring America home.
Hunter DeRensis is the communications director of BringOurTroopsHome.US and a regular
contributor to The American Conservative . Follow him on Twitter
@HunterDeRensis.
A vote for Trump is a vote against America's ruling class
On Saturday night, President Trump held a campaign
rally in Butler, Pa. Butler is a town 35 miles north of Pittsburgh, and it's like a lot of
places you'll find in this country once you head inland from the coasts.
Butler is a former industrial town -- they made Pullman rail cars there for many years --
but it's been losing population for decades. There are still a lot of nice people in Butler and
for $60,000 or so, you can buy a decent house there. It's a place you might be happy in.
But our professional class is not impressed by Butler. They don't consider Butler, Pa. or
places like it to be the future. To them, places like Butler are embarrassing relics of a past
best forgotten. The men of Butler may have built this country, and they did, but they mean
nothing to our leaders now. You can be certain of that because when large numbers of people in
Butler started killing themselves with narcotics, no one in Washington or New York or Los
Angeles said a word about it.
Trump supporters hold up four fingers as they chant 'Four More Years' at President Trump's
campaign rally in Butler, Pa. Saturday. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
There have now been so many opioid deaths in Butler that a few years ago, residents built an
overdose memorial in the middle of town. MSNBC didn't cover that.
So given all of that, it was interesting how the people around Butler feel about Donald
Trump. Between 10,000 and 15,000 people came out to see him Saturday night, depending on whose
estimate you believe. Pictures of the rally site showed a sea of people obscuring the horizon,
the kind of image you would see of a visit from the pope.
When was the last time a political speech drew that many people? Well, the media didn't ask.
Instead, they attacked the rally as a "superspreader" event. OK, we'll leave the epidemiology
to CNN.
But the questions still hung in the air. Why did all those people come? They must have known
that Donald Trump is the most evil man who hass ever lived. They've heard that every day for
five years. They know that people who support Donald Trump are also evil, they're bigots,
they're morons, they're racist cult members. They know that Americans have been fired from
their jobs for supporting Donald Trump, not to mention kicked off social media, belittled by
their kids' teachers and shunned by decent society. Only losers and freaks support Donald
Trump.
People in Butler knew all of that. But on Saturday, they went to the Donald Trump rally,
anyway. Why exactly did they do that? We should be pondering that question deeply as we watch
Tuesday night's returns and as we live through the aftermath of them.
Millions of Americans sincerely love Donald Trump. They love him in spite of everything
they've heard. They love him, often, in spite of himself. They're not deluded. They know
exactly who Trump is. They love him anyway.
Trump addresses the crowd at his rally in Butler, Pa. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)
They love Donald Trump because no one else loves them. The country they built, the country
their ancestors fought for over hundreds of years, has left them to die in unfashionable little
towns, mocked and despised by the sneering halfwits with finance degrees -- but no actual
skills -- who seem to run everything all of a sudden.
Whatever Donald Trump's faults, he is better than the rest of the people in charge. At least
he doesn't hate them for their weakness. Donald Trump, in other words, is and has always been a
living indictment of the people who run this country. That was true four years ago when he came
out of nowhere to win the presidency. And it's every bit as true right now, maybe even more
true than it's ever been. It will remain true regardless of whether Donald Trump wins
reelection.
Trump rose because they failed. It's as simple as that. If the people in charge had done a
halfway decent job with the country they inherited, if they cared about anything other than
themselves, even for just a moment, Donald Trump would still be hosting "Celebrity Apprentice."
But they didn't. Instead, they were incompetent and narcissistic and cruel and relentlessly
dishonest. They wrecked what they didn't build, and they lied about it. They hurt anyone who
told the truth about what they were doing. That's all true. We all watched.
America is still a great country, the best in the world, but our ruling class is disgusting.
A vote for Trump is a vote against them. That's what's going on in those pictures from Butler.
That's what's going on in this country.
300 election don't count comments not one comment about the future of America? All I see
here is who shall be king of the mountain. What is it that our leader (whoever it is, should
do)?
1. Reduce military spending by 50% per year for each of the next four years.
2. Close 50% of the military bases each year, over each of the next four years
3. Standardize national examinations for high school and undergraduate degrees pass the
examination
receive the BS or BA.. degree.. eliminate any all accreditation requirements, people can
study wherever
whenever and how ever they wish. Tutorials not bureaucratic institutions will prepare the
students for
the examinations.
4. eliminate copyright and patent laws so as to reduce the wealth gap and so as to return
America to
from monopolism to capitalism.
5. fix the constitution so the governed have a powerful, meaningful say in not just in how
uses the
government to govern, but also so the governed have a powerful say in what it is those who
are elected
to the government must accomplish why they are in the employee of our elected government.
6. Find a way to get the USA activities subject to human rights courts.
7. Paint all of the white people black in order to eliminate race as condition of
life.
A list of goals and objectives should be put forth on what the elected are supposed to
accomplish in the next four years. In that way, it will not matter who is the President, what
will matter is did he or she accomplish what it was they were elected to do?
There is nothing in China like the military-industrial complex of the United States that
structurally fosters militarism and imperialism with its powerful "lobbies" and think
tanks. The mandarins of the United States are prisoners of a network that greatly
complicates their adaptation to the new world. Its powerful and efficient propaganda
apparatus ("information & entertainment") presents the United States' two-headed,
single-party political regime based on the money aristocracy as a democracy.
That is really well put.
"The mandarins of the United States are prisoners of a network that greatly complicates
their adaptation to the new world"
Nevada will put Joe Biden over for the Presidential win..
Tonight.. Now the question is. How long will Biden last until Harris becomes the Queen of
Spades of Pentagon?
See? Twitter is cool with allowing this posting by David Litt, former Obama speechwriter,
*today* 5:34 pm Nov 4 of a democrat ballot "curing" (post Nov 3 ballot harvesting) assistance
operation in Georgia over the next three days (Wed, Thurs and Fri)
Attention everyone in or near Georgia: We need YOUR help today! This race is not over
and we need every single vote to be counted.
It is all hands on deck and all eyes on Georgia!
Join us today for a virtual training to learn how to knock doors to help voters cure
their ballots. We need you in this fight with us today and tomorrow and Friday. We've come
so far, this is how we bring it home. See you in the virtual training room and out knocking
doors soon!"
"The guy at the source of the whole kerfluffle acknowledges that the 130,000 magical votes
Tweet was based on incorrect data"
-Posted by: _K_C_ | Nov 5 2020 3:50 utc | 306
I'm not so sure about this, _K_C. His explanation for the late night MI Biden vote bump
"kerfluffle" still smells sketchy to me. Given the stakes, could someone have gotten that guy
to "flip" his statement after the fact?
Not that long ago the United States came close to total dissolution.
The financial system was bankrupt, speculation had run amok, and all infrastructure had
fallen into disarray over the course of 30 years of unbroken free trade. To make matters worse,
the nation was on the verge of a civil war and international financiers in London and Wall
Street gloated over the immanent destruction of the first nation on earth to be established not
upon hereditary institutions, but rather on the consent of the governed and mandated to serve
the general welfare.
Although one might think that I am referring now to today's America, I am in fact referring
to the United States of 1860.
The Trifold Deep State
In my past
two articles in this series, I discussed how a new system of political economy was
established by Benjamin Franklin and his disciples in the wake of the war of independence
driven by protectionism, national banking and internal improvements.
I also demonstrated that the rise of the thing known as today's "deep state" can also be
understood as a three-headed beast which arose in its earliest incarnation under the leadership
of arch traitor Aaron Burr who established Wall Street, killed Alexander Hamilton and devoted
his life to the cause of dissolving the union. After having been caught in the act of sabotage,
Burr escaped arrest in 1807 by running off to England where he live in Jeremy Bentham's mansion
for 5 years, only to return to oversee a new plot to break up the union that eventually boiled
over in 1860.
The three prongs of the operation that Burr led on behalf of British intelligence and which
remains active to this very day, can loosely be described as follows:
The Eastern Establishment families sometimes known as the Essex Junto who took control of
Hamilton's Federalist Party. These were Empire Loyalists who remained within the USA under
the illusion of loyalty to the constitution, but always adherent to a British Imperial world
order and devoted to eventually undermining it from within. These were the circles that
brought the USA into Britain's Opium trade against China as junior partners in crime and who
promoted the dissolution of the union as early as 1800
under the leadership of Aaron Burr.
The "Virginia Junto", slave owning aristocracy which also worked with Aaron Burr in his
1807 secessionist plot and whose alliance with the British Empire was instrumental in its
rise to power from 1828-1860. This was the structure that soon returned to power, after the
civil war, under the guiding hand of such
Mazzini-connected "Young Americans" as KKK founder Albert Pike and the Southern
establishment that later executed nationalist presidents in 1880, 1901 and in 1963.
Some Uncomfortable Questions
The story has been told of Lincoln's murder in tens of thousands of books and yet more often
than not the narrative of a "single lone gunman" is imposed onto the story by researchers who
are either too lazy or too corrupt to look for the evidence of a larger plot.
How many of those popular narratives infused into the western zeitgeist over the decades
even acknowledge the simple fact that John Wilkes Boothe was carrying a $500 bank draft signed
by Ontario Bank of Montreal President Henry Starnes (later to become Montreal Mayor) when he
was shot dead at Garrett Farm on April 26, 1865?
How many people have been exposed to the vast Southern Confederacy secret service operations
active throughout the civil war in Montreal, Toronto and Halifax which was under the firm
control of Confederate Secretary of State Judah Benjamin and his handlers in British
intelligence?
How many people know that Boothe spent at least 5 weeks in the fall of 1864 in Montreal
associating closely with the highest echelons of British and Southern intelligence including
Starnes, and confederate spy leaders Jacob Thompson and George Sanders?
Demonstrating his total ignorance of the process that controlled him, Booth wrote to a
friend on October 28, 1864: "I have been in Montreal for the last 3 or 4 weeks and no one
(not even myself) knew when I would return".
On The Trail of the Assassins
After Lincoln was murdered, a manhunt to track down the intelligence networks behind the
assassination was underway that eventually led to the hanging of four low level co-conspirators
who history has shown were just as much patsies as John Wilkes Boothe.
Days later, President Johnson issued a proclamation saying :
"It appears from evidence in the Bureau of Military Justice that the murder of Abraham
Lincoln [was] incited, concerted, and procured by and between Jefferson Davis, late of
Richmond, Va., and Jacob Thompson, Clement C. Clay, [Nathaniel] Beverly Tucker, George N.
Sanders, William C. Cleary, and other rebels and traitors against the government of the United
States harbored in Canada."
Two days before Booth was shot, Secretary of War
Edwin Stanton wrote : "This Department has information that the President's murder was
organized in Canada and approved at Richmond."
Knowledge of Canada's confederate operations was well known to the federal authorities in
those days even though the majority among leading historians today are totally ignorant of this
fact.
George Sanders remains one of the most interesting figures among Booth's handlers in Canada.
As a former Ambassador to England under the presidency of Franklin Pierce (1853-1857), Sanders
was a close friend of international anarchist Giuseppe Mazzini – the founder of the Young
Europe movement. Sanders who wrote "Mazzini and Young Europe" in 1852, had the honor of being
a leading member of the
southern branch of the Young America Movement (while Ralph Waldo Emerson was a
self-proclaimed leader of the
northern branch of Young America ). Jacob Thompson, who was named in the Johnson dispatch
above, was a former Secretary of the Interior under President Pierce, handler of Booth and
acted as the top controller of the Confederacy secret service in Montreal.
As the book Montreal City of
Secrets (2017), author Barry Sheehy proves that not only was Canada the core of Confederate
Secret Services, but also coordinated a multi pronged war from the emerging "northern
confederacy" onto Lincoln's defense of the union alongside Wall Street bankers while the
president was fighting militarily to stop the southern secession. Sheehy writes: "By 1863,
the Confederate Secret Service was well entrenched in Canada. Funding came from Richmond via
couriers and was supplemented by profits from blockade running."
The Many Shapes of War from the North
Although not having devolved to direct military engagement, the Anglo-Canadian war on the
Union involved several components:
Financial warfare: The major Canadian banks dominant in the 19 th century were
used not only by the confederacy to pay British operations in the construction of war ships,
but also to receive much needed infusions of cash from British Financiers throughout the war. A
financial war on Lincoln's greenback was waged under the control of Montreal based confederate
bankers John Porterfield and George Payne and also JP Morgan to "short" the greenback.
By 1864, the subversive traitor Salmon Chase had managed to tie the greenback to a (London
controlled) gold standard thus making its value hinge upon gold speculation. During a vital
moment of the war, these financiers coordinated a mass "sell off" of gold to London driving up
the price of gold and collapsing the value of the U.S. dollar crippling Lincoln's ability to
fund the war effort.
Direct Military intervention Thwarted: As early as 1861, the Trent Crisis nearly
induced a hot war with Britain when a union ship intervened onto a British ship in
international waters and arrested two high level confederate agents en route to London. Knowing
that a two-fold war at this early stage was unwinnable, Lincoln pushed back against hot heads
within his own cabinet who argued for a second front saying "one war at a time". Despite this
near miss, London wasted no time deploying over 10 000 soldiers to Canada for the duration of
the war ready to strike down upon the Union at a moment's notice and kept at bay in large
measure due to the bold intervention of the
Russian fleet to both Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the USA . This was a clear message to
both England and to Napoleon III's France (who were stationed across the Mexican border)
to
stay out of America's war.
Despite Russia's intervention, Britain continued to build warships for the Confederacy which
devastated the Union navy during the war and which England had to pay $15.5 million to the USA
in 1872 under
the Alabama Claims.
Terrorism: It is less well known today than it was during the 19 th century that
confederate terror operations onto the north occurred throughout the civil war with raids on
Union POW camps, efforts to burn popular New York hotels, blowing up ships on the Mississippi,
and the infamous St Albans raid of October 1964 on Vermont and attacks on Buffalo, Chicago,
Sandusky, Ohio, Detroit, and Pennsylvania. While the St Albans raiders were momentarily
arrested in Montreal, they were soon released under the logic that they represented a
"sovereign state" at conflict with another "sovereign state" with no connection with Canada
(perhaps a lesson can be learned here for Meng Wanzhou's lawyers?).
Assassination: I already mentioned that a $550 note was found on Boothe's body with the
signature of Ontario Bank president Henry Starnes which the failed actor would have received
during his October 1864 stay in Montreal. What I did not mention is that Booth stayed at the St
Lawrence Hall Hotel which served as primary headquarters for the Confederacy from 1863-65.
Describing the collusion of Northern Copperheads, anti-Lincoln republicans, and Wall Street
agents, Sheehy writes: "All of these powerful northerners were at St. Lawrence Hall rubbing
elbows with the Confederates who used the hotel as an unofficial Headquarters. This was the
universe in which John Wilkes Booth circulated in Canada."
In a 2014 expose , historian Anton Chaitkin, points out that the money used by Boothe came
directly from a $31,507.97 transfer from London arranged by the head of European confederate
secret service chief James D. Bulloch. It is no coincidence that Bulloch happens to also be the
beloved uncle and mentor of the same Teddy Roosevelt who became the president over the dead
body of Lincoln-follower William McKinley (assassinated in 1901).
In his expose, Chaitkin wrote:
"James D. Bulloch was the maternal uncle, model and strategy-teacher to future U.S.
President Theodore Roosevelt. He emerged from the shadows of the Civil War when his nephew
Teddy helped him to organize his papers and to publish a sanitized version of events in his
1883 memoir, The Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe. Under the protection of
imperial oligarchs such as Lord Salisbury and other Cecil family members, working in tandem
with Britain's military occupation of its then-colony Canada, Bulloch arranged English
construction and crewing for Confederate warships that notoriously preyed upon American
commerce."
The Truth is Buried Under the Sands of History
While four low level members of Booth's cell were hanged on July 7, 1865 after a four month
show trial (1), the actual orchestrators of Lincoln's assassination were never brought to
justice with nearly every leading member of the confederate leadership having escaped to
England in the wake of Lincoln's murder. Even John Surrat (who was among the eight who faced
trial) avoided hanging when his case was dropped, and his $25 000 bail was mysteriously paid by
an anonymous benefactor unknown to this day. After this, Surrat escaped to London where the
U.S. Consuls demands for his arrest were ignored by British authorities.
Confederate spymaster Judah Benjamin escaped arrest and lived out his days as a Barrister in
England, and Confederate President Jefferson Davies speaking to adoring fans in Quebec in June
1867 encouraged the people to reject the spread of republicanism and instead embrace the new
British Confederation scheme that would soon be imposed
weeks later . Davies spoke to the Canadian band performing Dixie at the Royal Theater:
"I hope that you will hold fast to their British principles and that you may ever strive to
cultivate close and affectionate connections with the mother country".
With the loss of Lincoln, and the 1868 death of Thaddeus Stevens, Confederate General
Albert Pike established restoration of the southern oligarchy and sabotage of Lincoln's
restoration with the rise of the KKK, and renewal of Southern Rite Freemasonry. Over the
ensuing years, an all out assault was launched on Lincoln's Greenbacks culminating in the
Specie Resumption Act of 1875 tying the U.S. financial system to British "hard money"
monetarism and paving the way for the later financial coup known as the Federal Reserve Act of
1913 (2).
While the Southern Confederacy plot ultimately failed, Britain's "other confederacy
operation launched in 1864 was successfully consolidated with the British
North America Act of July 1, 1867. The hoped-for extension of trans continental rail lines
through British Columbia and into Alaska and Russia were sabotaged as told in the
Real Story Behind the Alaska Purchase of 1867.
Instead of witnessing a new world system of sovereign nation states under a multipolar order
of collaboration driven by international infrastructure projects as Lincoln's followers like
William Seward, Ulysses Grant, William Gilpin and President McKinley envisioned , a new age
of war and empire re-asserted itself throughout the 20 th century.
It was this same trifold Deep State that contended with Franklin Roosevelt and his patriotic
Vice President Henry Wallace for power during the course of WWII, and
it was this same beast that ran the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. As New
Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison demonstrated in his book On the Trail of the Assassins (1991 ),
Kennedy's murder was arranged by a complex assassination network that brought into play
Southern secret intelligence assets in Louisiana, and Texas, Wall Street financiers, and a
strange assassination bureau based in Montreal named Permindex under the leadership of Maj.
Gen. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield. This was the same intelligence operation that grew out of
MI6's Camp X in Ottawa
during WWII and changed its name but not its functions during the Cold War. This is the
same British Imperial complex that has been attempting to undo the watershed moment of 1776 for
over 240 years.
It is this same tumor in the heart of the USA that has invested everything in a gamble to
put their senile tool Joe Biden into the seat of the Presidency and oust the first genuinely
nationalist American president the world has seen in nearly 60 years.
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.
It makes me nauseous just thinking about who might be chosen for a Biden
administration.
There will be no hope for reform within the Democratic Party, ever, with a 2020 win.
A win will be the formal announcement of the death of "the left" as the ideology that has
traditionally represented the interests of the people. The credibility of "the left" has been
eroding with each regime change war the U.S. has been initiating and participating in, with
NATO, since the war on Yugoslavia, but particularly in the Middle East and Libya. There has
not been a reckoning. Moral transgressions and cowardice, greed and inertia have in fact been
rewarded, and institutionalised. Eichman's plea a badge of honour and the whistleblower blown
away. The neocons, those influential Jewish, X-Trotskyite political chameleons pushed those
wars, and soft sold them through their many corporate media connections to produce "left
wing" journalism which manipulated concern for cruel dictators, for persecuted ethnic
minorities, refugees, weapons of mass destruction (the latest toxic version is chemical
weapons) and the unavailability of certain kinds of human rights, in nations which were
experiencing wars of "bomb them back to the stone age" aggression and psychopathic proxy
terror arranged by these very same neocons.
"The left" signalled their virtue by believing the war propaganda, and have not sufficiently
grasped the gravity of the sham perpetrated on their minds by this array of war criminals.
The derangement by Donald syndrome has also proven to be a most emphatic signal of virtue
with "the left", a commandment of wokeness. It is also most apparent that the deplorables,
aka the rednecks, can never be included in a census of the left- oh that is just way beyond
the pale! Very hard to imagine a large group of people who are so denigrated, and not just
within the US. Even the bourgeois left has become elitist, and the elitist as in Marxist left
has paradoxically no time for people, let alone the common ones. Vk has left us in no
doubt.
Glen Greenwald is at his peak in his Tucker Carlson interview, talking of infiltration of
"the left" by the agencies. This is compelling journalism because these truths are dangerous.
If there is a deep state, then it is the Dems, they've got it covered and the Atlanticists
are their allies. It fits in with Giraldi's latest prognostications, and what would be a
counterrevolution and not a revolution should "the left" decide to make the push. By left he
means Dems and their corporate sponsored affiliates, partisan elements of the spy agencies
and big tech. (I think of Mark2 and his misspelt slogans straight from the Gene Sharpe
handbook and wonder if earnest Mark2 is a typical lefty cadre, and muse over his enthusiasm
for the gutless Jeremy Corbyn, whom I'm sure is a very nice chap personally, but look at the
Labour Party now. Mark2, have you heard of the two forms of fascism, fascism and anti
fascism?). Jimmy Dore continues to be heroic when faced with unpleasant truths. Keep being
mad Jimmy, and just don't stand for it anymore!
Some of us are grateful for these individuals (and thanks to b for his meta commentary)
because they are publically enacting a kind of meaculpa, and they have premonitions and we
are being warned. There is grace in that. There still are still some good people who can
speak publically.
I used to be left politically, but got disillusioned some time ago. Not knowing what
progressivism is leading to, and not trusting its practitioners, I find conservatism to be
the more reasonable and tolerant position for these times.
The Italian archbishop best known for confronting Pope Francis over the Vatican's willful
blindness to priests who abuse boys has written a letter in which he lashes out at the
"global elite", prompting some to accuse him of sympathizing with the "QAnon" movement of
conspiracy theorists.
The letter, penned by Archibishop Carlo Maria Vigano, formerly the Vatican's ambassador to
the US, attacks a shadowy "global elite", that is plotting a "Great Reset" intended to
undermine "God and humanity".
This same group, the archbishop argued, is also responsible for the lockdowns that have
restricted movement and freedom around the globe, eliciting protests in many European
capitals.
"The fate of the whole world is being threatened by a global conspiracy against God and
humanity," Viganò wrote in the letter, which comes just days before the US election,
which the archbishop wrote was of "epochal importance."
"No one, up until last February," Viganò writes, "would ever have thought that, in
all of our cities, citizens would be arrested simply for wanting to walk down the street, to
breathe, to want to keep their business open, to want to go to church on Sunday. Yet now it
is happening all over the world, even in picture-postcard Italy that many Americans consider
to be a small enchanted country, with its ancient monuments, its churches, its charming
cities, its characteristic villages." Viganò adds: "And while the politicians are
barricaded inside their palaces promulgating decrees like Persian satraps, businesses are
failing, shops are closing, and people are prevented from living, traveling, working, and
praying."
Working to protect the world from this group of elites seeking to recast society in a
secular, totalitarian model, Viganò portrays President Trump as "the final garrison
against the world dictatorship". Viganò cast Trump's opponent, Vice President Joe
Biden, as "a person who is manipulated by the deep state."
Analysts who monitor "QAnon" conspiracy theories and their spread online warned the
mainstream press that the letter had been widely discussed on various QAnon message boards,
and had been disseminated in languages including Portuguese, Spanish, French, German and
Italian, according to
Yahoo News.
Over the summer, Trump tweeted an earlier letter penned by the archbishop, and encouraged
his supporters to read it.
In the past, Viagnò has accused Pope Francis of sweeping the child abuse crisis
under the rug, and moving to protect homosexual priests, part of a "homosexual current"
flowing through the Vatican.
Read the full letter below:
* * *
DONALD J. TRUMP
Sunday, October 25, 2020
Solemnity of Christ the King
Mr. President,
Allow me to address you at this hour in which the fate of the whole world is being
threatened by a global conspiracy against God and humanity. I write to you as an Archbishop,
as a Successor of the Apostles, as the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of
America. I am writing to you in the midst of the silence of both civil and religious
authorities. May you accept these words of mine as the "voice of one crying out in the
desert" (Jn 1:23).
As I said when I wrote my letter to you in June, this historical moment sees the forces of
Evil (read neoliberalism) aligned in a battle without quarter against the forces of Good;
forces of Evil that appear powerful and organized as they oppose the children of Light, who
are disoriented and disorganized, abandoned by their temporal and spiritual leaders .
Daily we sense the attacks multiplying of those who want to destroy the very basis of
society: the natural family, respect for human life, love of country, freedom of education
and business. We see heads of nations and religious leaders pandering to this suicide of
Western culture and its Christian soul, while the fundamental rights of citizens and
believers are denied in the name of a health emergency that is revealing itself more and more
fully as instrumental to the establishment of an inhuman faceless tyranny.
A global plan called the Great Reset is underway. Its architect is a global élite
that wants to subdue all of humanity, imposing coercive measures with which to drastically
limit individual freedoms and those of entire populations. In several nations this plan has
already been approved and financed; in others it is still in an early stage. Behind the world
leaders who are the accomplices and executors of this infernal project, there are
unscrupulous characters who finance the World Economic Forum and Event 201, promoting their
agenda.
The purpose of the Great Reset is the imposition of a health dictatorship aiming at the
imposition of liberticidal measures, hidden behind tempting promises of ensuring a universal
income and cancelling individual debt. The price of these concessions from the International
Monetary Fund will be the renunciation of private property and adherence to a program of
vaccination against Covid-19 and Covid-21 promoted by Bill Gates with the collaboration of
the main pharmaceutical groups. Beyond the enormous economic interests that motivate the
promoters of the Great Reset, the imposition of the vaccination will be accompanied by the
requirement of a health passport and a digital ID, with the consequent contact tracing of the
population of the entire world. Those who do not accept these measures will be confined in
detention camps or placed under house arrest, and all their assets will be confiscated.
Mr. President, I imagine that you are already aware that in some countries the Great Reset
will be activated between the end of this year and the first trimester of 2021. For this
purpose, further lockdowns are planned, which will be officially justified by a supposed
second and third wave of the pandemic. You are well aware of the means that have been
deployed to sow panic and legitimize draconian limitations on individual liberties, artfully
provoking a world-wide economic crisis. In the intentions of its architects, this crisis will
serve to make the recourse of nations to the Great Reset irreversible, thereby giving the
final blow to a world whose existence and very memory they want to completely cancel. But
this world, Mr. President, includes people, affections, institutions, faith, culture,
traditions, and ideals: people and values that do not act like automatons, who do not obey
like machines, because they are endowed with a soul and a heart, because they are tied
together by a spiritual bond that draws its strength from above, from that God that our
adversaries want to challenge, just as Lucifer did at the beginning of time with his "non
serviam."
Many people – as we well know – are annoyed by this reference to the clash
between Good and Evil and the use of "apocalyptic" overtones, which according to them
exasperates spirits and sharpens divisions. It is not surprising that the enemy is angered at
being discovered just when he believes he has reached the citadel he seeks to conquer
undisturbed. What is surprising, however, is that there is no one to sound the alarm. The
reaction of the deep state to those who denounce its plan is broken and incoherent, but
understandable. Just when the complicity of the mainstream media had succeeded in making the
transition to the New World Order almost painless and unnoticed, all sorts of deceptions,
scandals and crimes are coming to light.
Until a few months ago, it was easy to smear as "conspiracy theorists" those who denounced
these terrible plans, which we now see being carried out down to the smallest detail. No one,
up until last February, would ever have thought that, in all of our cities, citizens would be
arrested simply for wanting to walk down the street, to breathe, to want to keep their
business open, to want to go to church on Sunday. Yet now it is happening all over the world,
even in picture-postcard Italy that many Americans consider to be a small enchanted country,
with its ancient monuments, its churches, its charming cities, its characteristic villages.
And while the politicians are barricaded inside their palaces promulgating decrees like
Persian satraps, businesses are failing, shops are closing, and people are prevented from
living, traveling, working, and praying. The disastrous psychological consequences of this
operation are already being seen, beginning with the suicides of desperate entrepreneurs and
of our children, segregated from friends and classmates, told to follow their classes while
sitting at home alone in front of a computer.
In Sacred Scripture, Saint Paul speaks to us of "the one who opposes" the manifestation of
the mystery of iniquity, the kathèkon (2 Thess 2:6-7). In the religious sphere, this
obstacle to evil is the Church, and in particular the papacy; in the political sphere, it is
those who impede the establishment of the New World Order.
As is now clear, the one who occupies the Chair of Peter has betrayed his role from the
very beginning in order to defend and promote the globalist ideology, supporting the agenda
of the deep church, who chose him from its ranks.
Mr. President, you have clearly stated that you want to defend the nation – One
Nation under God, fundamental liberties, and non-negotiable values that are denied and fought
against today. It is you, dear President, who are "the one who opposes" the deep state, the
final assault of the children of darkness.
For this reason, it is necessary that all people of good will be persuaded of the epochal
importance of the imminent election: not so much for the sake of this or that political
program, but because of the general inspiration of your action that best embodies – in
this particular historical context – that world, our world, which they want to cancel
by means of the lockdown. Your adversary is also our adversary: it is the Enemy of the human
race, He who is "a murderer from the beginning" (Jn 8:44).
Around you are gathered with faith and courage those who consider you the final garrison
against the world dictatorship. The alternative is to vote for a person who is manipulated by
the deep state, gravely compromised by scandals and corruption, who will do to the United
States what Jorge Mario Bergoglio is doing to the Church, Prime Minister Conte to Italy,
President Macron to France, Prime Minster Sanchez to Spain, and so on. The blackmailable
nature of Joe Biden – just like that of the prelates of the Vatican's "magic circle"
– will expose him to be used unscrupulously, allowing illegitimate powers to interfere
in both domestic politics as well as international balances. It is obvious that those who
manipulate him already have someone worse than him ready, with whom they will replace him as
soon as the opportunity arises.
And yet, in the midst of this bleak picture, this apparently unstoppable advance of the
"Invisible Enemy," an element of hope emerges. The adversary does not know how to love, and
it does not understand that it is not enough to assure a universal income or to cancel
mortgages in order to subjugate the masses and convince them to be branded like cattle.
This people, which for too long has endured the abuses of a hateful and tyrannical power,
is rediscovering that it has a soul; it is understanding that it is not willing to exchange
its freedom for the homogenization and cancellation of its identity; it is beginning to
understand the value of familial and social ties, of the bonds of faith and culture that
unite honest people. This Great Reset is destined to fail because those who planned it do not
understand that there are still people ready to take to the streets to defend their rights,
to protect their loved ones, to give a future to their children and grandchildren. The
leveling inhumanity of the globalist project will shatter miserably in the face of the firm
and courageous opposition of the children of Light. The enemy has Satan on its side, He who
only knows how to hate. But on our side, we have the Lord Almighty, the God of armies arrayed
for battle, and the Most Holy Virgin, who will crush the head of the ancient Serpent. "If God
is for us, who can be against us?" (Rom 8:31).
Mr. President, you are well aware that, in this crucial hour, the United States of America
is considered the defending wall against which the war declared by the advocates of globalism
has been unleashed. Place your trust in the Lord, strengthened by the words of the Apostle
Paul: "I can do all things in Him who strengthens me" (Phil 4:13). To be an instrument of
Divine Providence is a great responsibility, for which you will certainly receive all the
graces of state that you need, since they are being fervently implored for you by the many
people who support you with their prayers.
With this heavenly hope and the assurance of my prayer for you, for the First Lady, and
for your collaborators, with all my heart I send you my blessing.
God bless the United States of America!
+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana
Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America
holgerdanske , 33 minutes ago
Here is a man who seems to get it spot on!
Richard Chesler , 3 minutes ago
What's his ZH alias?
Sparehead , 29 minutes ago
I'd lost all hope for the Catholic church, but this guy is stepping up.
I was just telling my brother that it was likely the best thing that ever happened to me
when my parents decided to move me from Catholic school to public school, and that I never
was an alter boy when in Catholic school. Who knew the priests were diddling the alter boys
at the cyclic rate?
Slaytheist , 32 minutes ago
I left the church long ago, for the obvious reasons. If Carlo Maria Viganò was
Pope, and the kid touchers burnt at the stake, I'd consider going back.
sixsigma cygnusatratus , 29 minutes ago
Leftism is an inverse form of theocracy. Destroying the Church and replacing it with
government is also part of the plan of globalism.
Nation States and Christianity represent a threat to globalists and leftists.
Cabreado , 36 minutes ago
I appreciate the Archbishop's efforts, but...
Trump can't "save" it; he can only throw a wrench in the velocity.
(plenty worthy of a vote, I'd add)
Saving anything -- that's on the People.
That's per Design.
Like the petrodollars, WTO better known as globalization, was formed in 1995 after the
fall of Eastern blocks ,to dominate and control the world trade in US fiat currency specially
when China with her cheap skilled labor was to become major world manufacturers of goods.
Basically like oil America agreed not to impose tariff on goods they consumed if you trade
and exported on their fiat currency which costed US nothing to produce. Obviously unlike oil
trade this globalization of trade in US dollar could not work, since unlike oil trade America
couldn't politically dominated and control the good manufacturing countries, like it could,
with small oil producing countries. The period of free trade in goods and energy is coming to
an end, therefore US needs to lower her standards of living, or to go to major wars with
other resources hungry powers to continue colonizing the third world resources and labor.
Either way the end result will be the sam as for, not so Great Britain, ottomans, Spanish,
Persian empires, the only obvious difference shorter empire.
"... Recently, the essayist George Scialabba described neoliberalism as "the extension of market dominance to all spheres of social life, fostered and enforced by the state," a rather nefarious-sounding proposition, including "investor rights agreements masquerading as 'free trade' and constraining the rights of governments to protect their own workers, environments, and currencies." ..."
"... Washington Monthly ..."
"... "neoliberal" quickly took on the heartless, Hooverian odor that "conservative" already had. ..."
"... checklist of neoliberal principles, which includes "the rule of the market," "cutting expenditures for social services," "deregulation," "privatization, and "eliminating the concept of 'the public good' or 'community.'" ..."
"... Between neoconservative and neoliberal, then, the neo prefix means not "new" but "disingenuous." ..."
"... The "neo" prefix now also carries a whiff of racist, in that both neoliberals and neoconservatives dissent from the liberal consensus on race issues, with neither in line with the idea that whites are stained by "privilege." ..."
... Today the word is generally used as a critique from the left to refer to capitalism run
amok. Recently, the essayist George Scialabba described
neoliberalism as "the extension of market dominance to all spheres of social life, fostered and
enforced by the state," a rather nefarious-sounding proposition, including "investor rights
agreements masquerading as 'free trade' and constraining the rights of governments to protect
their own workers, environments, and currencies."
... In the early '80s, Charles Peters, the editor of the Washington Monthly ,
helped usher in the new flavor of the word, as well as its reception from the left, with his
aggressive
"A Neo-Liberal's Manifesto." Those New Republic writers also brandished their
self-appellation as neoliberals , in contrast to the mockingly termed
paleoliberals . It furthered the sense of neoliberals as conservatives in sheep's
clothing that they also opposed the basic liberal position on race issues -- Bill Clinton's
welfare-reform policy, for example, was an outgrowth of neoliberal positions established in the
1980s, heartily espoused by, for example, TheNew Republic . Overtones, then,
took effect -- for liberals, "neoliberal" quickly took on the heartless, Hooverian odor
that "conservative" already had.
Since the Great Recession put the free market in an especially bad light, the new sense of
neoliberal as a stain has settled in for good. Those familiar with the term through
the writings of Lippmann, Hayek, or Friedman, once treated as "respectable" by many liberals,
might now be confused by tart descriptions of neoliberalism such as the immigration activists
Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia's flinty, contemptuous checklist of neoliberal
principles, which
includes "the rule of the market," "cutting expenditures for social services,"
"deregulation," "privatization, and "eliminating the concept of 'the public good' or
'community.'"
...Today, neoliberal is used to refer to someone who bills themselves as a liberal but
promotes ideas that actually inhibit individuals' well-being. In the 1930s, the neo- in
neoliberal meant "new." But with this new meaning, the neo- prefix takes on a more specific
connotation: "fake."
... ... ...
Between neoconservative and neoliberal, then, the neo prefix means not "new" but
"disingenuous." The neocon cloaks right-wing barbarism to make it seem less threatening;
the neoliberal poses as a liberal while actually being a right-winger. The "neo" prefix now
also carries a whiff of racist, in that both neoliberals and neoconservatives dissent from the
liberal consensus on race issues, with neither in line with the idea that whites are stained by
"privilege." From "new" to a moralist sneer -- this is how meanings evolve. The original
ideological positions survive, and impose their meanings on the words created to move beyond
them.
JOHN
MCWHORTERis a contributing writer at The Atlantic. He teaches linguistics at Columbia
University, hosts the podcast Lexicon Valley ,
and is the author, most recently, of Words on the Move
.
What Would A Democratic Presidency Really Change?worldblee , Oct 31 2020
17:02 utc |
1
Pepe Escobar is as pessimistic about a Harris (Biden) administration as I am. The incoming
foreign policy team would be the return of the
blob that waged seven wars during the Obama/Biden administration:
Taking a cue from [the Transition Integrity Project], let's game a Dem return to the White
House – with the prospect of a President Kamala taking over sooner rather than later.
That means, essentially, The Return of the Blob.
President Trump calls it "the swamp". Former Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben
Rhodes – a mediocre hack – at least coined the funkier "Blob", applied to the
incestuous Washington, DC foreign policy gang, think tanks, academia, newspapers (from the
Washington Post to the New York Times), and that unofficial Bible, Foreign Affairs
magazine.
A Dem presidency, right away, will need to confront the implications of two wars: Cold
War 2.0 against China, and the interminable, trillion-dollar GWOT (Global War on Terror),
renamed OCO (Overseas Contingency Operations) by the Obama-Biden administration.
The Democratic White House team Escobar describes (Clinton, Blinken, Rice, Flournoy) would
be an assembly of well known war mongers who all argue for hawkish policies. The main
'enemies', Russia and China, would be the same as under Trump. Syria, Venezuela, Iran and
others would stay on the U.S. target list. U.S. foreign policy would thereby hardly change
from Trump's version but would probably be handled with more deadly competence.
But Escobar sees two potential positive developments:
In contrast, two near-certain redeeming features would be the return of the US to the
JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, which was Obama-Biden's only foreign policy achievement, and
re-starting nuclear disarmament negotiations with Russia. That would imply containment of
Russia, not a new all-out Cold War, even as Biden has recently stressed, on the record,
that Russia is the "biggest threat" to the US.
I believe that Harris (Biden) will disappoint on both of those issues. The
neoconservatives have already infested the Harris (Biden) camp. They will make sure that
JCPOA
does not come back :
Last night on an official Biden campaign webinar led by "Jewish Americans for Biden", and
moderated by Ann Lewis of Democratic Majority for Israel, two prominent neocon Republicans
endorsed Biden, primarily because of Trump's character posing a danger to democracy. But
both neocons emphasized that Biden would be more willing to use force in the Middle East
and reassured Jewish viewers that Biden will seek to depoliticize Israel support, won't
necessarily return to the Iran deal and will surround himself with advisers who support
Israel and believe in American military intervention.
Eric Edelman, a former diplomat and adviser to Dick Cheney, said Trump's peace plan has
fostered an open political divide in the U.S. over Israel, ...
Eliot Cohen, a Bush aide and academic, echoed the fear that Israel is being politicized.
...
...
Cohen and Edelman opposed Obama's Iran deal, and both predicted that Biden will be hawkish
on Iran.
...
"There will be voices" in the Biden administration that seek a return to the Iran deal, but
the clock has been running for four years, and we're in a different place, he said. And "it
will be hard [for Biden] not to use the leverage that the sanctions provide in part because
Iran is not abiding by a lot of the limits of the nuclear agreement They're about three,
maybe four months away from having enough fissile material to actually develop a nuclear
weapon."
For lifting the sanctions against Iran the Harris (Biden) administration will demand much
more than Iran's return to the limits of the JCPOA. Iran will reject all new demands, be they
about restricting its missile force or limiting its support for Syria. The conflict will
thereby continue to fester.
The other issue is arms control. While a Harris (Biden) administration may take up Putin's
offer to unconditionally
prolong the New-START agreement for a year it will certainly want more concessions from
Russia than that country is willing to give. Currently it is Russia that has the upper hand
in strategic weapons with already deployed hypersonic missiles and other new platforms. The
U.S. will want to fill the new 'missile gap' and the military-industrial complex stands ready
to profit from that. The New-START prolongation will eventually run out and I do not see the
U.S. agreeing to new terms while Russia has a technological superiority.
Domestic policies under a democratic president will likewise see no substantial
difference. As Krystal Ball remarked,
here summarized from a Rolling Stone podcast:
But even with a Biden win, Ball doesn't think it will mean much for policy.
"My prediction for the Biden era is that very little actually happens," says Ball.
"Democrats are very good at feigning impotence. We saw this in the SCOTUS hearings as well.
They're very good for coming up with reasons why, 'oh those mean Republicans, like we want
to do better healthcare and we want left wages, but oh gosh, Mitch McConnell, he's so
wiley, we can't get it done.'"
'Change' was an Obama marketing slogan to sell his Republican light policies. A real
change never came. The Harris (Biden) administration must be seen in similar light.
I therefore agree with the sentiment with which Escobar closes his piece :
In a nutshell, Biden-Harris would mean The Return of the Blob with a vengeance.
Biden-Harris would be Obama-Biden 3.0. Remember those seven wars. Remember the surges.
Remember the kill lists. Remember Libya. Remember Syria. Remember "soft coup" Brazil.
Remember Maidan. You have all been warned.
Posted by b at
16:45 UTC |
Comments (183) I have been trying to set the expectations for my deluded Democratic,
pro-tech industry, pro-security state friends and colleagues who think they are
forward-thinking progressives but actually just hate Trump as emblematic of non-college
educated blue collar types they prefer not to associate with. Biden himself said it, "Nothing
will change," and Obama deported many more people in his first term than Trump has to pick
but one issue. There will be no M4A, little change in foreign policy, no major stimulus for
workers, etc. But since the face in the White House will have changed, they will convince
themselves that America has changed and it was all thanks to them...
One major change I expect to see is that BLM protests will fade into the background if
Harris/Biden is elected. Without the need to pressure an administration the elites want to
get rid of, there won't be the funding and energy to sustain it. But America will continue on
the same downward trajectory and the same divisions will still exist with no remediation in
sight.
Really, so what? You have a choice between chaotic anarchic corruption, and organised
professional corruption. Is it not better to have the calm, predictable, version - at least
you know what you're getting. In any case I am not sure Biden would be able to go back to
launching new wars so easily. The US gives the impression of being over-stretched as it is.
It seems clear that Biden will win. This means that the possibility of a serious military
confrontation with Russia is more likely than it would be with a Trump win. In any Biden
cabinet Michelle Flournoy will have a major voice. She would have likely become Hillary's
Secretary of Defense. In August of 2016 Flournoy wrote a major foreign policy article
advocating a 'no fly' zone over Syria. That would have meant that the US military would have
been obliged to prevent the Russia airforce from operating in Syrian skies (even though, the
Syrian government had invited the Russians to be there). No one really knows if Flournoy
would have been given authority to carry out such insanity had Hillary won, but the
consequences of such insane policy are easy to imagine.
But without much doubt, a Biden administration will have Susan Rice and Michelle Flournoy
in very high policy positions. Given that Biden is rapidly descending into dementia and
Kamala Harris seems utterly clueless, US government foreign policy will very likely be led by
a Rice/Flournoy collaboration in the coming years. Of course, China has become a much bigger
player in the last four years. Maybe those fools around Biden will be distracted by China and
they avoid war with with Russia. In either case it looks like very dangerous times
ahead.
Trump was always for me about controlled demolition of the empire.
Putin will not tolerate another ramping up of hostilities in the MENA.
I believe, just as in 2016, open military confrontation with Russia hangs in the
balance.
It is believed here and elsewhere that Russia and China are working hand in hand and
lockstep to thwart the empire.
They may be trade allies but they are not bed fellows.
Russia will always do what is in its own interest and will be beyond reproach from China
come a last-minute attempt for it to talk down hostilities btw Ru and U.S.A.
I hope those peddling the narrative that all is theater and a mere globalist game to keep
the peons entertained are correct.
But I fear the stupidity and egoism of man far more than I do their love of money and life
of luxury.
The JCPOA's "snap back" provisions etc. prove that Obama never intended JCPOA as a long term
agreement in the first place. The issue was always how long it would suit, not how long it
would take for the US to. Nor is the US going to forego it's support for a colonial assault
on the Middle East, aka Israel, any more than England will give up Gibraltar.
That said, there really is a policy debate between attacking Russia first or attacking
China first or simultaneously attacking both. The thing is, the conflict will continue after
any election. Since the Democratic Party isn't a programmatic party but a franchise operation
of Outs, there will be zero unanimity within the Democratic Party and not even a clean sweep
of the national government will resolve the dispute, which will be waged with exactly the
same panic-mongering, paranoid cries of treason, barely subdued hysteria at the prospect of
the lower races overtaking the God-given rights of the US government to exercise imperium
(right to punish, particularly with death, originally) over humanity, and so on. The same
ignorant vicious halfwits who were convinced Clinton Foundation was worse than the Comintern
infiltrating innocent America made assholes of themselves. They'll just do it again over
Biden, but with different made up excuses.
Domestically, there will be real differences, albeit some will still consider them
entirely minor. There will be less emphasis on military officers masquerading as civilian
officials; more emphasis on actually having competent officials who are even confirmed by the
Senate; somewhat larger infrastructure investment; somewhat less deliberate destruction of
government capacity to deliver services; slightly greater emphasis on keeping money valuable
by limiting government spending, with smaller increases in military spending, slightly
greater taxes, and only limited support to state governments going bankrupt, bankrupt
unemployment and pension funds; a few restrictions on mass evictions; no separation of
families in ICE prisons; open appeals to racism will cease. There will not however be any
Medicare expansion, nor will there be a radically progressive federal income tax, not even a
new bankruptcy law, nor will there be even political reforms like direct popular election of
the president or even reform of the judiciary. There may be a minimum wage increase to $15
per hour.
One note: The idea that any president will honor any deal to step down or that a president
can be forced down is refuted by history thus far. All theories that Biden is scheduled to be
terminated are silly. Or worse, attempts to race bait Harris (note the ones who like to call
her by her first name.) The influence exercised by Obama in getting Biden the nomination
shows that if Biden is in any sense a puppet, he's Obama's puppet. Fixating on Harris instead
is foolish even as some sort of amateur conspiracy mongering. No matter what Obama thinks,
the inauguration will sever all puppet strings.
Can't say I'm convinced by all these threats of wars. They didn't do a No-Fly Zone in
Syria when they could, e.g. 2013. The reason it was not done is that it was too difficult to
do, and required too vast a military investment. Situation remains true today. You'll find
most of Biden's prospective wars fall in the same category.
The US self-declared "progressives" are horribly dumb people, no matter their degrees and
"intellectual" professions. Stupidity is the illness (weakness) of the societal immunity
system. The Blob of the parasitic class is the pestilence that thrives on the immune weakness
of the US society. Not happy with mine, then find a better metaphor.
I repeat myself from before, US presidents change, US policy (Mayhem Inc.) does not.
Nether on Russia, Syria, Iran, Venezuela ..., nor on China. If Trump loses, I will miss only
the potential duel at the OK Corral between Trump and the Blob/Swamp. If Trmp wins, I am
buying popcorn.
@Laguerre #7
I would argue the failure of a "no-fly" zone in Syria was more due to united UN (Russia and
China) opposition plus the Russia airbase in Tartus rather than any policy changes in the US.
It's everywhere. And matched by Democratic Party ineptitude, fake "resistance", and
generally lax attitude (spurred by a false sense of security due to polling numbers that
can't be relied upon).
That's why I'm predicting a Trump landslide - including winning the popular vote.
The Deep State wants a 'Glorious Leader' type that can lead the country against Russia and
China.
KB has it right the demodogs will have better PR but nothing will change. The only thing I
hope they do is fully throw the u.s. govt behind stopping the virus and even that will be
hard do to many stupid people.
Trumpster and the swamp all he did was change the cruel animals in it and biden will
change it back to the other cruel animals that were there before.
It is hard to tell what will change if the Democrats win because they have flip flopped on
policies so many times that you don't know what they really stand for.
Are they going to ban fracking or not?
Are they going to end the oil industry or not?
Are they going to pack the Supreme Court or not ?
Are they going to implement the Green New Deal or not ?
Are they going to encourage immigration or not ?
Are they going to tear down the Wall?
Are they going to defund the police or not?
Other than #OrangeManBad what do they actually stand for ?
Jonathan Pie lays it out quite nicely https://youtu.be/IdnHfYbr1cQ
The one issue that is critical is that it is clear than Biden will not make it full term.
His mental faculties are deteriorating rapidly. He might just make it over the goal post line
but just barely.
Therefore the real question is what will Kamala Harris do?
Russia has a lead in strategic weapons that the US will not be able to catch up with.
Hence the US emphasis on nuclear weapons to bridge the gap. Russia has successfully thwarted
the empire on several occasions. How will the empire struck back ? (So as not to lose
credibility with allies and vassals alike)
They are going to reduce government subsidies for fracking
And encourage the oil industry's ongoing retooling to other energies
They are going to expand the SCOTUS to 13 seats in keeping with the number of Circuit
Courts
They are going to implement environmental legislation and policies
They will hopefully try to adopt a comprehensive policy on immigration and naturalization
They will abandon The Wall project as pointless
They will review the role of the police in dealing with situations where a social worker or a
psychologist (with police escort) might better be able to handle the situation
Kamala Harris will keep an active and high profile as she is being groomed to run in
2024
I agree that trajectory in foreign policy will be the same. I think a Trump administration
would tend to entrench into the bureaucracy the xenophobic nationalists. This is in contrast
to the neoliberal nationalists that make up the Democrat side of the foreign policy clique.
In practice the latter ends up carrying water for the neocons, so the difference from the
global perspective, the perspective of those on whom the bombs fall, is academic.
Domestically, however, I don't think we can say there's no significant difference. At some
point far down the road, there will be a more meaningful internal political struggle in the
US. Talking about when the $$ printing power runs out, so several presidential cycles from
now at the very earliest, maybe many decades away.
The out-groups targeted by xenophobic nationalism will shift by then - either black or
hispanic people will necessarily be included into the Republican party, and the divide may be
more a matter of religion or nationality than race, but the overall idea will be the
same.
No matter the details, it would be better to go into that conflict without giving the
right-wingers a big head start. I think we should admit that Trump does accelerate the
process. Maybe readers outside the US take some pleasure in the chaos produced by this, but
for anyone actually planning to live within the US, who also objects to unrestrained
nationalism, there actually is a pretty high price to pay for peeling off the mask of phony
benevolence off of the de-facto imperialist foreign policy.
'b' half the truth isn't the truth, no doubt you'l get round to the other half. It's
conspicuous !
In these times focusing on what might happen if we get Biden, is biased.
What in your view might happen if we get trump ?
Given his track record.
Much more relevant I feel.
@Malchik #16
Well, kid, I will guarantee that 2/3rds of what you say will happen with a Biden win, won't
happen.
I am particularly struck by your assertion that "super predator" Biden and "Lock 'em up"
Harris will do anything to rein in police misbehavior. That is pure fantasy.
As for fracking: the subsidies were primarily by banksters in the form of loans and have long
since ended. Nobody believes fracking is going to be a profitable business for at least a
decade.
The only objection I have with supporting Trump's reelection from a non far-right viewpoint
is that you would essentially be supporting an anti-democratic process: Trump is certainly
going to lose the popular vote. Deserving or not, Biden does represent the absolute majority
of adult America. By supporting Trump, you're essentially speaking in the name of the
interests of a small redneck aristocracy (of circa 77,000 in size, according to the 2016
election results) in the Rust Belt and Western Pennsylvania. You are supporting white
supremacy those rednecks undoubtedly support - wanting you or not.
In my opinion, it's time for the non far-right of the USA to start thinking seriously
(specially if you're one of the twelve socialists in the country) in Third Party vote. Yes,
you won't pick up the fruits immediately, but at least you're build up a legacy for the
generations to come to try to change the landscape.
Now, of course, very little will change with Biden-Harris. But this has a good side, too:
it shows the American Empire has clearly reached an exhaustion point, where the POTUS is
impotent to the obstacle posed by China-Russia. Putin has already publicly stated he doesn't
care who's next POTUS; China has already stated what the USA does or decides won't mean shit.
Maybe the rising irrelevance of the POTUS is good in the greater scheme of things - or, at
least, it gives us new, very precious, information about the core of the Empire.
Is b really suggesting Trump is more peaceful than Biden?
The notion that Trump is fundamentally different than Biden or Hillary or Obama or Bush is
specious. They are all on Team Deep State, which serves the monied class.
And the pretense that the Deep State is divided or partisan is equally laughable.
Strange that so many smart people fall for the shell game behind the 'Illusion of
Democracy'. Is it so difficult to see the reshuffling of deck chairs and entertaining
diversions that pass for "US politics"?
Biden will bring fresh blood to the Presidency, just you watch.
But seriously, things have been changing very rapidly all of my life, and accelerating as
we go. I don't see that the political/managerial classes here are up to the job of managing
that change, have shown any aptitude for it or understanding of it in the past either. They
remain focussed on their depraved personal ambitions and demented interpersonal disputes. So
no change in the midst of lots of change is what I expect, time to keep an eye out and
consider ones options.
By supporting Trump, you're essentially speaking in the name of the interests of a small
redneck aristocracy (of circa 77,000 in size, according to the 2016 election results) in
the Rust Belt and Western Pennsylvania. You are supporting white supremacy those rednecks
undoubtedly support - wanting you or not.
Jesus but that is an ignorant comment. Michael Moore explained 4 years ago why Trump will win
the election (2016) https://youtu.be/vMm5HfxNXY4
div> @vk #21
You said:
The only objection I have with supporting Trump's reelection from a non far-right
viewpoint is that you would essentially be supporting an anti-democratic process: Trump is
certainly going to lose the popular vote.
The United States has a Constitution and was designed as a Republic.
"Democracy" as in majoritarian rule was explicitly designed against by the Founding
Fathers.
Thus your criticism is utterly irrelevant. Until the Electoral College system is changed by
Constitutional Amendment, or the United States of America is overthrown by a revolution, all
this talk about "majoritarian demos rule" is purely partisan nonsense.
Note also that the 48 states which are "first past the post" are all disenfranchising the
minority views. I 100% guarantee that a European style ranked vote system would see far more
minority votes be submitted than the present systems.
Deserving or not, Biden does represent the absolute majority of adult America. By
supporting Trump, you're essentially speaking in the name of the interests of a small redneck
aristocracy (of circa 77,000 in size, according to the 2016 election results) in the Rust
Belt and Western Pennsylvania. You are supporting white supremacy those rednecks undoubtedly
support - wanting you or not.
Wow, thanks for showing your "deplorables" views. Anyone against the "right"
and "proper" Democrat sellouts to pharma, tech and enviro must be rednecks. It is precisely
this view that galvanized the vote against HRC in 2016.
The only objection I have with supporting Trump's reelection from a non far-right viewpoint
is that you would essentially be supporting an anti-democratic process: Trump is certainly
going to lose the popular vote.
The United States has a Constitution and was designed as a Republic.
"Democracy" as in majoritarian rule was explicitly designed against by the Founding
Fathers.
Thus your criticism is utterly irrelevant. Until the Electoral College system is changed by
Constitutional Amendment, or the United States of America is overthrown by a revolution, all
this talk about "majoritarian demos rule" is purely partisan nonsense.
Note also that the 48 states which are "first past the post" are all disenfranchising the
minority views. I 100% guarantee that a European style ranked vote system would see far more
minority votes be submitted than the present systems.
Deserving or not, Biden does represent the absolute majority of adult America. By
supporting Trump, you're essentially speaking in the name of the interests of a small
redneck aristocracy (of circa 77,000 in size, according to the 2016 election results) in
the Rust Belt and Western Pennsylvania. You are supporting white supremacy those rednecks
undoubtedly support - wanting you or not.
Wow, thanks for showing your "deplorables" views. Anyone against the "right" and
"proper" Democrat sellouts to pharma, tech and enviro must be rednecks. It is precisely this
view that galvanized the vote against HRC in 2016.
The notion that Trump is fundamentally different than Biden or Hillary or Obama or Bush is
specious.
That's not actually true.
Biden has 47 years of track record to rely on.
HRC, ditto.
Bush is umpteenth generation Bush in government (100 years plus).
Obama was groomed through Harvard, community organization and Senate position as a servant of
the oligarchy.
Trump is a billionaire and 2nd generation wealthy, but he neither shares the views of the
oligarch classes - his historical behavior is clear proof of that - nor is he predictable as
the other 4 are.
If presented with a neocon view - all 4 of the above would 100% agree.
Trump? 85%.
That is a difference albeit absolutely not world changing.
Pure BS.
Giving health care to 20 million poor Americans ain't nothing to sneeze at. Adding pre
existing conditions save millions of lives. That's why the right despises Obama so much. How
dare he give money to those free loaders!
lets show what the republicans have done for poor Americans besides taking more needex
money from them and giving it to their rich buddies.
and No, Democrats cannot do anything if they don't control the Congress. They should have
done it 2 years ago but since all they were doing was scream RUSSIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! at
the top of their lungs,the people turned their backs on them.
Bullshit article.
The Democrats are not going to end fracking. It is doomed to collapse without their help. A
Wall Street Journal study revealed a remarkable fact that few Americans know; From 2000-2017
fracking companies spent $280 billion more to extract fracked oil and gas than they received
in revenue. Fracking is nothing more than a massive Ponzi scheme predicated on the constant
issuing of debt and stock. Fracking wells deplete quickly. There is a constant need for more
expensive drilling. The remaining areas that will be fracked have less productive wells. Much
of the debt fracking companies have issued is back loaded while the well's production is
front loaded. There simply isn't going to be enough revenue generated to meet debt
obligations. What made the scheme possible was the artificially low interest rates created by
the Federal Reserve. There was a demand for yield that drove investment into debt of dubious
quality. A crash is inevitable.
Biden will bring fresh blood to the Presidency, just you watch.
I am curious why you think so.
Biden is nothing, if not a creature of habit (of obedience to his corporate masters).
Biden likely NSC: Tony Blinken. Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy NSC under Obama.
Susan "Bomber" Rice?
John Kerry?
Sally Yates? The one who signed the FISA warrants based on the Steele Dossier (based on 2
drunkard Russians in Malta mad at being fired)
Michael Bloomberg?
Jamie Dimon?
The only "fresh blood" in this group is the teenage blood they inject to try and remain
young.
Elizabeth Warren, were Biden to appoint her as Treasury Secretary, *would* constitute fresh
blood.
The likelihood of the Senator from MBNA appointing her to that position is zero.
I would love to be wrong in that instance, but it ain't gonna happen.
What is trumps legacy so far ?
Let's call that -- - 'The Crimes Of Donald Trump'
Well he has legitimised cold blooded murder.
Ditto racism.
Run roughshod over national laws and conventions. -- Invading an embassy. Assange, koshogie
murder, white helmit chlorine attack false flag. Funding and arming by US of Isis.
Corporate mansloughter by virus.
Interference in numerous country's internal politics.
Allowing Israel to interfer take over US politics.
The above are a few that comes to mind.
Have we done away with law and order ?
Feel free to add to my 'Crimes of Donald Trump' list.
In a word normalisation.
I hope you are right that the US will avoid war in Syria because they would lose. I was,
on the other hand, very impressed that Flournoy was advocating that no fly zone in August of
2016. It was on the basis of her article at that time I fled the US Democratic Party. I knew
it was bad before, but it suddenly became clear how Hillary would lead us int WWIII.
We've talked at moa about how policy doesn't change much between Democrat and Republican
Administrations. And we've talked about the Illusion of Democracy.
That each President has a different personality as well as different priorities and
challenges during their time in office doesn't indicate any fundamental difference in how we
are governed.
And Hillary Clinton wants to be Secretary of Defense in a Biden administration. Not only
would the world be in trouble I could see her using the DOD internal hit teams to go after
her domestic enemies. They will make 8 years of Bush junior look like a Disneyland vacation.
It will be similar to the many unsolved murders of Weimar Germany.
That was sarcasm, I knew it was going to cause trouble, sarcasm never works on the web
unless you add a /sarc tag or something, I guess I feel a bit perverse today.
But to be serious, any attempt to predict what comes next here must rely on the idea that
the future will be like the past, we extrapolate in other words, from various trends that we
pick out. We can expect Biden to remain who he has been in the past, politicfally he's a
hack, what we know of Harris does not suggest any principles to speak of either, so I feel
more like I want to pay attention to what's coming than trying to predict what they is going
to do or not do. That likely depends on "contingencies" just as in the past.
#23 - "I don't see that the political/managerial classes here are up to the job of managing
that change, have shown any aptitude for it or understanding of it in the past either."
This is a highly relevant observation. For some time the character and intellectual scope
of the political/managerial sectors in the West have been noticeably mediocre, and will
likely continue as such for the foreseeable future. The necessary reforms of capitalism were
vetoed decades ago, ensuring that productive energies would gradually dissipate. For the last
decade all the West has had to offer the rest of humanity is neoliberal austerity, colour
revolutions, and armament contracts. This is a journey towards an eventual hollowed-out
self-imposed isolation, a process the political/managerial sectors are actively encouraging
and supporting without realizing it at all.
Interesting to see how the kayfabe vocabulary of Dim propaganda infects everyone's thought
and speech. Including b's:
"'Change' was an Obama marketing slogan to sell his Republican light policies."
Republican my eye. Democrat policies, period. A party founded, maintained and run to
implement the ruling class empire and war agenda, just like the Repucrats.
As if Obama was some kind of exception. Ditch this language.
usa is the major unknown;
China and Russia don't need to physically war - they are winning at PR around the globe.
Even tiny Cuba has greatly better creds!
usa needs to be a people who truly and consistently respect their allies.
Which comes back to usa being the major unknown.
'Cept for warmongering.
"All of us who spent careers in the military were raised on the notion that you lead by
example, and President Trump has been the antithesis of that in dealing with this
pandemic," said Charles "Steve" Abbot, former commander of the U.S. Sixth Fleet and deputy
Homeland Security Adviser. "Instead of taking steps that I would call 'Crisis Management
101,' President Trump shirked his duty to the nation by failing to provide the central
leadership necessary to get our arms around the problem, and he continues to mislead the
entire nation about this terrible threat. The result of that failure of leadership was that
his administration committed an unrelenting string of missteps, and the American public has
lost trust in what the president tells them."
The sixth Fleet is Europe, so "this terrible threat" must be Russia, which is the natural
enemy of the DNC/AtlanticCouncil/NATO unlike Trump the 'Putin-lover.'
And more on anti-Russia, from the article:
President Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton said earlier this year that
Trump had repeatedly raised the issue of withdrawing the United States from NATO, and
warned of "a very real risk" that Trump would actually follow through in a second term.
Nicholas Burns, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and the number three official at the
State Department, put it this way: "Every modern president since Harry Truman has viewed
our commitment to democratic allies around the world as sacrosanct, because for half a
century those alliances have been a key source of American power." He noted that a
dissolution of NATO is at the top of Russian President Vladimir Putin's wish list. "Under
President Trump we have walked away from that global leadership, and, as a result, trust in
the United States has plummeted even among our closest friends. That's done enormous
damage."
This is a journey towards an eventual hollowed-out self-imposed isolation, a process the
political/managerial sectors are actively encouraging and supporting without realizing it at
all.
Posted by: jayc | Oct 31 2020 19:18 utc | 37
I've been sort of fascinated by that for some time, back when I was young we were still
smart enough to know we had to compete with the USSR, and that we therefore had to develop
our human capital. And we did pretty well for a couple decades, but then after VietNam they
stopped doing that and choose the present "system" instead. Thus abandoning their long-term
ability to compete, the source of their power in the first place. Banana republics do not
compete well. Decadent.
But you have to give credit to the Russians and the Chinese too, their achievements are
impressive by any standard. Our enemies, the ones who have survived, have all proved their
mettle.
Can be, can be, no expectations in Biden / Harris. Nevertheless, Tronald is definitely not
the lesser evil. His foreign policy is also heading for a clash with China, and things are
not going well with Russia either. The warmongering anti-Iran axis has his support, the war
in Yemen continues, he won't leave Syria alone, his extremely Israel-friendly attitude
increases the danger of war. Everything that is suspected of being left-wing in South America
is strangled.
In addition, he has an encouraging effect on all the fascists of the world, his disastrous
ecological policy, his negative influence on the treatment of the Corona crisis, his general
dislike of multilateral organizations and treaties on which the weaker states of the world
are compulsorily dependent. Overall, he exerts an extremely negative influence on the entire
globe. He should be disposed of.
He will lose the elections, but what happens then is open.
The claim that support for minority rule isn't purely partisan BS is yet another lie. The
moral principle in countermajoritarianism like the Founders' is that democracy cannot be
allowed to threaten property. Except of course property before democracy, before liberty,
before humanity is a vile and disgusting tenet that shames everyone so lost to common
decency. The defense that a piece of parchment, a law, makes things moral and righteous and
that even opposition is somehow wrong is an offense against common sense. By that standard,
the Thirteen, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were the end of freedom in America!
It's one thing to have a mind deranged by rabid hate of your perceived social superiors,
but to openly uphold vulgarity is merely snobbery inverted. It is a mean and small minded
vice, always, and never a virtue. The Access: Hollywood tape was proof of vulgarity but to
defend it as not being proof of a crime but as a positive good is vicious. Vicious is not a
synonym for "bad ass." Or if it news, then "bad ass" is a horrible insult.
And, speaking of deranged minds, Wilson was felled by a stroke and Reagan was felled by
Alzheimer's, yet they did not fall from power. Quite aside from the question of how anyone
could decide who is battier, Trump or Biden, Biden will never be replaced by Harris for
incapacity short of a coma.
A very cogent analysis by b. But I believe the return of the Blob may not be as ominous as
feared.
The dangerous component of the Blob's collective fantasy is the confrontation against
China and Russia. As late as 4, 5 years ago the prevailing sentiment among Americans, the
masses and the elites alike, was one in which The Empire's might was still considered
unquestionably dominant and unchallenged. There was penchant for dressing down both China and
Russia, and the clumsy maneuvers of the Blob's operators (Obama/Clinton/Bolton/Rice et al)
were wholeheartedly supported even if contemptuously regarded for their clumsiness. That
sentiment has evaporated, especially after Chinese and Russian military parades as well as
American's numerous own infrastructure project failures along with abject performances of
Boeing jets and Zumwalt class destroyers. The COVID19 pandemic adds salt to injury.
There is an issue with self confidence now, up and down the hierarchy within the American
society, perhaps with the lone exception of Trump's rednecks.
So, the Blob may return with a vengeance but their political capital may be rather meager.
They will be all mouth and little substance, as would Trump's prospective second term.
I do not always agree with the opinion of the Saker, but in this matter I tend to support him
and can only quote from one of his recent articles :
And, in truth, the biggest difference between Obama and Trump, is that Trump did not start
any real wars. Yes, he did threaten a lot of countries with military attacks (itself a
crime under international law), but he never actually gave the go ahead to meaningfully
attack (he only tried some highly symbolic and totally ineffective strikes in Syria). I
repeat – the man was one of the very few US Presidents who did not commit the crime
of aggression, the highest possible crime under international law, above crimes against
humanity or even genocide, because the crime of aggression "contains within itself the
accumulated evil", to use the words of the chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg and Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Robert H. Jackson. I submit that just
for this reason alone any decent person should choose him over Biden (who himself is
just a front for "President" Harris and a puppet of the Clinton gang). Either that, or
don't vote at all if your conscience does not allow you to vote for Trump. But voting
Biden is unthinkable for any honest person , at least in my humble opinion.
I am surprised by people who are of the opinion that half-dead Biden, suffering from
obvious dementia, is better. If only not Trump.
In 2016, Hilary, in fact, openly stated that she was going to use the so-called 'nuclear
blackmail' against the Russian Federation. And there was no guarantee that this crazy old
witch, having become president, would not have pressed the very button that launched nuclear
missiles at Russia. Four years ago, the choice was between an insane sadistic misanthropist
who could actually start a nuclear war, and a "dark horse" businessman with the illusory
prospect of some improvement in relations between the two strongest nuclear powers. I do not
want to drag in religion and the intervention of higher powers here, but it may not be at all
accidental that Trump snatched victory from the witch. Maybe we avoided a nuclear war.
Yes, now both options are bad. But of the two evils, it is better to choose the lesser,
which, of course, Trump is.
two near-certain redeeming features would be the return of the US to the JCPOA, or Iran
nuclear deal, which was Obama-Biden's only foreign policy achievement, and re-starting
nuclear disarmament negotiations with Russia. That would imply containment of Russia,
not a new all-out Cold War , even as Biden has recently stressed, on the record, that
Russia is the "biggest threat" to the US.
What? Funny. I thought it was Obama (read Democrats) who started this new Cold War. Just
to remind - It was Obama who made the decision to deploy missiles in Poland and Romania,
which are a direct threat to Russia. It is Obama & Co who are responsible for the
Ukrainian coup, which, in fact, became a trigger for the total deterioration of relations
between Russia and the West. It was Obama who began the unprecedented expropriation of
Russian diplomatic property in the U.S. and the expulsion of russian diplomats. It was under
Obama that "the doping scandal" was organized against Russia. And so on and so on...
Trump just continued what Obama had started. It is strange that Pepe Escobar does not
understand this.
If Iran and/or Venezuela get their oil back on the market, that will cause an oil price crash
that would "end fracking." It can't survive oil much under $50/barrel over a long term.
An oil price crash would also effect the larger energy market, making solar and wind less
competitive, even though their direct competition is really coal rather than oil.
Huge and powerful constituencies don't care about Iran or Venezuela, but care very much
about oil prices staying high. They make common cause now, and will under Biden too.
Well, having given deep consideration to the question and the current advanced state of
malady in the USA - I will leave it to Vic as he has summarised the position with minimum
fuss - here.
Enjoy this sharp witted, all encompassing 4 minute rant from inside the asylum. I would
shout the bar for all with this one.
Biden is an old man. He is a tired man, if not now, then in six months. He has already told
wealthy donors that nothing will change. He has no record of leadership. He has no record of
achievement, unless you count floating to the top. He will be the establishment's model
'status quo, do-nothing Democrat.
Biden will preside as a figurehead legitimizing the shenanigans of the blob, Wall Street,
and the US Chamber of Commerce, and Big Oil. Heck, I doubt that he will even override many of
Trump's executive orders, except for the token bone thrown to his delusional supporters.
Harris will be as much a figurehead as Biden. She is utterly unprepared. While she is
likable enough, she lacks gravitas and "credibility," which, she will be convinced, can be
established only by bombing a few wogs back to the Stone Age.
Both will serve as placeholders until Trump 2.0 arrives in 2024. Elites will sufficiently
sabotage the economy until then to assure that Trump 2.0 with neocon values is elected in
2024.
the usa is an approaching train wreck and no amount of persuading one side or the other is
going to change any of this... the world is moving on and rightfully so... no one wants to
get down into this... the swamp and fake news is permanent at this point...until the whole
system implodes - this is what we have in store.. vote for trump or biden - it matters not...
one is a slower motion move then the other - but the end result is the same... there is no
way out... sorry... on the other hand it is beautiful and sunny here where i live... life
goes on outside this political circus called the usa presidential election..
Posted by: c1ue | Oct 31 2020 18:50 utc | 26
I do not agree with you on 99.8% of wordly affairs BUT this comment you wrote is pure
gold!!
Even on the other side of the Atlantic ocean @ the western edge of Europe us reading types
know the difference.
And it annoys me just as much as it seems to annoy you how few people know that the US of
terror is a republic and NOT a democracy😂🥴
By the way, people who are truly interested in seeing the Democratic Party removed as an
obstacle to a true people's party (no one else here wants a workers' party) the very best way
to split the national party would be a clean sweep of House, Senate and Presidency followed
by enough treasonous shenanigans by Trump to arouse mass resistance. (Genuinely treasonous as
in subverting the republic by force, fraud and violence, not in the half witted definition of
dealings with foreigners so popular around here.) Biden et al. would split the Democrats
rather than enact a popular program---which would be left because the when the masses begin
to move they always march left.
Also by the way, Bloomberg is continuing his bid for a hostile takeover of the Democratic
Party, aping the media version of Trump's hostile takeover of the Republic (NOT A DEMOCRACY!)
Party.
"Change' was an Obama marketing slogan to sell his Republican light policies. A real change
never came."
I was calling Obama "Bush Lite" during his first campaign. Anyone who read his foreign
policy platform would have to agree. And the *only* reason he negotiated the JCPOA was
because he needed at least one foreign policy win for his eight years - and he knew it would
be torn up by whoever came after him, either Clinton or Trump. But he needed it for his own
narcissistic view of his "legacy".
People forget that Obama wrote the leaders of Brazil and Turkey in 2010 prior to their
negotiation with Iran for a deal, listing the points of a deal he would accept. Clinton
pooh-poohed the idea that those leaders could get a deal. After a marathon negotiation
session, they got it. The US then dismissed the deal 24 hours later, prompting Brazil's
leader to release the Obama letter to establish that Obama was a liar.
"Change You Can Believe In" - "Make America Great" - only morons believe in campaign
slogans - or the people who utter them.
"The other issue is arms control. While a Harris (Biden) administration may take up Putin's
offer to unconditionally prolong the New-START agreement for a year it will certainly want
more concessions from Russia than that country is willing to give."
Russia has made it abundantly and repetitively clear that they are not doing INCREMENTAL
DEFEAT any more - there are no concessions to make - they no longer do supine acceptance of
UKUSAi rights to dominate, subvert or belligerently mass arms at their advancing borders.
Why would any country concede to the incessant belligerence of the west? They must have
lead in their drinking water to be that dumb!
The concession must come from the aggressor, the colour revolution fomenter, the incessant
smearer and hate propagandist - the west.
A Harris/Biden Presidency lacks those attributes (perhaps lacks any attributes of
goodwill) and a Trump Presidency is no different.
The narcissistic personality disorders run the USA - the asylum inmates are in charge, not
the elected leaders. And the elected leaders are morons or wholly captive klutzes.
Posted by: Laguerre | Oct 31 2020 17:36 utc | 7 They didn't do a No-Fly Zone in Syria when
they could, e.g. 2013. The reason it was not done is that it was too difficult to do
Obama tried *six times* to start a war with Syria. First he submitted *three* UNSC
Resolutions with Chapter 7 language in them. Russia and China - burned by the US over Libya -
vetoed those. Then Obama was within hours of launching an attack on Syria in August, 2013. He
only stopped when he got push-back from Congress and then Putin outmaneuvered him by getting
Assad to give up his chemical weapons. Then in fall, 2015, Obama was talking no-fly zone yet
again. Putin again outmaneuvered him by committing Russian forces to Syria. Then sometime in
2016 - I forget the exact month - there was a news article saying Obama was having a meeting
on that Friday to discuss no-fly zone yet *again*. That Tuesday or Wednesday, the Russia
Ministry of Defense issued a statement that anyone attacking Syrian military assets would be
shot down by Russia. On Friday, Obama pulled back and said there wouldn't be a no-fly
zone.
So it was Russia, primarily, that was the reason Obama didn't not succeed *six times*
trying to start a war with Syria.
"Biden will bring fresh blood to the Presidency, just you watch."
YES. thank you for the clarifying statement, as that is exactly what I expect too. Harris
/Biden blood spattered globe again. Or a Trump spattered equivalent. No socialism for the
USA.
We went from snarling Cheney Wars to shiny happy Obama wars to snarling Trump wars now back
to shiny happy Biden wars to... Forever War is obviously bi-partisan.
But perhaps with Great Depression 2.0 coming this Dark Winter in order to stave off civil
war and/or revolution they'll throw resources to much needed infrastructure projects,
diminish to a slight degree the supremacy of the for-profit healthcare industry through a
laughable but better than nothing 'public option' and make some baby steps toward avoiding
climate catastrophic.
The change is marginal. And probably meaningless. Hope is just another word for nothing
left to lose.
Those 77,000 - purely because of location - overcame 3 million+ votes. That's the
equivalent of giving those 77 thousands the right to vote 40 times each.
Are you in favor of censitary vote?
--//--
@ Posted by: c1ue | Oct 31 2020 18:50 utc | 26
Yes, but at the end of the day, Hilary Clinton got 3.6 million votes more than Donald
Trump.
You're telling everybody you're in favor of censitary vote in opposition to one person,
one vote, just because you don't want an ideological enemy of yours to win. This is still
liberal - but you would have to dig to the early liberal thinkers (Locke, Tocqueville etc.)
to find such reactionary and elitist opinion.
Even by liberal standards today censitary vote is already considered outdated/reactionary.
Concretely, you're defending the interests of a blue collar elite of the north-midwest, who
number on the dozens of thousands, in detriment to more than half the voting population. It
is what it is: you can't fight against mathematics.
--//--
@ Posted by: Down South | Oct 31 2020 18:47 utc | 25
So what? Fuck Michael Moore. If Michael Moore told you to jump off a cliff, would you do
it? He's not the guardian of the absolute truth, he's just a random guy with an opinion.
Michael Moore can defend a mythical blue collar America how much he wants to - it doesn't
change the fact this America doesn't exist anymore. America is, nowadays, the land of the
petit-bourgeois, the land of the small-medium business-owners (a.k.a. zombie business-owners)
, of the New York financial assets owning middle class "coastal elites", of the influencers,
of Kim and Chloe Kardashian, of Starbucks, Amazon and Apple, of the billionaire tied to Wall
Street. That's the true America, want it.
America will never be blue collar again. The insistence of turning America blue collar
again will destroy the American Empire. They will be the Gorbachevs of the USA.
Obama tried *six times* to start a war with Syria. First he submitted *three* UNSC
Resolutions with Chapter 7 language in them. Russia and China - burned by the US over Libya
- vetoed those. Then Obama was within hours of launching an attack on Syria in August,
2013. He only stopped when he got push-back from Congress and then Putin outmaneuvered him
by getting Assad to give up his chemical weapons. Then in fall, 2015, Obama was talking
no-fly zone yet again. Putin again outmaneuvered him by committing Russian forces to Syria.
Then sometime in 2016 - I forget the exact month - there was a news article saying Obama
was having a meeting on that Friday to discuss no-fly zone yet *again*. That Tuesday or
Wednesday, the Russia Ministry of Defense issued a statement that anyone attacking Syrian
military assets would be shot down by Russia. On Friday, Obama pulled back and said there
wouldn't be a no-fly zone.
So it was Russia, primarily, that was the reason Obama didn't not succeed *six times*
trying to start a war with Syria.
Thank you, it seems that your succinct statement should be included as an auto response
macro to every laguerre post. They never stop their blathering those AI CPU's. My take is
that they are a retro definition of the term interrupt .
I remember you as being a reasonably sane contributor but atm you have a serious case of
TDS. Are you seriously trying to tell us that the last 4 years of US media foaming at the
mouth about Trump (Russia-gate, Trump supporters being 'white supremacists' and egging on a
race war) were all a plot to get him re-elected? I mean seriously? WTF? What the hell would
they do if they wanted him removed?
Now I know I have been very very harsh on trump and his supporters of late. Please forgive me
! It's what we call 'tough love' I do have a heart, dispite all of America's crimes against
the rest of the world. I did hope that the US at the last moment would come to it's senses
and turn it's back on trump. Alas ! I fear not. Really sad, I'm sorry.
But for the rest of the world including myself, we can only watch with fascination and relief
as America destroys itself from within. My heart goes out to the inocent.
I fear trump supporters are in for a -- --
Pyrrhic victory (spelt correctly) I recommend googling the word.
Adolph Hitler rose to power with similar glory and power unbridled. Just as trump now !!
Then what ?
Dresden!!
Think on.
Why is it so hard to believe? The media needs a heel and they actually prefer Trump to
remain in office. Maybe on the ground level you have a lot of regular old liberals, but the
upper echelons of the media (and holding companies) are all about keeping the ratings bonanza
going. Another Trump term but with Democrat control of Congress would be like manna from
heaven to them. Matt Taibbi is one writer who has chronicled the phenomenon since before
Trump ever got elected. Here's a more recent piece. Let me know if it's paywalled and I can
copy/paste. CNN
chief has an ethical problem.
On JCPOA, The Nation had a quote from one of Biden's foreign policy advisers to a group of
Jewish campaing donors saying all sanctions on Iran will remain intact unless they return to
full compliance. I agree that it will not be as simple as that given political reality, but
Biden was closely involved in its negotiation and likely has some ownership of it.
I expect there to be a false flag attack by "Iran" to throw sand in the gears if
re-implementation looks likely, or perhaps an Israeli attack on Lebanon. Best plausible
outcome is Iran keeps its current level of cooperation, and a Biden admin looks the other way
on sanctions violationsw.
Are you seriously trying to tell us that the last 4 years of US media foaming at the mouth
about Trump (Russia-gate, Trump supporters being 'white supremacists' and egging on a race
war) were all a plot to get him re-elected? I mean seriously? What the hell would they do if
they wanted him removed?
_____________________________________________
Of course it was all phony and designed to not ring true, which benefits Trump by giving him
credibility with the voters.
The whole idea behind trump is the same as with Reagan he is portrayed as the outsider doing
battle against the corrupt and powerful Washington swamp. Trump is Reagan on steroids. But it
is all phony both Reagan and Trump are one of the powerful elites and their opposition by the
left wing media is designed to give them credibility with voters.
Remember that half of the corporate controlled media loves Trump and sings his praises
daily. It is only half the corporate media that is attacking Trump the other half is showing
its viewers blacks that strongly support Trump and solid evidence that Russiagate is pure
bullshit.
As for what the media would do if they really wanted to bring Trump down. They would
attack him on real issues instead of phony ones that actually strengthen trump's
credibility.
"What Would A Democratic Presidency Really Change?"
The same thing it always changes, absolutely nothing except who accepts the bribes from
the elite.
As long as the American people stay asleep they will continue with the "American DREAM"
until they suddenly wake up inside their newly constructed corporate industrial zone. The
prison industrial complex is the model society if you're an elite.
Have a wonderful weekend everyone, don't get so caught up in this sham (s)election that
you ruin what little freedom you have left.
Berlin's Madame Tussauds has put Donald Trump's wax figure into a
dumpster . Is this normal behavior by a museum? Is this not "an interference in the
democratic processes of the United States"? Or is it okay because the Germans are doing it?
(But God forbid if a Russian or an Iranian criticizes a U.S. presidential candidate publicly
ahead of the election.) Have similar performances been staged against Bush, under whom the
U.S. intelligence agencies manufactured claims of Saddam Hussein preparing to use weapons of
mass destruction, which the U.S. "free" media printed almost in unison without any criticism,
leading to an invasion that killed 650,000
Iraqis ? When a visitor beheaded Adolf Hitler's figure in 2008, the same museum
had this to say :
Madame Tussauds is non-political and makes no comment or value-judgement either on the
persons who are exhibited in the Museum or on what they have done during their lifetime.
I guess starting a war that resulted in deaths of 26,000,000 million Soviets -- most of
them Russians -- is not nearly as bad as being a rude person who has once recommended in
private grabbing women by their genitals.
You are clearly over-thinking this, clutching at straws to justify supporting the other
side. Remember the saying "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the
American people". Whoever wins the election is going to be faced with major unrest, the worms
are clearly not going back in the can. There are easier ways to get someone re-elected.
Trump is clearly at least as toxic as any of them wrt foreign policy, however he is not a
globalist and that is his major sin in their eyes.
@ Maureen O # 45 In 2009, Biden tried very hard to convince Obama not to surge 30,000 more troops into
Afghanistan.
Perhaps he was successful? . . . Obama actually surged 70,000 troops into Afghanistan,
raising Bush's 30K to 100K+. That got Mr Hope & Change the Nobel Peace Prize.
We should remember there were 6 UNSC against Iran, and one of them under Chapter 7 ( the
most dangerous), before JCPOA. We should keep in mind there are gang of 5 + 1( 5 in UNSC +
Germany) coalition behind 6 resolutions.
From Iran's eye, Imperialism was, combination of these 5 in the club, and their collateral
and vassals ( Germany, Japan, etc). The master of JCPOA, caught the opportunity to put a
wedge into the body of the club, and it worked perfectly. America is mad cutting her own
arteries, out side the club. Trump or Biden are not different in this regard, America needs
some one to understand the depth of the wound and retreat immediately, before too much
hemorrhage. And such person ( or group ) is not in horizon. Let it die by her own
wounding.
Thank you for that Philip Giraldi report. The descent into madness from the raucus sounds
of the echo chamber. Where does a revolution start?
First they need to dismantle their media concentration across the spectrum of "news"
including all media forms.
Second they need to send their journalists through the same cultural revolution cycle as
was done in the China and other countries where people go to different work supporting the
growth of their communities for a five to ten year separation from the craft of journalism.
Listen to the people and sweat alongside them in their labour to survive.
Sure there is much more but the echo chamber must surely be demolished at
commencement.
I believe back in August 2013 after a CW attack in East Ghouta, east of Damascus, wrongly
blamed on the Syrian govt that Obama was preparing to enforce his no-fly zone threat. Then
the UK parliament voted not to support such a threat, Obama hesitated and then Putin saw his
opportunity and posted an opinion in the New York Times. That ultimately stopped the US from
going ahead with the attack.
I'm sure British MPs have since been forced to "come to their senses".
I linked to and commented upon Pepe's article when it was published by Asia Times a
few days ago, and I don't see any reason to add to it as b echoes much of my sentiment. What
I will do is link to a brief item by Chinese scholar Zhang Weiwei, professor of International
Relations at Fudan University, "How
China elects their political leaders" , which seems very appropriate at this moment in
time:
"China has established a system of meritocracy or what can be described as 'selection plus
election'. Competent leaders are selected on the basis of performance and broad support,
through a vigorous process of screening, opinion surveys, internal evaluations and various
types of elections. This is much in line with the Confucian tradition of meritocracy. After
all, China is the first country that invented civil service examination system or the 'Keju'
system....
"Indeed, the Chinese system of meritocracy today, makes it inconceivable that anyone as
weak as George W. Bush or Donald Trump could ever come close to the position of the top
leadership. It's not far-fetched to claim that the China model is more about leadership
rather than the showmanship as it is in the West. China's meritocratic governance challenges
the stereotypical dichotomy of democracy versus autocracy. From Chinese point of view, the
nature of the state including its legitimacy, has to be defined by its substance, that is,
good governance, competent leadership and success in meeting the people's needs."
Zhang Weiwei is the author of a very important book some may have heard about and even
read, The China Wave: Rise Of A Civilizational State , of which an open preview can be
read here . Also, the professor gave a talk at the German Schiller Institute related to
the above book and the BRI project, which can be read
here .
I've commented several times that China's political-economic system is far superior to the
Parasitic Neoliberalism that's destroying the West. China's success suggests very strongly
that we listen and closely observe while not taking heed of what any Western source has to
say about China.
I'm all for sending the entire Australian news media into a cave for 5 - 10 years. Maybe
in 10,000 years archaeologists investigating the cave will be wondering whether fossil
remains there denote a species of human more primitive than those found in Liang Bua cave on
Flores Island in Indonesia. :-)
Can you elaborate on this funding you referred to for BLM protests? What is your evidence
that it was actually funding street protests? Are you referring to the national corporate
BLM? If so, what does that have to do with leaderless protests in the streets?
From February 13 to February 15, 1945, during the final months of World War II (1939-45),
Allied forces bombed the historic city of Dresden, located in eastern Germany. The bombing
was controversial because Dresden was neither important to German wartime production nor a
major industrial center, and before the massive air raid of February 1945 it had not
suffered a major Allied attack. By February 15, the city was a smoldering ruin and an
unknown number of civilians -- estimated between 22,700 to 25,000–were dead.
Dresden and other cities held magnificent collections of human posterity. Cities of
science - of intellectual excellence and endeavour within europe. Cities of humans associated
with brilliant minds doing the work of human understanding and progress.
Sure Hitler's imbecile adventures ably funded by global private finance capitalism and a
hatred of communism led to war that ultimately led to the vengeful destruction of great
cities and great store houses and museums of this earth of mankind.
Hitler did not bomb Dresden.
Germans were proud of their science and their knowledge and storehouses and museums.
Europe shared in that pride in excellence as did many throughout the world.
Those first shells falling on Berlin TWO months after the demolition of cities of science
and archeology and human history. NOT cities of military significance.
I think of Vietnam
I think of Iraq
I think of Korea
I think of China
I think of Japan
Bombed by UKUSA. So lets not obsess with a dead nazi comrade, lets open our eyes to the
live nazis.
I think Biden will win this presidency, and win it fairly easily. It will become apparent
early on that the Biden Administration intends not only to turn the heat up on Russia, but
will continue Trump's aggression towards China. There may be a feint towards renewing JCPOA,
but it will not be fulfilled, and aggression towards Iran will not abate either.
The Mighty Wurlitzer of pro-war propaganda is again spinning up in anticipation. The
Atlantic and the Economist have been busy comparing Chinese Policy towards it's Muslim
citizens with the Holocaust...Russia, Russia, Russia!!! which never went away is again being
amped up.
But, this isn't 2016. Four years has given China and Russia time to further modernize
their militaries. Iran has developed its missile and drone programs to the point that a
conflict with Israel will result in mutual destruction. In 2016 USA/NATO had the military
advantage, but that is now gone, and the balance shifts further by the day. I almost feel
sorry for Biden, as he will be the one taking the blame when the economy collapses and
America gets their asses handed to them. Hopefully it doesn't go nuclear, but I am not very
optimistic.
With the NeoCon infestation capturing the Democratic Party, the media, and a big chunk of
the Republican, it is only a matter of time before they get their way. Short-sided parasites
as they are, this time they will kill their host. If humanity survives, a new multi-polar era
may emerge.
Uncle tungsten @ 84
Please re-read my heart felt comment. It was sincerely ment. To many here think this is just
fun and speculation.
But this is real, the USA have the same misguided sense of infalalabilty now, that the German
public hand then.
Did we learn nothing from world war 2 ?
Please don't belittle my urgent warning.
This is not a game. Perhaps re read my comment. Respect
Naw, you're not reading me right. Did you check out the Taibbi piece? He has numerous
others over the past 4 years. Also see Les Moonves and other corporate media executives'
statements on Trump during that same time period. I acknowledged that the rank and file among
the media class is largely woke, liberal and pro-Biden (and very anti-Trump), but they don't
call the shots and you're not looking at the situation with enough attention to details. It's
the little things that give it away.
Ever heard the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity"? A brand like Trump's has
been clearly demonstrated to benefit immensely from the negative coverage. The media are
hated by Trump's followers and the people who watch the media hate Trump. So what does that
tell you? Compare CNN and MSNBC ratings during Trump's term to Obama's. They know that hate
sells and they never call Trump out for his ACTUAL bad behaviors (other than COVID and ACB, I
guess) while they focus on meaningless nonsense, thus distracting the public from the
bi-partisan corporate dominated graft going on and the Empire's ongoing wars and sanctions
programs abroad. Very rarely if ever will you read or hear about the hundreds of thousands of
people who have died due to American sanctions on Iran or Venezuela. Why is that? Because top
brass at the corporate media outlets support it. They cheered when he launched the missiles
at Syria.
Someone did a study or analysis on the amount of air time given to Trump versus the
Democrat primary and it wasn't even close. He plays them and his supporters like a fiddle,
too. SNL had him on NBC when he was running against Hillary. Some argue that this might have
been due to the same mindset that Hillary's team was alleged to have had. Namely, that Trump
would be the EASIEST candidate for her to beat and he had no chance, so he was harmless as a
threat. I don't think it's that complicated. They know what gets ratings.
Yeah, occasionally they'll make a peep about the environment or jobs, but like the
Democrats in Congress and "Intelligence" Community's Russia and Ukraine witch
hunts/impeachment they intentionally ignore the types of actions that DO justify
investigations and impeachments. Do you honestly think that the Democrats thought Trump would
be removed from office for the bogus "whistle blower" charges they ginned up? Of course not -
the Senate was never going to go along with it and it wasn't exactly secret, even over here
across the pond it was obvious.
As far as him not being a globalist - he's not exactly anti-globalist when it comes to
policy, but why would that matter to the corporate media? Again, it's the corporate big wigs
and majority shareholders who make the calls and the reporters, editors and personalities on
TV know how to toe the line without being told explicitly. Now, if you want to talk Silicon
Valley and the social media giants, I'm with you - they are actively trying to help Joe
Biden. But take another example - the Hunter Biden laptop story. Social media giants censored
it, but it isn't like it's not being talked about non-stop by the MSM and newspapers. They
just don't talk about what was IN the emails or photos, leaving some of their viewers/readers
curious to go find out for themselves.
I didn't read jinn's comment in detail, but I'm definitely not trying to make points that
justify voting for Biden; but I stand by my points - I'm just pointing out what's REALLY
going on with all of the "negative" coverage of Donald Trump in the corporate mainstream
media. At the end of the day, the corporate MSM upper brass doesn't really care who gets
elected, but they also understand that having a "heel" (from the pro wrestling world) and
"bad guy" to always go after on crap that's ultimately meaningless, makes it easier to sell
the hate and drive ratings and subscriptions.
Uncle tungsten @ 84
Please re-read my heart felt comment. It was sincerely ment. To many here think this is
just fun and speculation.
But this is real, the USA have the same misguided sense of infalalabilty now, that the
German public hand then.
Did we learn nothing from world war 2 ?
Please don't belittle my urgent warning.
This is not a game. Perhaps re read my comment. Respect
Respect and apology in return Mark2. I jumped the gun.
Yes, the sense of infallibility infuses the bloodlust of the UKUSAi.
With any luck humanity will be spared their obscene and lunatic 'reprisal mania' that has
rotted their minds. I somehow doubt that.
And I share your fear.
That said though - I am ever the optimist. There are many warrior clans of past decades
that have made delightful blunders and ended up on the block instead of on the grog in the
opponents bars. Time will tell.
I believe it is time for the great people of South America to shake off these barnacles on
the arse of humanity once and for all.
Sorry I got a little long winded in my last reply. I think this response will make my
position easier to interpret.
You asked: " What the hell would they do if they wanted him removed?"
The answer to that question is the same as the answer would be if you asked what the
Democrats in Congress would (have) do(ne) if they really wanted to remove him from office.
They would actually investigate and attempt to prosecute a litany of possible crimes rather
than silly, simplistic accusations from a "whistleblower" that anyone with a IQ over 100
could see was not going to work.
Maybe you're right and I'm wrong, and Americans really are that stupid. It wouldn't
necessarily conflict with what I've seen and heard from Democrat supporting relatives and
social media contacts. A lot, if not most of them STILL believe that there was collusion
between Trump and Russia. It was like my conservative friends and relatives for about a
decade after the Iraq war - they were CONVINCED that we DID find WMDs and that the US media
had somehow hidden it.
@vk #65
It is striking how you still refuse to acknowledge the reality of the law.
The United States is not a majoritarian democracy.
In fact, there is not one single country in the entire world that is a majoritarian
democracy.
If the law were changed via the methods already written, tried and true, then I guarantee
that there would be a lot more voters in the minorities of both red and blue states.
As it is, the only partisan here is your and the Democratic party's whining about how they
have more popular votes, much as the talk about packing the Supreme Court, etc etc.
If ultimately the existing laws of the land are merely an impediments to anyone doing
whatever they have the power to do, then there is no law.
Uncle @ 90
Thanks for that. I feel we are in full agreement !
To perhaps clarify to those less astute than you.
My comment @ 68 points out the law of unintended consequence. The majority of Americans don't
want war, riots, poverty and distruction. They want to keep there families safe.
The comparison being the same can be said for Germans prior to the war, they weren't evil as
portrayed in history they simply made the same mistake the US is about to make. With the
consequence of there country devistated. A dreadful mistake voting for the wrong man, whipped
up by a false sense of superiority !
Don't do it.
Half of America won't tolerate it.
Free quarters of the rest of the world won't. By voting trump you vote for your own
distruction.
I would rather vote for a donkey, never mind Biden.
You are clearly over-thinking this, clutching at straws to justify supporting the other
side.
__________________________________________
What other side???
I'm guessing you are accusing me of supporting trump but who knows maybe you think I'm
supporting Biden. Either way it is stupid of you to project your "side" based logic onto
others. Do you really think it is impossible to analyze without first taking a side?
As it is, the only partisan here is your and the Democratic party's whining about how they
have more popular votes, much as the talk about packing the Supreme Court, etc etc.
Thank you, I liked that retort to vk. Can I distort your point that while the Demonazis
delude themselves in more popular votes - the Repugnents have more of the un-popular votes.
The deeply corrosive nonsense being shouted into the demonazi echo chamber is truly dangerous
to the point that they will generate a standing wave resonance and collapse the entire
building. Trouble is we will then have to endure an 11/11 to compete with their absurd 9/11
and - we'll never hear the end of it. :))
James
I share one bottle of wine a month. I don't do drugs, but thanks for asking.
I note you don't ask the 'right wing' to step a way'
But if the truth is hurting you. Perhaps you ought ?
Have a peaceful night.
I remember you as being a reasonably sane contributor ...
Thanks!
= ... but atm you have a serious case of TDS.
No. I'm neither for nor against Trump. I see him as a symptom of the system who has joined
(possibly long ago) Team Deep State (the managers of the Empire). If it wasn't Trump, it
would be some other media-savvy guy that can con the people.
= Are you seriously trying to tell us that the last 4 years of US media foaming at the
mouth about Trump (Russia-gate, Trump supporters being 'white supremacists' and egging on a
race war) were all a plot to get him re-elected?
IMO Trump's economic nationalism and zenophobia were very much planned. As was the failure
of the Democrats to mount any effective resistance. They pretend to hate Trump so so
much but shoot themselves in the foot all the time.
Russiagate was nothing more than a new McCarthyism. That works well for the Deep State
both internationally and domestically. Any dissenter is called a "knowing or unknowing"
Russian asset.
Background: I've written that Trump was meant to beat Hillary. The 2016 election was a
farce. Sanders and Trump were friendly with the Clintons for a very long time. Sanders was a
sheepdog (not a real candidate) and Hillary threw the race to Trump. Trump is much more
capable at what he does than Hillary would've been.
I mean seriously? WTF? What the hell would they do if they wanted him
removed?
If the Deep State wanted him removed (but they don't) they would find a reason to invoke
the 25th Amendment. They have positioned people to do this, if necessary. For example: VP
Pence was a friend of McCain (who was a 'NEVER TRUMP'-er); Atty General Barr is close to the
Bushes and Mueller ('NEVER TRUMP'-ers); CIA Dir. Gina Haspel is an acolyte of John Brennan
(you guessed it, a 'NEVER TRUMP'-er).
=
MarkU @Oct31 23:18 #76
...he is not a globalist and that is his major sin in their eyes.
He's not anti-globalist as you seem to suggest. He's even bragged about his business
dealings with Chinese, Arabs, Russians - pretty much any group with money.
Trump and the Deep State - the true Deep State, not the pretended partisan off-shoot
- are EMPIRE-FIRST (and have been for decades). You can see this in what Trump has done
globally. USA just wants a bigger cut of the action because they have to do the 'heavy
lifting' of taking on China and Russia.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
I know that my cynical perspective must generate a lot of cognitive dissonance in many
readers. But I don't see any other way to rationally explain Deep State actions and the
history that has brought us to where are today.
The numbers are there for everybody to see: Trump won with 3 million + votes below Hilary
Clinton. That is not democracy in any sense of the word unless you go back to the more
traditional forms of liberalism of the 16th-19th centuries. Those are the numbers, not my
opinion.
Besides, I think you're not getting the irony of your position: the situation in the USA
has gotten so degenerated that you're hanging by a thread - a thread you put on a golden
pedestal and claim is the salvation of the Empire (the electoral college). Where did I see
this? Oh, yes - the War of Secession of 1861-1865, when the slave states were already
outnumbered 6 to 1 by the northern states. They kept their parity artificially for decades,
until the whole thing suddenly burst up in the war (a war where they were crushed; no chance
of victory at all).
So, the problem isn't in the system per se, but the pressure the ossification of the
system is building up. When they seceded, the confederates genuinely thought they were the
true inheritors of the liberal thought, the slave states being the most perfect manifestation
of freedom; the same situation is building up today, albeit, obviously, on a much milder
scale (there's no California gold this time, just the good ol' race to the bottom).
--//--
Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 1 2020 2:25 utc | 95
I agree with you: the end of the electoral college (with it, any form of district vote)
will give a chance for the conservatives (Republicans) to win back, for example, California
(which has 40-46% of the popular vote). But it will also give the Democrats Texas (Dallas +
Houston regions already make almost 50% of the population of the state and are Democratic
bastions). It will also open the gates for third parties to flourish (avoiding a situation
like Bernie Sanders, who had to affiliate to the Democrats).
Either way, it will give the American people and government a more honest, precise picture
of the state of the nation. Or are you willing to live a perpetual illusion of "coastal
elites vs heartland deplorables" forever (which, by the way, only fuels up secession as the
only solution)?
The myth of HIQ whitemen....
--------------------------------------
Caitlin[for prez]johnston
Russia gate morphes seamlessly into China gate without missing a beat.
One hiq white man opines, oh so innocently
IN Russia gate, they were quoting only anon, nameless witness.
This time its different, we've real witness testifying on teevee , in Tucker
[fuck China] Carlson show, no less !
The poor dear was referring to an 'ex CIA' [see, an insider, wink wink ] telling
Tucker [fuck CHINA] Carlson ....
Psssst, many dem were CCP trojans !
ROFLAMO
oR that HUnter BIden buddy whatshisname again, who told Tucker [fuck China] Carlson oh so
solemnly,
'Yes , I think the BIdens were compromised by the chicoms'
OMFG ! BIden is CCP'S man !
What happen if Biden get into the WH and immediately bomb Shanghai.?
Well half of gringos , the Trumpsters, would scream,
'Why isnt BIden bombing Beijing already, well BCOS we all know he's Xi's man in Washington'
!
The dems, eager to clear their potus name, would implore earnestly,
'Hey BIden, you should invade Beijing RIGHT now, show them repuc we are just as tough, no,
even better in showing the chicoms who's the boss around here.
What a devious brilliant way to get a bi partisan support for more
wars.
BI partisan ?
That practically cover 99% of HIQ gringos. hehehhehehhe
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me hundreds of times.........
The Blob will dominate the USA foreign policy, no matter who wins.
Notable quotes:
"... I've commented several times that China's political-economic system is far superior to the Parasitic Neoliberalism that's destroying the West. China's success suggests very strongly that we listen and closely observe while not taking heed of what any Western source has to say about China. ..."
"... The executives and majority shareholders of the CIA/NSA infiltrated corporate news media don't care whether Trump wins, and in fact often prefer it. ..."
"... Those guys are just part of the polarization narrative tearing the country apart. The hatred is real but there is acting involved, especially with Olbermann. These commentators feel that this polarization narrative is giving the country what it wants and it drives ratings. Schiff is just a first class liar ... ..."
"... Obama was just put in the pipeline as one of their possible future candidates for president. They have a stable of these people being mentored. Clinton was one as well. I bet Harris is one as well. ..."
"... I think they hate the Trumper so much because he he was in some else's stable. Possibly the controllers from campus in Tel Aviv. Different stable, same horse shit. ..."
"... Election of president = false flag iperation. The purpose is to fund the private media with advertising revenue paid for by consumer taxpayers. ..."
"... The rest of the world knows that the US is not agreement capable, it does not matter for Iran one bit what happens on November 3rd. ..."
"... I understand the rationale behind Trump's policies. But my conclusion is exactly the opposite: his attempt to stop the disintegration of the American Empire is accelerating the disintegration of the American Empire, not averting it. ..."
"... The key here is to understand that that's not how the American Empire should work. The USA continues to deindustrialize at an accelerated pace under Trump; Wall Street was never stronger than under Donald Trump; American debt was never higher. And now, unemployment is as high as during the 1929 era. ..."
"... The American Empire is the American Empire precisely because it doesn't need to produce anything it needs except defense. It prints money in order to siphon wealth from the rest of the world, enriching its economy while impoverishing the rest. That's the only way the Empire can function - any other way will result in its destruction. ..."
"... Obama ran on Hopey-Changey and on his projected charm, actually glib con-man gab. Worked wonderfully, imagine getting the Nobel Prize because you had a dead-beat Dad who was from Kenya and you scored B+ for public speaking? Argh. (The real reason: killing will continue, the status quo is preserved..) ..."
"... That Trump would win in 2016 was obvious as soon as he became a candidate. He was the cartoon contrast of Obomber - white, fat, orange, tall, R vs. D, outspoken, strident, clumsy (vs. the smooth-talking con), opinionated, stupid, and outrageous in a way. Click bait and viewer bait for the MSM - but not for no reason. ..."
"... To pretend that Trump is some special Peacemaker, trying oh so hard to overcome deep state resistance to rolling back empire, is Trumpism. Escobar is always there. Trump must be understood as a leading creature of the swamp himself. Trying so hard just as Obama was trying so hard. ..."
"... The relative scores settled terribly are more a matter of opportunity than ruthless efficiency. Though it is true that "success" requires dialing it back a bit, and having the likes of Bolton around is a way of ensuring either that nothing gets done, or we all end up ashes. Trump managed to axe Bolton on time, that time. ..."
I do agree with you both that the anti-Trump hysteria has probably worked for him to
some extent but I really don't believe that is a four year long plan, it is too much of a
stretch to believe that the likes of Olbermannn and Schiff are consciously working for him.
American politics really is that toxic, remember the stuff about Obama's birth
certificate.
I also agree that Trump might actually have the support needed for a landslide win, not
so much because of the vilification but because of the arson and looting imo. A lot of
Trump supporters are keeping their heads down atm (and who can blame them) However, now it
is my turn to make a prediction. I predict mass unrest on polling day. it is well accepted
that the majority of the Democrat voters (fraudulent or not) are going to vote by post.
Conversely most Trump supporters are likely to vote in person on the day (or try to at
least)
I expect a concerted attempt to disrupt the polls by people who know that it will
disproportionately affect the Trump vote. I expect violent clashes (with both sides trading
blame) and a result that will please nobody. The worms are not going back into the can.
if I am wrong then I will be big enough to say so on the first appropriate thread on
this site, fair enough?
Zhang Weiwei is the author of a very important book some may have heard about and
even read, The China Wave: Rise Of A Civilizational State, of which an open preview can
be read here. Also, the professor gave a talk at the German Schiller Institute related to
the above book and the BRI project, which can be read here.
I've commented several times that China's political-economic system is far
superior to the Parasitic Neoliberalism that's destroying the West. China's success
suggests very strongly that we listen and closely observe while not taking heed of what
any Western source has to say about China.
I just paused by their tavern to see what elixirs of despair or mirth they have on offer
today. Pour a strong drink comrades and scroll through the cellar. Always worth a
visit.
If Biden is not much different from Trump then why does "the blob" portray Trump as
the Beelzebub? Posted by: m | Nov 1 2020 6:01 utc | 112
Because he's the heel and none of the negative coverage they give him sticks, most often
on purpose. Don't mistake their serious tones and somber pronouncements for genuineness.
It's not. The executives and majority shareholders of the CIA/NSA infiltrated corporate
news media don't care whether Trump wins, and in fact often prefer it.
I am aware of the fact that corruption is rife in both parties. I saw the link to the
Biden bus incident, deplorable yes but hardly on the same scale as the massive rioting,
looting and intimidation of the BLM movement, they didn't actually burn down half the
neighborhood did they. Organized voting obstruction will largely be confined to swing
states for obvious reasons. I made my predictions, we will see.
Just to be clear, I don't even live in the US, I am British. If I did live in the US I
wouldn't vote for either party, I'm not a 'lesser of two evils' kind of guy. To be frank I
am viewing events in the US with considerable trepidation, I regard what happens in the US
as a window into the likely future of the UK and the rest of Europe. I fear that a nuclear
war may well occur sometime in the near future, quite possibly by accident owing to the
continual cutting of warning times, mainly by the US. A very powerful nuclear armed country
convulsed by civil unrest is a very dangerous entity, I fear the worst and so should we all
imo.
Anyway thank you for being polite and civilised and for including actual information
with your replies.
OT..I just read this translation from a Russian link...most agreeable as a counterpoise to
Exceptional Nation nuttiness:
"Construction of the industrial complex, where high-speed trains will be produced,
began in the Urals. In five years, Russia will have a domestic rolling stock for the VSM
- high-speed highways. Moreover, the level of localization of production is stated at
80%, which means additional orders for the Russian industry."
I do agree with you both that the anti-Trump hysteria has probably worked for him
to some extent but I really don't believe that is a four year long plan, it is too much
of a stretch to believe that the likes of Olbermannn and Schiff are consciously working
for him. American politics really is that toxic, remember the stuff about Obama's birth
certificate.
Those guys are just part of the polarization narrative tearing the country apart.
The hatred is real but there is acting involved, especially with Olbermann. These
commentators feel that this polarization narrative is giving the country what it wants and
it drives ratings. Schiff is just a first class liar ...
As far as Obama's birth certificate, since his mom was a CIA officer using the Ford
Foundation as cover during the murder of millions of leftists in Indonesia, I am sure she
took time out to make sure he was born on US soil. All that stuff about him growing up on
embassy row in Indonesia while the left was being slaughtered is carefully taken out of the
story. Not his fault but it was quite a slaughter of humans and we know her employer was
deeply involved. Going into the Indonesian villages to do studies. Really, studies and
observations. They used to call it SOG groups.
Obama was just put in the pipeline as one of their possible future candidates for
president. They have a stable of these people being mentored. Clinton was one as well. I
bet Harris is one as well.
I think they hate the Trumper so much because he he was in some else's stable.
Possibly the controllers from campus in Tel Aviv. Different stable, same horse
shit.
I think they hate the Trumper so much because he he was in some else's stable. Possibly
the controllers from campus in Tel Aviv. Different stable, same horse shit.
Because the FBI's evidence cleaner/tamperer division's mandate will be greatly expanded,
as will the powers of the Silicone Valley Tekkies to more comprehensively throttle public
free speech on electronic media, that the deep state's Invisible Hand disapproves of.
Trump is about controlled demolition of the empire NemesisCalling @ 5.
B summarized the style differences very well. But failed to mention the greater problem.
3 votes at polls every four years is not democracy<= no American is in charge of any
thing the USA does.
the layers in the global power stack (each nation state the same):
layer 1: global franchisor sets rules of play; establishes goals <=local nation
state franchisees must obtain to remain in power.
Layer 2: oligarch <= national (wall street beneficiaries who use their wealth to
conform national outcome consistent with global powers).
Layer 3: copyright y patent monopoly power constitute 90% of corporate Assets.
Layer 4: think tank and other private orgs
public<= layer 5: 527 elected government <= a tool to regulate members of
public
Layer 6: Intergov Bureaucracies limit and direct elected power to global goals.
public<= layer 7: the 340,000,000 members of the media regulated public
layer 8: stop and go economic system control
layer 9: media controls info environment & public narrative (many
techniques)
all layers but 5 and 7 are contained within an envelop of privately owned control
freaks.
Election of president = false flag iperation. The purpose is to fund the private
media with advertising revenue paid for by consumer taxpayers.
Article II and amendment 12 clearly deny American people any say in who is to be the P
and VP of the USA.
Agree with Nemesiscalling, since 1947, standing orders from Layer 1<= demo the
American excellence; deny superior economic power to average Americans . standing orders
<=homogenize the world and standardize its governance.
American lifestyle and quality of life is indifferent to who the media puts into the
white house.
by c1ue @ 26 said it best "Anyone against the "right" and "proper" Democrat sellouts to
pharma, tech and enviro must be rednecks. It is precisely this view that galvanized the
vote against HRC in 2016." the method used by the public layers is reflected here, it is
called divide and conquer.
B reviewed the elements and factors that maintain the division of the masses..
On the absence of a real left in the US ( is all right and more right..)and of a real
program which could include real changes that could make any difference in people´s
lives, on that what matters is political technology and communication based on demonizing
the other candidate which translates in deep polarizing of societies with unexpected
unknown consequences..
" If Trump were re-elected for another four years, it would be a real calamity and
armed conflicts could even break out by the most radical groups, so that the country
could be paralyzed "
"The ideological profile and policy of the United States is that of the president and,
each one, even if they are from the same party, has maintained quite different political
lines throughout history", says Rafael García, professor of International
Relations at the USC. For this reason, he affirms that, in North America, "there is no
strong party structure, but rather that the party acts as an electoral structure and it
is on the candidates of each moment that certain policies are formed."
DEMOCRATS VS. REPUBLICANS. So much so that, as the professor explains, "the
ideological configuration of the parties in the 20th century changed radically". On the
one hand, he alludes to the fact that the Democrat, "in historical terms, was the party
of the southern states, when they faced each other in the Civil War; racist states, which
lasted until the 1920s ". Precisely, the political scientist indicates that "it was
shortly before when the change took place, with the Roosevelt presidency, that he decided
to change the configuration of the Democratic party as a result of the crisis of 29".
On the other hand, the Republican party, he points out, "was that of the union, that
of the northern states, championed by Lincoln; the abolitionist party and that of the
blacks ". So how did these changes come about until today? Rafael García
points to "a consequence of the political strategies that the presidents embodied at
all times, not because there was an ideological line behind each party ."
TRY TO ASSIMILATE THE AMERICAN MODEL TO THE EUROPEAN. For Rafael García, the
Spaniards, when speaking of US politics, "make a mistake in translating our political
structures" to those there. In other words, "in Europe the duality between left and
right is widely assumed and we unconsciously transfer it to US policy." "That is a
complete error" , sentence.
And it is that there " there is neither right nor left, there is right and more
right ", affirms the professor. Which means that there does not exist and did not
exist a historical labor-union party as such. In fact, the transmutation that is usually
made from the democratic party to 'social democratic' is not correct . For
García, Biden embodies "a more moderate man than the crazy Trump, but that does
not mean that he has some kind of relationship with a left-wing thought ."
RIGHT AND RIGHT. "A multimillionaire gentleman, absolute representative of the
establishment" (referring to Biden), and "a traditional gentleman, more conservative"
(referring to Trump) ". "Although Biden is a Democrat, who perhaps holds stronger
principles and is hopeful, identifying him with the left is still a long way from
reality," he says. Therefore, it is denied that the Democrats are the American left
and the Republicans the right .
THE CAMPAIGN LACKS PROGRAMMATIC INTEREST. For the USC political scientist, the US
electoral campaign lacks interest: "It is absurd, it seems like a disqualification
competition in which a political or government program is not exposed ." And every
time Spain is also getting closer to that model of disputes.
"We are Americanized, in the sense that the weight of the parties is also
being diluted in Spain in favor of the candidatesThese advisers are responsible
for the growing division that is taking place in Western society ," he says.
THE GOVERNMENT IN THE HANDS OF POLITICAL ADVISORS. In Rafael García's opinion,
the decision margin "is shrinking", that is, "the autonomy capacity of governments to
make decisions is smaller, and they are conditioned ". So, what is the difference, in
practice, in management, between PP and PSOE? "Little thing, in the end, little thing,"
he asserts.
That is why " that little thing can not be said to the voter, but must be mobilized
with a degree of identification, unconditional adherence, so that it can be recognized in
a brand ." And what is this transformation of Spanish politics due to? The professor
is clear about it: " It is a translation of commercial marketing techniques to
politics." Thus, a marketing advisor must "build customer loyalty" and a political
advisor should build voter loyalty .
Now, if there are no significant differences between the two options, how to
achieve it? "Through a demonization of the opposite and the creation of a hostility that
is dangerous, because the divisions to which society is returning are irreconcilable
." In this way, García believes that " it is the work of political advisers
who, apart from the difficulties that exist in societies, which are many, polarize them
when it comes to building and mobilizing a faithful electorate, to the point that they
make no difference what the party says or what the leader says ".
In the United States, as evidenced by this expert, "it does not matter if Trump
does the atrocities he does, or if he said in the previous campaign that he could murder
a person on Fifth Avenue in New York without anything happening to him ." This,
transferred to the Spanish sphere, "assumes that the party can do any outrage: fraud,
embezzlement, illegal financing ...". "That is something we are seeing, whatever party it
is, but for the faithful voter it does not matter, because their party will continue to
be so and will continue to listen to the channel and read the newspaper that supports
it," he says.
THE ELECTORAL RESULT WILL BE EXTENDED OVER TIME. "I have no idea nor do I want to make
forecasts, but I consider that Trump is a calamity and that if he were there for four
more years it would be an absolute calamity ", says Professor García. However,
" there is a state of opinion that fears that the result of these elections will be
complicated and that there will be challenges, so that the end result will be a
diabolical process of recount, county-by-county challenges, repetitions in certain
districts. .. a real madness that can last several months ", he warns, something
that," with this polarization trail, it is not known how it could end. "
" I am referring to the outbreak of armed conflicts; These people have weapons,
radical groups, some of them crazy and who can shoot themselves in a demonstration, doing
outrages as part of the institutional paralysis in which the country can be plunged
", he asserts.
This is how people, like those at SST, who lied about the real difference amongst
Democrats and Republicans in real effective changes of policy, shouting to the four winds
that "the Communists are coming", when they are not, and this way spread hatred and
division amongst the US society as if there was no tomorrow so that to conserve their "tax
cut", could end witnessing the total destruction of the US, not only as "Empire" ( a
process already in march before Corona-fear and 2020 electoral process, a construct of
decades of lying the electorate for the greed of a minority...), but also as a nation
state. All these people who, holding privileged insider knowledege of the funtioning of the
state as former insiders, should be held accountable for their willing and conscious
participation in the build up of the social and economic disastaer to come....
Forecast at the end of the article posted and quoted above:
The future: Institutional paralysis
··· An institutional paralysis like the one that can come
after 3-N "could already occur in 2000, in the elections between George Bush Jr. and Al
Gore, but the latter accepted the results even though they were open to challenge, and
that it avoided institutional collapse".
··· However, "now it does not seem that either of the two
candidates is going to have a gesture of these characteristics, with which, if doubts
already appear, it will not only be in the State, but the final collapse may be extremely
long and with unimaginable consequences ", indicates Professor García. "It seems
to me that the United States has a terrible situation ahead ", he sentenced.
A scene of Game of Thrones which could summarize 2020 US election campaign, that it
was based on throwing dirty to each other....But who has the real "power", not the
"government"?:
@ Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 7:04 utc | 122
I understand the rationale behind Trump's policies. But my conclusion is exactly the
opposite: his attempt to stop the disintegration of the American Empire is accelerating the
disintegration of the American Empire, not averting it.
The key here is to understand that that's not how the American Empire should work.
The USA continues to deindustrialize at an accelerated pace under Trump; Wall Street was
never stronger than under Donald Trump; American debt was never higher. And now,
unemployment is as high as during the 1929 era.
The American Empire is the American Empire precisely because it doesn't need to
produce anything it needs except defense. It prints money in order to siphon wealth from
the rest of the world, enriching its economy while impoverishing the rest. That's the only
way the Empire can function - any other way will result in its destruction.
Trump's ideology will destroy the American Empire. It will collapse under a wave of
hyperinflation, skyrocketing unemployment, shortage of goods and collapsing economic
output.
The manufacturing sector saw 17,000 jobs added after four months of flat activity. This
followed a strong run of an average of 22,000 manufacturing jobs added every month in
2018 and 15,800 per month in 2017. Those gains followed two weak years that saw 7,000
manufacturing jobs lost in 2016 and only 5,800 per month added in 2015.
In the last 30 months of President Obama's term, manufacturing employment grew by
185,000 or 1.5%. In President Trump's first 30 months, manufacturers added 499,000 jobs,
expanding by 4.0%. In the same 30-month time span during the mature, post-recovery phase
of the business cycle, some 314,000 more manufacturing jobs were added under Trump than
under Obama, a 170% advantage
As Trump is going to win (provided the usual conditions pertain, fraud is not over the
normal levels, and the whole sh*t-story doesn't end up in the courts or fought out on the
streets, whereupon no reasoned predictions can be made), speculation about Biden as Prez.
is a waste of time.
The last part of the Pepe piece in b's post, which gives reasons to not vote Biden, my
take.:
Obama ran on Hopey-Changey and on his projected charm, actually glib con-man gab.
Worked wonderfully, imagine getting the Nobel Prize because you had a dead-beat Dad who was
from Kenya and you scored B+ for public speaking? Argh. (The real reason: killing will
continue, the status quo is preserved..)
Anyway, the ACA was a damp squib, it didn't solve anything, and depending on pov was in
effect a gift to Mega Insurance or was just 'lame' or as often, 'favored some over others'
etc.
Then the Financial Crisis hit. The Obama admin. didn't prevent it (one might argue they
couldn't not sure) and it didn't 'repair' as far as the ppl were concerned. Banks and Some
Big Cos were bailed out - millions of homeowners were tossed to the curb by Banks. Child
poverty, hunger, increased; wages weren't upped, health stats got worse No need to go on -
this provoked tremendous anger. The 2010 elections saw big R gains, 2014 they took the
Senate, iirc.
(Who cared about foreign parts like Ukraine, Syria? is what I'm saying.)
That Trump would win in 2016 was obvious as soon as he became a candidate. He was
the cartoon contrast of Obomber - white, fat, orange, tall, R vs. D, outspoken, strident,
clumsy (vs. the smooth-talking con), opinionated, stupid, and outrageous in a way. Click
bait and viewer bait for the MSM - but not for no reason.
DT's electoral promises were both opportunistic and more profound: like fire-brand
preachers of old, Build The Wall - MAGA - i.e. pledging a return to the past (see, again
the opposite of Barry, who hoped for the future) -- Stop the wars, undo past mistakes (Dems
don't run on anti-war..!), and, most important:
Drain the Swamp. The Deplorables are not ordinary ppl, but criminals in positions
of power. By putting this forward, Trump became a mirror of the ppl, part of them.
Imho, Trump's record (null or abysmal or whatever depending on pov) is not enough for
rejecting him in favor of loathed "failed" policies of the past - Clinton gang, Biden a
part of it, Obama, etc. (By US voters I mean.)
but see Kiza 8, gottlieb 63, dave 72, Jack, others, >> no difference.
...Bringing the supply chain back to the US and re-industrialising the US isn't going to
happen overnight or even in a couple of quarters. Just like the process to de-industrialise
didn't happen overnight. But that the process has started, it is undeniable, and will only
pick up pace when he wins a second term.
4 new Trafalgar polls came out for 10/29: Arizona, Nevada, Florida and Michigan. Trump
expanded his lead on Biden in Florida and Michigan vs. Trafalgar's earlier October
polls:
FL from +2.3% Trump to +2.7%
MI from +0.6% Trump to +2.5%
Trump did worse in Nevada and AZ: AZ from +4% Trump to +2.5%.
Nevada polled +2.3% Biden
Once again: the question is if Trump outperforms vs. MSM polls. If he repeats anywhere
near his 2016 - he will win.
Trump can only win again if the establishment/deep state is once again exceptionally
overconfident and asleep in the control room. They have numerous ways of swinging the
election at the last hour, from pre-hacked Diebold paperless voting machines to hanging
chads to simply having their operatives scattered around the nation throw ballots away and
fabricate the tallies. Oddly enough this extreme carelessness is still possible. The
establishment/deep state have not yet come to terms with what caused their plans to blow up
in 2016 and really do seriously believe that Russia had something to do with it, even
though they have no idea what Russia might have actually done to wreck their expected
electoral blowout by Clinton. They also think that part of the problem was that Trump
wasn't vilified harshly enough (they wanted the election to at least appear competitive),
and they think they have that covered this time around. It could be that the over-the-top
hysteria from the TDS victims has them overestimating the anti-Trump sentiment, though.
Still, the establishment/deep state screwing up exactly the same way twice in a row
doesn't seem likely. Even so, their profound incompetence continues to astonish, so maybe
we will once again get treated to the delightful spectacle of crowds of middle class faux
left dilettante snowflakes melting down.
It not hard to see why big pharma despises Trump. They stand to lose a lot of
money. My health stock investment has almost doubled during Trump's tenure.
vk @158 - Not acreage - but based (until Andrew Jackson, hardly any principled person's
prez) on PROPERTY VALUE. JUST as in the good ol' UK. Yep - despite NPR folks believing
otherwise (clealry never visited a history book) - the aristo controlled (in what way
really different?) Britain was actually a "democracy":, and was so from Magna Carta on...
Of course it was a, how to say, constrained, constricted "democracy," but then so was the
original one in Athens. Those who count as THE Demos - always been a matter for property
holder concern... So in GB - male, 21 and over and owning a property of a taxable (always
this, huh) value of a certain sum. Ensured that the hoi polloi males over 21 couldn't vote
- and for the exact same reasons, I do not doubt, as the intentions behind the Electoral
College construct by those less than admirable FFs. Gotta prevent the vast masses of the
population - the great unwashed, "the bewildered herd" in Hamilton's verbiage I do believe
- from having the ability to grab (well, they knew all about blood-letting theft of land,
after all, didn't they?) that sacred "property." (Sacred, surely 'cos owned by the
equivalent of the Murican aristos.)
@Down South #159
It shouldn't be surprising. Actual doctors and nurses are, by and large, really great
people. They don't want to turn away anyone.
The poorest in America can't afford health care - even the middle class can't really as
testified to by the millions of bankruptcies caused by medical expenses. Hospitals thus
were losing large sums of profit treating people who simply could not pay.
Obamacare threw many (not all) of those people onto health insurance company plans by
having the government pay the health insurance premium and then having the existing health
insurance customers pay via increased premiums - all this on top of the ongoing health care
profiteering. That's why Obamacare should really have been called "No Health Insurance
Company or Hospital Left Behind".
The existence of Obamacare also distracts people from the real problem: actual
affordable health care - which every other nation in the world except the US has, entirely
due to national health care.
I've posted this before - I will post it again.
In 2006, I left the semiconductor software industry on my own because I disagreed with
management decisions to outsource all jobs to India rather than change their fundamentally
flawed business model. Semiconductor software companies are the only part of the design
chain that charges by software license rather than per part made - this was great in the
early days of semiconductors but is a disaster when the industry consolidates to 5 large
multinational but US based companies.
In 2007, I experienced a retinal detachment right after my COBRA ended. I paid $35,000
in cash to get that fixed - including a 5 hour total elapsed journey through a hospital
which included a 1 hour surgical room occupancy and 1 hour of recovery time. In the door at
6:30 am and waiting for a taxi at 12:30 pm. The UCSF doctor that attended to me (and did a
great job to be clear) said his fee out of all that was $1200.
The following year, some cells stirred loose by the corrective surgery landed on my
now-attached retina and started reproducing. Instead of coughing up another $35K (or more),
I chose to fly to Australia, consult with the best eye doctor recommended by the Royal
Opthalmological Society of Australia and New Zealand.
That doctor's office was literally a light year more advanced than UCSF - supposedly one of
the premier teaching hospitals in the US. I pay him AU$5000 - US$4000 at the time, plus
another AU$800 for the hospital visit. The Sydney Eye Hospital gave me the choice of
staying a 2nd night (I stayed 1 night because I was at the end of the queue for the day, as
a foreigner), for free, including meals and medications administered on site.
I paid literally 1/7th the price in AU vs. the US - an Australia is not a 3rd world
country. The doctor got paid 3.5x in absolute terms. The service I received was immensely
better. Even including travel costs: flight plus 2 weeks in AU (which I was vacationing),
the overall cost was still 1/5th of my US experience.
That opened my eyes (literally) to just how fucked up the US system is.
@Don Bacon #165
Stock price doesn't bear any short term correlation with profits.
Just look at Tesla, Uber and what not.
Health care sector profits have increased disproportionately since Obamacare:
CFR report on health insurance company profits
Since ACA implementation on January 1, 2014, health insurance stocks outperformed the
S&P 500 by 106 percent.
You're right. The early liberals - specially from the American South - loved to compare
themselves with the Athenian Republic. The rationale is that the existence of slaves
enabled them to enjoy unparalleled freedom. Black slaves were frequently compared with
helots when the problem of slave revolts appeared (with the pro-abolitionists evoking the
figure of Spartacus). The South considered itself freer than the North in the USA - it was
only after their destruction in 1865 that the tide turned and the North became,
retrospectively, the paragon of liberal freedom.
In Europe, England was considered the ultimate free nation. Even American liberals
(including Benjamin Franklin) built up their legitimacy on being of English stock
(Anglo-Saxon race). With time, liberals begun to legitimize their hegemony with a worldwide
racial hierarchy - hence the definition of American democracy as Herrenvolk Democracy
("Master race democracy").
And yes, the original liberals considered the Glorious Revolution of 1688 as their birth
date - not the French Revolution of 1789 (which they condemned as illiberal, or "radical").
The founders of neoliberalism (Hayek, Mises, etc. etc.) put 1870 as the apex of liberalism,
which they tried to revive.
Escobar writes: "In contrast, two near-certain redeeming features would be the return of
the US to the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, which was Obama-Biden's only foreign policy
achievement"
Anyone who actually thinks this is either ignorant or moronic. Biden will absolutely
require Iran to limit their ballistic missiles before "rejoining" that then-altered deal.
Iran will never let this happen. Thus the deal is essentially dead [as far as US
involvement goes, which the other parties should ignore]. MOA notes this as well.
I don't know why though MOA refers to Escobar at all here though. The ignorance
demonstrated in the above quote should be enough to disqualify such a person from any
discussion about Biden, Iran, etc. and to also ignore anything else such a person claims.
You might as well quote a schizophrenic you meet down by the river for his take on Iran and
the JCPOA. Might as well learn sign language and ask the chimps at your local zoo what they
think about it.
You are not the only American who is doing it. They have even developed a term for it -
medical tourism:
With rising healthcare costs in the US and the rise of health tourism destinations that
offer quality and affordable healthcare perked up by a beautiful travel experience,
Americans are scampering to book appointments with healthcare providers far away from
home. Yearly, millions of patients travel from countries lacking healthcare
infrastructure or less advanced in a particular area of medical care to countries that
provide highly-specialized medical care.
Noirette @161: " Drain the Swamp. The Deplorables are not ordinary ppl, but
criminals in positions of power. By putting this forward, Trump became a mirror of the ppl,
part of them."
True enough, and as even the bunny claims, this was part of the act. But those who think
Trump's upset victory in 2016 was part of the plan need to offer up a better explanation
for why those criminals in positions of power would want to kneecap themselves with public
exposure. The rationale has to be extraordinarily critical and of huge value to the elites
because that price of exposure has been monumentally damaging to them.
Keep in mind that one of the most important (if not the most important) aspects
of US presidential elections is the "electoral mandate" . Far more important than
specific campaign promises is the general tone of the campaign. If a winning candidate had
campaigned on ending wars, bringing jobs back from abroad, and fighting corruption in
government, this isn't just an indication that the public wants something done about these
issues. First and foremost it forces an acknowledgement that these are indeed major issues
that the public wants to be part of the national discourse that the capitalist mass media
tries to control. Allowing these issues to become part of the national discourse is
diametrically opposed to the interests of the power elites. They do not want these issues
to even be discussed, much less addressed by the state.
So why would they intentionally force these issues into the forefront of national
discourse? That is, after all, what Trump's victory did, despite the establishment's best
efforts to distract with "Russia! Russia! Russia!" and "Racism, sexism and
pussy-grabbing, oh my!" . These issues were already smoldering below the surface due to
Sanders' campaign, so why would the elites want them fanned into flames?
Answer: They didn't. As much as the issues that the winner campaigns on getting elevated
in priority by the "electoral mandate" , the loser's issues get diminished. Trump
was supposed to lose, and lose bigly, and in the process the things he campaigned on were
supposed to be crushed down to objects of ridicule by the corporate mass media. Trump's
resounding defeat was supposed to signal that Americans rejected Trump's "conspiracy
theories" about some fictitious "deep state" that only existed in Trump's
imagination, burying the suspicions that the election fraud committed against Sanders
aroused. Trump being ignominiously trounced was supposed to allow the mass media to say
that Americans unequivocally voiced their opposition to ending war and their support for
intervention in Syria, clearing the way for Clinton's "no fly zone" . Trump being
utterly humiliated in the polls was supposed to decisively demoralize the
"deplorables" , convincing them with finality that there will never again be
good-paying blue collar jobs and that they are just disposable relics, while at the same
time crippling their resistance to the social engineering of "identity politics" ;
social engineering that I should point out is even more ill-conceived and incompetently
executed than the 737MAX MCAS system.
Trump was supposed to lose and take those issues with him to the dustbin of history.
It is important to understand this point because it clarifies who our enemies really are
and helps us to understand how they view the world.
Ancient Athens excluded from power slaves and resident foreigners (metics). Also women in
the families of male citizens, although one could argue that they had virtual
representation through the male citizens in their families. So also for the children in
citizens' families, although they would have full rights once they reached adulthood. The
adult male citizens who had full political rights were about 20 percent of the population
of Attica.
And even the poorest citizens had much more political power than average citizens of
today's so-called democracies have today. They could attend and vote in the Assembly, they
could be chosen by lot to serve in such bodies as the Council and juries, and to serve in
most offices. And for doing all these things there was pay, so that poor citizens had
particular motivation to participate, which they did. Just read Aristophanes. No wonder
most rich Athenians hated the system.
Again, you are mistaken. I am getting tired of correcting you.FoxNews drug their heels
when it came to supporting DJT in 2015 until it was clear that the majority of
conservatives actually wanted DJT as their candidate.
It was at that point that business-smartz kicked in and they had to acknowledge that
they must throw their weight behind the Trump ticket lest they prove themselves the
faux-conservative Rinos they actually were/are.
Business 101, my friend. You wanna keep the advert. revenue coming in, you produce
content your audience actually agrees with.
TBH and AFAIK Tucker Carlson is still the only truly sane conservative on FOx news. The
rest, including Hannity, don't neccessarily mind the endless wars so long as the public
endorses them. They are chameleons without an ethical lodestar guiding their
commentary.
Trump being utterly humiliated in the polls was supposed to decisively demoralize the
"deplorables", convincing them with finality that there will never again be good-paying
blue collar jobs and that they are just disposable relics,
_____________________________________________
The problem is you think the oligarchs are every bit as stupid as you are. It would be
nice if they were, but unfortunately they're not.
First of all lets examine who are these deplorables who you imagine were set up by the
oligarchs to be crushed and demoralized by running Trump as their candidate.
The deplorables are:
-The Americans that own the guns
-The Bible thumping American jihadist
-The Americans that sign up for the police and military and in those rolls operate the
states weaponry
-The Americans who believe the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of
tyrants
I could go on but all you have to do is tune into the corporate mass media that caters
to the deplorables to find out who they are and what they are being sold.
But Mr Gruff is just too stupid to figure out why in the world the oligarchs might want
to not antagonize that segment of the population.
The oligarchs would have to have lost their frikken minds to hire trump for the purpose
of giving the deplorables a big "fuck you" as you imagine. The oligarchs are well aware
that they already gave a big fat finger to the deplorables when they engineered the
election of Obama (not to mention the 40 preceding years of marginalizing that segment of
the population) and just maybe it was time to pacify that segment of the population that
was growing larger and a bit restless.
But those who think Trump's upset victory in 2016 was part of the plan need to offer up a
better explanation for why those criminals in positions of power would want to kneecap
themselves with public exposure. The rationale has to be extraordinarily critical and of
huge value to the elites because that price of exposure has been monumentally damaging to
them.
Amen!!! I don't think that people who forward that narrative fully understand
how damaging this exposure has been to them.
By being exposed they have been shown to exist . This is super critical! No more
is talk of the deep state relegated to the lunatic fringe where they can be easily derided
as "conspiracy theorists"
Whether Trump can drain the swamp or not is to be seen but what is not in dispute is
that they exist.
Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 18:31 utc |
181 How can the blob "return" when they never really left?
To pretend that Trump is some special Peacemaker, trying oh so hard to overcome deep
state resistance to rolling back empire, is Trumpism. Escobar is always there. Trump must
be understood as a leading creature of the swamp himself. Trying so hard just as Obama was
trying so hard.
The relative scores settled terribly are more a matter of opportunity than ruthless
efficiency. Though it is true that "success" requires dialing it back a bit, and having the
likes of Bolton around is a way of ensuring either that nothing gets done, or we all end up
ashes. Trump managed to axe Bolton on time, that time.
It's avoidance of those lower probability mega catastrophes that is the principle reason
of voting trump out with regards to foreign policy. And there are other reasons.
Four years ago I was railing against Hillary Clinton on Facebook without any
censoring.
Tonight I watched an interview Tucker Carlson did with Glenn Greenwald regarding the
Hunter Biden/Joe Biden scandal and Tucker showed a poll revealing that 51% of those polled
believe this scandal is "Russian Disinformation" with ZERO evidence.
Why do those being polled believe this? Because the bulk of the MSM they watch have told
them so and the major tech platforms have ALL censored the pertinent information so there is
NO debate amongst the electorate. All of this less than one week from our national
election.
With Facebook and Twitter and Google's and the bulk of the MSM's heavy fingers on the
scales of public information there are only two words to describe this:
ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
And this with over 70 million voters already having cast their ballots!
Regardless of the outcome next Tuesday, these tech/media corporations should ALL be
brought down at least to the point where they can never be allowed to interfere in another
American election again, regardless of the higher-ups personal political preferences.
And this is the system the war-mongering DNC wants to "spread around the world" with their
"regime change wars"?!
Stephanie, why do you want Trump gone? Trump is bait. His presence is resulting in many,
many bad actors revealing themselves to be nefarious. Just look at Twitter/Facebook censoring
this blockbuster news (along with the rest of the media). We, The People, are finally seeing
first had the level of tyranny that's upon us. None of it has anything to do with Trump. But
it's Trump's existence in the White House that is bringing it to light. Without him, we would
have never seen it for what it is. Think about that.
I may disagree with your take on CIA involvement, but the above paragraph couldn't be more
accurate. Trump's election was like throwing a brick through a rotten, wasp-infested
beehive.
I'll second that. Though perhaps to be fair to the original sentiment, perhaps the brick has
only knicked the beehive, and then smashed a window or two along it's way. He is arguably
inevitable, even desirable from some perspective, but the degree of nuisance is not erased, so
much as outweighed, by the necessity. We would be living in a better world, by definition, if
someone like him had never been required to improve it.
Agreed. I have been telling Democrats all they need do is run better candidates - and
virtually every time, I get people trying to claim there was never anything wrong with Hillary
or Joe and also Trump is Literally Hitler Incarnate.
I grew up watching psychos in the Extreme Right talk that way about whoever THEY didn't like
politically. Arguing that Bill Clinton was going to send Janet Reno to take their guns and cart
them off to FEMA camps like a scene out of "Red Dawn" or something. But this isn't the fringes
talking anymore. It's the mainstream, and it's on the Left.
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.
You mention in this article that the media is basically over-compensating for helping Trump
win in 2016. That is extremely naive on your part. The media/twitter/facebook/CNN/MSNBC, etc.
is too well orchestrated, too well coordinated to be operating even vaguely independently. This
is project Mockingbird happening on a scale almost unimaginable. Maybe even the Intercept was
intercepted. Why would the publication that you founded not allow you to publish this? If you
look back at 2016, the entire media industrial complex was just as coordinated as it is now,
they just got sloppy because they were certain Trump wasn't going to win. Who's being naive now
Kay?
I also get frustrated with what I see as a naive interpretation, by figures like Dan
Bongino, Tim Pool, etc. I wonder if there is a fear by some to point behind the curtain, that
they will be attacked and cancelled for "conspiracy theories."
Neither Tim or Dan are really journalists and besides, this story is so massive and so
incomprehensibly large in scope/scale/magnitude that we shouldn't get too frustrated.
The main point to remember here is that none of this has anything to do with Trump. Look at
the timeline in its entirety, the best we are able to do and then plot a graph of the Media
Industrial Complex's behavior. They were out to derail Trump from the moment he came down the
escalator and it's not because he's a womanizer or that he's a game show host. They couldn't
afford to have an non-establishment player come in and wreck their plans. The question is, what
the f#$% were their plans? Why did they risk so much to keep him out of the WH?
My view is that the constant sturm und drang about the corruption of the elections (voter
suppression, mail fraud, ballot harvesting, etc, etc) is a ploy to distract from the fact that
the real corruption already happened long before the election.
The real corruption is even mentioned by Glenn in his draft: the SELECTION process.
The media do what they're told, and what they are doing is keeping up the drumbeat of
election corruption. In other words, they've been told to distract all attention from the real
story.
The real story is that, to the people who control candidate selection, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO
WINS.
That is the whole point of controlling the selection process. Oh yes, I know the media hates
Trump and so do the establishment. Really? The same establishment that just benefitted from the
greatest upward transfer of wealth in human history, during a pandemic panic, under Trump?
Bezos has gained over 70 billion in net worth this year, under Trump. You think he hates Trump?
Really?
You think Biden will do less? Or perhaps you think he would do more than the greatest upward
transfer of wealth in human history?
Republicans versus Democrats is a con game. It's a kabuki theatre of manipulation of
parochial tribalism, a Punch n Judy Show for the rubes.
As was once mentioned in the UT threads at Salon, isn't it time for a second political
party, Mr Greenwald?
It's not about their plans. It's just a non-violent (so far) class war. Trump is a vessel
for the working classes to carry their dissatisfaction of elite leadership. It's easier to
communicate directly to the people now due to social media, so the traditional media can't tell
the people how to vote (can't declare a candidate to be beyond the pale any more, squashing
their chances, and they used to have that power). The media are part of the elite leadership,
they don't like the working classes not listening to them, and they don't like the loss of
power. That's their agenda.
They have taken to "any means necessary" to keep that power, even though now it's basically
lying and obfuscation. They are trading off their legacy trustworthiness for short term
benefit, but they are destroying that foundation of trust as well. That happens slowly but
surely as more people see through them. Takes too long in the experience of everyone who is
reading this, because we're well ahead of the curve. The average mid level elite is a working
professional with kids too busy and not interested enough to dig to the next level and has been
taking their word - but they too see the truth every time they really look and over time that
is going to go as we all hope it will. It's just going to take a while.
"The guy who co-founded one of the current-day major online journalism outlets isn't really
a journalist" - Someone Posting to the Comments on an Article by a Guy Who Co-Founded One of
the Current-Day Major Online Journalism Outlets
There is good cause to question the Snowden story. He was CIA. Once a CIA agent, always a
CIA agent. It's plausible that he was inserted into booz allen hamilton in an attempt to harm
the NSA (on behalf of the CIA). Tell me this Glen, how did Snowden evade the largest
dragnet/manhunt ever on the planet to evade the authorities and make it to Moscow? Am I the
only one who finds this a little fishy? As someone who has been in software for 40 years, when
I heard him on Joe Rogan podcast about a year ago, I didn't find his backstory credible at all.
He sounds intelligent, but when you get beyond that and listen to him from a technological
perspective, his story doesn't add up. I find it hard to believe.
Why would a "patriot" doing work on behalf of the CIA be thrown to the wolves? Why wouldn't
they cover for him after it was released? I haven't been in software for 40 years, but I
believe that the Snowden story is extremely credible.
Snowden was a libertarian high school dropout hacker
The Deep State hired 800,000 employees/contractors around the Beltway after 9/11 on a war
footing, so anyone that was seen as clean and patriotic may not have needed a lot of standard
credentials by the usual bureaucratic managerial idiot types working for the Feds
I've been told that military field grade IT is all from the 1990s, dunno about national
security agencies, but unless you have actually worked with national security IT stuff I'm not
sure why your views should hold much weight
Senior people I know in the military and national security apparatus have told me that
corruption, waste and inefficiency are rampant (80-90%?)
Sorry, but I've heard that "anything CIA is automatically X" way too many times in my life.
Often from people trying to sell books about how we never landed on the Moon (you'd be amazed
how many ex-[alphabet agency] agents "back up" these claims with the worst sort of
pseudo-authoritative malarkey).
Hah! They "helped" Trump by running two billion dollars' worth of 95% negative coverage. It
made Trump look like the victim of a massive smear campaign by partisan hacks. What have they
been doing to "over-compensate", exactly? Make it 99%?
Whether or not they helped Trump, Greenwald's article claimst that journalists feel
responsible for Trump being elected last time so they are trying not to make the same
'mistake'. At least that's what Glenn is asserting here.
They're not wrong. They helped elect him with their sheer negativity. I've seen these people
argue the point, and they always point the finger at other journalists somehow NOT being
negative enough. It's never themselves.
So there's no collective soul-searching going on, no self-awareness, only a drive to be
angrier and finger-wagging with less concern for the actual facts of any given matter. They
don't realize how transparent it's become for those not already personally invested in the
extant narratives.
This, I think, is why we are seeing many more people defect to Trump rather than away from
him; when one is personally and deeply invested in a narrative, it's an article of faith.
Imagine you walk into church one day and the pastor says "this just in: the Archangel Gabriel
was a child molestor who felt up Baby Jesus". Next week, they accuse the Virgin Mary of the
same. Would a member of the faithful just roll with that, or consider moving to another church
altogether just to avoid the emotional whiplash?
More to the point, the head of Crowdstrike, the company run by a known Russia-hater the
Democrats sent their server to instead of the FBI, and who never provided that server to the
FBI, admitted in a Senate hearing that there was, in fact, no evidence of hacking. He was under
oath that time. Russiagate remains one of the most successful propaganda campaign in
history.
Just before or just after Trump's 2016 election I was in a Manhattan restaurant with my
domestic partner talking with strangers from DC. It turned out that they worked in the State
Dept. and they told us that since Trump questioned the veracity of some things the intelligence
establishment had said, they would absolutely bring him down. We were shocked but have
remembered this throughout the FISA debacle,the Mueller mess,the impeachment and this election
cycle.
Right. Thank you. I wrote to Matt T. about this same issue in his article. I'm hoping they
will do the investigation required for them to amend their articles. It really is a fundamental
mistake to perpetuate this propaganda.
It's literally in the Mueller report that the DNC server was hacked, without a shred of
evidence. As Fox Mulder said "Trust No One". Matt & Glen really need to get to the point
where they chuck everything they think they know and start over. Everything has been a lie. Why
would anyone believe ANYTHING the FBI or DOJ of Obama WH put out at this point? The MSM has no
credibility, FBI/DOJ/CIA? This cancer has metasticized to the point where the patient is on
life support.
We need to understand that Trump is Chemo. It takes an outsider to come in, someone who
didn't need this job, someone who couldn't be bought, to come in and kill that cancer.
Just to offer some confirmation for that, Here is a CNN article from the time: "A phishing
email sent to Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta may have been so sophisticated
that it fooled the campaign's own IT staffers, who at one point advised him it was a legitimate
warning to change his password."
However, they also report that the link was from " [email protected] ." I searched
for whether that email address had been reported as malicious on the day that the story broke.
Far from being "sophisticated", it was just a phishing link that was going around randomly, and
had already been reported to this spam reporting site:
So, despite (much of) the media converging on a "sophisticated spear phishing" narrative,
this looks to be a link that was sent to a large number of people over a long period, and just
a case of random spam phishing that got lucky.
re: "so sophisticated that it fooled the campaign's own IT staffers"
I'm not a google mail user, but in general it is pretty rare for a phishing email to NOT
have extended headers (server route log) that reveal a bogus or weird looking origin.
"Alleging" would be more accurate. They've been acting quite more brazenly as a
misinfo/disinfo arm of the DNC. Whether or not the DNC has deep enough connections with the CIA
to provide a useful and reliable data/policy bridge is another question, but both DNC and GOP
likely have enough connections to establish semi-functional "lamprey" networks just due to
their longevity and resulting personal/professional contacts therein.
Hi Frank. " 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)."
Based on the forensics that was my conclusion but beware of these rabbit holes. It has never
been discussed that those details can also be faked (the meta data.) Certainly Gucifer which
seemed like damage control. I am unsure of the claims about his being backtracked tho.
So it's possible that the evidence is faked having accepted the conclusions of VIPS
analysts.
Could be. It would also mean that it was the first time Wikileaks published something that
wasn't authentic. Assange knows where the emails came from and he asserted that they didn't
come from Russia.
Note to all: You must use actual (historical) ISP speeds as of the specific months in
question. They increased a good deal in the months that followed in that area.
I agree that there was a massive fake Russia story created by GPS Fusion, the Clinton
campaign, Clinton allies, with the help of US intelligence, often willing and sometimes just
incompetent.
But there is definitely some evidence of a DNC hack. Among other things, the Dutch
intelligence services seem to have observed evidence in their spying on the Internet Research
Agency - reported by mutliple sources including Dutch media. What the nature of the hack was
and how it gibes with the evidence that there must have been a person on the ground to transfer
the data files that fast is of course fair to discuss.
There is also evidence, both purposely forgotten in media coverage after Jan 2017, of an
attempted RNC hack and the overt public hack and release of Colin Powell's email to embarass
and hurt Trump. There is plenty of other evidence of Internet Research Agency activity that was
pro-BLM and anti-Trump, making their more likely overall goal the sowing of chaos than only
supporting Trump. Thus the need for GPS/Clintonistas/Intelligence/Mueller's team to spin a
narrative.
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.
Alex: you are saying that we should not have independent press, that the media ought to be
agents of propaganda, consciously decieving the public for the greater good.
Maybe Biden is the lesser evil in this election. But without actual journalists like Glenn
we could never know.
I get the frustrations over Trump. He is a disaster. But the answer to that disaster does
not concist in advocating for more lies and propaganda.
I have yet to hear a reasonable case for Trump being either the greater evil or a disaster.
Many of the allegations against Trump have remained that - allegations - but in Biden's case
some of the same accusations (particular about racism) is in his Senate record. He was a
terrible candidate to position against Trump, and he picked as his veep the only person in the
entire primary season to get blown out by a single phrase from Tulsi Gabbard - who the rest of
the party's establishment absolutely despised because Hillary said so.
With Trump? Roaring economy brought to a halt not even by coronavirus, but massive economic
lockdowns that break the economy down to virtually Blue-State (down) / Red-State (up)
comparisons. Democrats were accusing Trump of "meddling" when he was still a candidate and
nonetheless pressured a Detroit factory into staying in the US. The man understands economic
leverage, and to ignore or deny that is like denying the Sun heats the Earth.
Three Middle East peace deals leading to an equal number of Nobel nominations. He is roasted
for de-escalating international tensions, lauded only when he fires missiles at nations
Democrats think need shooting at, and then castigated for killing a terrorist leader in the
same nation they were cheering him for firing missiles at.
I see very little criticism of Trump that isn't associated with bald-faced party-based
opposition, from establishment Republicans who hated his cockblocking of JEB BUSH FOR GODSAKE
to Democrats who still think Hillary's shit job as Secretary of State (ruining more nations
than Trump has cut peace deals for) is beyond reproach.
Speaking as a lifetime independent, please: the naked, incessant and baseless fury
demonstrated by Democrats and the Radical Left since 2016 has NOT been a selling point for
us.
Biden has been credibly accused of actually pinning a staffer against the wall and stuffing
his fingers up her vagina. The media didn't attack her story, but her college credentials, and
dumped the story after.
Biden has actually authored racist legislation and in recent years spoke of "being able to
work across the aisle" - with racist segregationists.
Trump's been merely ACCUSED of a shit-ton of things. But I don't join lynch-mobs. Same
reason the lynching of Justice Kavanaugh (seriously, you guys went after him over "I like beer"
and school calendars you had to try and reinterpret as codebooks?) made me see the Democratic
Party as a progressively more lunatic outfit. Reducing impeachment to "who needs criminal
charges? we really just hate the guy" wasn't a winner with us independents either, not just
speaking for myself there.
A pox on both your damned parties, and thank Trump for being that pox.
Gee Alex, elitist much? You don't like Trump so the people making an informed choice is not
a worthy goal? Anyone who disagrees with your world view is a rube who is not smart enough to
see the light - as defined by you? And you wonder why Trump won last time. The left is
populated by arrogant asses who think because they came out of college with a degree in some
worthless major, they are smarter than everyone else. Well, I went to college to but got a
degree in engineering vice sociology but I guess I'm just an educated rube.
Your law school tuition dollars were clearly wasted. Most of the people/rubes/idiots I know
and love learned the difference between "your" and "you're" in high school - and acquired
critical thinking skills at the same time. Too bad you missed out.
Yeah, we the people (rubes) are fn sick of the fn lawyers (especially from UC Hastings)
being in political control of our country and want a non-political person to clean up. What's
so hard for you to understand?
How's your guy doing you fucking rube? Great choice! Job well done!! If you ever wonder why
nobody gives a shit about your opinion, the fact that you chose a fucking reality star who ran
every business he ever owned into the ground, and fancies a bizarre hairdo, that's why no one
cares what you say. You're fucking stupid.
bahahahahaha...go crawl back into your fucking prol shit hole dwelling and latch onto
Tucker's teat. You're a fucking joke and always will be, no matter how special your dear leader
makes you feel.
Our local sanitation workers are much more thoughtful and respectful actually. I am voting
for Biden but I find this lawyer's response detestable. We need to grow up and stop with ad
hominem attacks that do nothing to advance the discussion.
Morals and ethics obviously mean nothing to a lawyer. If this was Don Jr, you would be out
for blood. As an independent voter, I want to know that I'm not voting for a piece of shit that
has been compromised by the Russians and Chinese! People like you, the FAKE NEWS media, and
antifa, etc are a major reason why I won't ever give my vote to Biden!
Elitists like Alex G. made the election of Donald Trump as president both inevitable and
necessary. The more he disses the "people" aka "rubes," the more President Trump's re-election
becomes equally inevitable and necessary. To borrow from Sen. Ted Cruz's exchange with Twitter
CEO Jack Dorsey, "Who the hell made Alex G. the final authority on how and what people should
think, say and do?"
One thing we know for sure is Alex G. never learned any humility or manners growing up. To
substantiate this, he stands condemned out of his own mouth. Last thing this country needs is
to have an authoritarian demagogue like him anywhere near the levers of power.
Please go back and fact check the old stories that made us hate Trump in the first place.
They've proven to be lies. He isn't perfect, but Biden will destroy this country. He's beyond
corrupt. Go look at the source materials.
Arrogant, smug D party loyalist goons and assholes like you are a very large part of why
people voted for Trump in 2016 and will vote for him in this election. T-R-0-L-L
I believe in the democratic system. The people may make mistakes, but so can anyone else. An
average of all the people is more accurate than randomly picking subsets of people to make
decisions. You say that you and your friends are not a random subset, you are better than
average. Your opponents say the same thing. We have a system for resolving these disputes.
Maybe you can invent a better one, but "I'm right and my opponents are wrong" is not a new
approach.
In answer to your "Why" question, perhaps Mr. Greenwald believes the same thing.
Glenn - new subscriber today (saw you with Tucker Carlson). As a conservative voter, I
support your new venture, not because your story is critical or suspicious of Biden, but
because we need more talented journalists willing to just investigate possible corruption and
inform the public. I also support Matt Taibbi for the same reason. The last line of your
article sums it up best for me.
"The whole point is that the press loses its way when it cares more about who benefits from
information than whether it's true."
Good luck, I hope you find this new path rewarding professionally and financially.
Agreed, I also like reading Quillette for it's equal publication of articles (they printed
that big article from the Environmentalist who demonized Environmentalism after he was banned
from his original publisher), and I also like reading Sharyl Attkisson as well.
I find it interesting how Glenn sees all the propoganda from these agencies in the media,
but fails to see the full extent of it in social media and therefore is unable to report on it
adequately. The DNC server hack is more of the same.
I paid for a subscription precisely because I believe that, despite what you may or may not
personally believe, you don't allow it to influence your pursuit of the truth. I want the truth
- nothing less and nothing more.
I just signed up, too, for that very reason. When those in positions of power put on a mask
and practice deception, they must be exposed. Sunlight is the cure for the disease of
corruption.
Personally, having read your work going back to Cato Institute and Volokh, I'm happy you're
independent and I can directly fund you. I'm willing to throw even more money at your projects.
Consider crowdfunding video documentary teams and other large projects. Your following after
all of this is going to be as large as ever.
I've supported him here as well because I think he is an important voice right now. There
are few journos out there right now who have Glenn's credibility who are willing to take on
media groupthink. But it is a tough environment. With NYT offering their digital for 4$ a month
that gives access to all of their writers/content, it is very difficult for writers like Glenn
to compete.
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.
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:
People who claim Trump is undermine the republic are wrong. The last nail in the coffin of
the republic was put by George Bush, We are now living in the empire.
The replacement of the republic with the "national security state" started with Truman,
reached local max in 1963 when a faction within CIA killed JFK and irrevocably became an
empire in 1991 with the disappearance of the USSR. And the global neoliberal empire ruled
from Washington that the USA tries to maintain as a world hegemon is a death sentence to
republic and democracy. So it is fair to say that formally republic (and democracy) in the
USA seized to exist after dissolution of the USSR, when the USA ruling elite became drunk
with the feeling of the only world superpower and neocons start to determine the USA foreign
policy. People just became hostages, forced to support and die in imperial wars, while
standard of living of lower 80% of population start gradually sliding, like always happens
with empires, and manufacturing (and jobs) stared to move oversees, mainly in China. The
decline started actually under Carter.
Truman initiated the transition of the republic into national security state by creating
CIA, NSA and FBI. Herbert Hoover was probably the first who noted that now "tail is wagging
the dog ": intelligence agencies were able to the control of Congress and executive branch
via dirt of politicians and other standard for the "deep state" tricks. To say nothing about
Allan Dulles, CIA and JFK assassination.
And later Obama managed to paraphrase Mr. Orwell 1984, "We always have to be at war with
Eastasia." Just 30 years later. Now you need to add to this pervasive wiretapping of all
communications due to the treat of terrorism.
The look how easily the deep state derailed Sanders candidacy. Nobody even managed to
scream, until it was too late. As Professor Sheldon Wolin put it we live under "inverted
totalitarianism ":
"One cannot point to any national institution[s] that can accurately be described as
democratic surely not in the highly managed, money-saturated elections, the lobby-infested
Congress, the imperial presidency, the class-biased judicial and penal system, or, least of
all, the media."
Wolin showed us all the realities of and limits of the US form of government. It is still
a livable space and if you do not try to undermine the neoliberal social order they will
leave you alone. There not much forceful indoctrination that was a hallmark of the USSR. It's
still a better country, I can attest.
Also the USA "nomenklatura" is more agile, less fossilized in comparison with Brezhnev's
nomenkatura.
But "we are an empire now" as Karl rove told us. Even formally it is no longer republic as
elected President is more or less ceremonial figure, who does not control non-elected
bureaucrats of the executive branch. they (aka "deep state") control him.
Even in a sense of oligarchic republic ( the democracy for the top 1% or less ) the
democracy is under assault. The "Deep state" is effectively strangulated even this, very
limited form, that existed before 1991 (the year of dissolution of the USSR). As we can see
from Sanders case, or Supreme Court role in Bush II case. And Sanders was definitely a member
of the elite, not some random guy from nowhere. The same was true for Al Gore. But they stole
the election from him, plain and simple.
Wendy Brown moved Wolin ideas further suggesting that neoliberalism is the novel fusion of
economic with political power (one dollar one vote; voters turned into consumers; neoliberal
rationality) and that alone completely "poison democracy at its root" It think I already
wrote about those topics. My judgment here is highly suspect -- I never lived in Washington
and never studied history or political science professionally.
Let's hope for the best. Our great advantage is that we are old and are probably the only
generation that managed to live without the major war. Let's hope that we will be able to die
before WWIII
Still, I think Trump entered (not without influence of Russiagate; and those sleazy
intelligence crooks like Comey, Brennan and Mueller and their clan of "national security
parasites" be those scoundrels internally damned) a very dangerous path -- the path advocated
by neocons and MIC.
"Ultimately, my main concern is that it could lead to actual war with Russia. We should
definitely not be going down that path. We need to get out of all these wars. I am also
concerned about what we are doing to our own democracy. We are trampling the fundamental
principles contained in the Constitution. The only way to reverse all this is to start
indicting people who are participating in and managing these activities that are clearly
unconstitutional."
IMHO the current neo-McCarthysim campaign that was deployed to solve some internal
problems within the Democratic Party (rejection by electorate and subsequent political fiasco
of Hillary Clinton) is a very dangerous tool. You can't blame Trump victory on Russia. That's
simply stupid or disingenuous. Trump election is a sign of systemic crisis of neoliberalism
in the USA, somewhat similar to the crisis of Marxism the the USSR experienced before
dissolution. Rust Belt voters rejected Hillary as the establishment candidate who symbolized
the status quo (which they hate) and that was it.
In such crisis the elite is de-legitimized and often resort to dirty tricks to regain the
lost legitimacy. A war is one such trick. Neo-McCarthyism campaign is another. Of course,
Russia in far from being a saint and bear a part of responsibility for unleashing the civil
war in Donbass (and generally destabilizing Ukraine -- it is a curse to be a neighbor our of
such a large and powerful country; Canadians and Mexicans probably think the same
,
But what currently we see in major MSM looks to me like a classic witch hunt with the
implicit goal to whitewash humiliating for neoliberal Democrats (Clinton wing of the party)
defeat and blame it on the external force (Putin looks really like "Deus Ex Machina" for
democrats . <
While Trump run brilliant election campaign based on opposition to neoliberal status quo,
his elections slogans were completely fake. He completely folded three month after the
elections and now symbolizes "empty governance" as if somebody changed the man. During
election the New York billionaire structured his campaign around three topics which propelled
him to victory.
First, he seemed to comprehend America's status quo crisis -- the
disintegration of neoliberalism that had defined the country since Reagan. Large numbers of
voters understood immediately what he was saying, particularly since the crisis of working
class was largely ignored by the other candidates.
Second, he positioned himself as an "anti-neoliberal status quo" candidate. While two
neoliberal parties instinctively clung to time-tested positions and neoliberal groupthink,
shunning any changes. Trump sidestepped this rigid political thinking of both parties and
crafted a new mix of issues cutting across partisan lines. He embraced traditional GOP
positions such as reduced taxes, school choice, increased defense spending, and rejection of
the idea of human-induced climate change. But he also took positions contrary to Republican
orthodoxy -- Social security and Medicare protection, attacks on neoliberal globalization and
"free trade" regime, rejection of austerity economics . And he manifested contempt for an
important part of neoliberal ideology embraced by both parties -- neoliberal view of
immigration
Third, Trump's disdain for political niceties suggested to voters what he declared
political war on the country's neoliberal elite -- all those despicable neocon think tanks,
university professors, the neoliberal MSM, the managerial class, "national security
parasites", Hollywood, and Wall Street financial titans.
Like Don
Quixote he was alone warrior against neoliberalism and all-powerful adversaries. And
he wouldn't buckle when they fought back to protect their cherished neoliberal globalization
and privileged standing of multinationals as the real power behind the throne
What emerged from the campaign was a growing recognition that the country stands at a
fundamental crossroads -- whether to follow the elite vision of neoliberal globalism and
"anti-nationalism", with money, people, ideas, and cultures moving freely across increasingly
indistinct borders (Biden administration path); or to retreat to traditional nationalism
including fealty to Western cultural heritage and reject multiculturalism.
In other words the main battle lines in 2020 are really ideological.
But there a lot of problems with painting Trump as a fighter against
Clinton/Bush/Obama-style of neoliberal globalization. After inauguration we saw quite
different Trump. He's abandoned all of his "anti-neoliberal" election promises, particularly
in foreign policy and dealing with Wall Street titans, that helped propel him into office.
And he started openly flirting with prospects of a war with Iran. Probably to please his
Zionist sponsors, but also may be out of his complete and utter incompetence.
That means that now he is unable conduct a meaningful conversation with his voters.
Outside fanatics who will support him in any case, he definitely betrayed them. In this sense
he might have difficulties to preserve his base in 2020. Due to his foreign policy blunder
and Pompeo brass style of gangsterism in foreign policy some of his political capital among
independents shrunk. That same is true with his tax cut. This was a clear betrayal. Add to
this that he was pinned down by Mueller investigation until December 2017, when Strzok-gate
scandal broke and only in 2019 Mueller (and Rosenstein) lost credibility and became a joke.
Mueller investigation actually was a shroud gambit against him based on his own blunders.
But BLM and, especially, riots gave his a short in the arm. So everything is possible
now.
Also one clear achievement of Trump is that clearly and convincingly demonstrated how
corrupt and crooked are neoliberal MSM. As the result I even started watching some Fox news
(Tucker) recently ;-). If somebody predicted that a couple of years ago I would laugh in
his/her face.
A very good (IMHO) overview of the current situation can be found in London review of
books. See
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.
Yesterday, former Vice President Joe Biden was again insisting that the scandal involving
Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation despite the direct refutation of that claim by
the FBI .
In her interview with Joe Biden, CBS anchor Norah O'Donnell did not push Biden to simply
confirm that the emails were fake or whether he did in fact meet with Hunter's associates
(despite his prior denials). Instead O'Donnell asked: "Do you believe the recent leak of
material allegedly from Hunter's computer is part of a Russian disinformation campaign?"
Biden responded with the same answer that has gone unchallenged dozens of times:
"From what I've read and know the intelligence community warned the president that
Giuliani was being fed disinformation from the Russians. And we also know that Putin is
trying very hard to spread disinformation about Joe Biden. And so when you put the
combination of Russia, Giuliani– the president, together– it's just what it is.
It's a smear campaign because he has nothing he wants to talk about. What is he running on?
What is he running on?"
It did not matter that the answer omitted the key assertion that this was not Hunter's
laptop or emails or that he did not leave the computer with this store.
Recently, Washington Post columnist Thomas Rid wrote
said the quiet part out loud by telling the media:
"We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation --
even if they probably aren't."
Let that sink in for a second. It does not matter if these are real emails and not Russian
disinformation. They probably are real but should be treated as disinformation even though
American intelligence has repeatedly r ebutted that claim. It does not even matter that the
computer has seized the computer as evidence in a criminal fraud investigation or that a Biden
confidant is now giving his allegations to the FBI under threat of criminal charges if he lies
to investigators.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
It simply does not matter. It is disinformation because it is simply inconvenient to treat
it as real information.
Bastiat , 3 hours ago
I should have lost the capacity for shock in reaction to this Mockingbird crap but the
sheer naked audacity of it still gets me.
Carbon Skidmark , 3 hours ago
I don't know what is worse. The concept that hiding crimes is no longer that important or
the lack of response to the crimes by so many.
jin187 , 3 hours ago
I don't know what's worse. The fact that our supposed news networks do this, or the fact
that in spite of the vast majority of Americans saying they distrust them, they still let
them get away with it. They still watch, and read, and listen. TBH, I don't think the lack of
MSM coverage is an issue with this particular story. I think the average Democrats and RINOs
are just covering their eyes and ears with this one. They want Trump to lose so bad, they
don't care if day one of the Biden administration is him handing suitcases of military
hardware blueprints to the Chinese. Anyone with a (D), never Trump, keep the swamp churning.
That's all they care about.
Four chan , 25 minutes ago
the laptop and its contents are 100% verified with clean chain of control.
UndergroundPost , 3 hours ago
It's now clear the Democrat Party under the Biden / Clinton Dynasties is nothing more than
a fully compromised, corrupt and criminal extension of the Communist Party of China
SDShack , 3 hours ago
Absolutely! The timelines of everything line up perfect. These laptops were dropped off at
the computer shop in early 2019. Work was done, but not paid for. The owner tried to get paid
and have the laptops picked up for 3 months. No go, so abandoned property now belongs to the
computer shop. All perfectly legal. It's now fall 2019 and the Impeachment Sham related to
Ukraine is starting. Computer shop realizes that laptops belonged to Demorat VP son being
caught up in the entire Impeachment Sham. Computer shop guy realizes he is holding dynamite
with lit fuse so he contacts FBI. FBI does nothing, then gets involved, then sits on the
story. This is all end of 2019.
Meanwhile, demorat primaries are starting and Bernie is the leader. DNC can't have Bernie
win, so they try to game the system to stop him just like 2016. But no one early on can do
it. Senile Joe fails first. Then Kamalho, who was the favorite, flames out. Then all the
others. It's now early 2020 and the DNC is hemorrhaging money and in disarray. Then look what
happens, the DNC miraculously unities around Senile Joe to stop the Angry Berd, with Kamalho
being the fallback position as VP. It is clear that the CCP ordered the DNC to do this
because they had the goods on Corrupt Joe, and the DNC needs the Chicom money. They all
figured they had it all covered up. They never figured on the crazy cokehead son blowing it
all up. The timelines all line up, and explain why Senile Joe rose from the dead in the
primaries to be the anointed one, along with Kamalho. The CCP got the candidates they bought
and paid for.
GoldmanSax , 1 hour ago
100% true but the republican government refuses to prosecute their buddies. The US has 1
party and we ain't invited.
Robert De Zero , 3 hours ago
It isn't real, we hope it isn't real, you can't prove it's real, 50 experts said it isn't
real, Russia planted it, Russian disinformation, Rudy is compromised, Rudy might be a Russian
agent, Rudy almost banged a 24 YO and he can't be trusted, It's not about Joe we don't care,
Hunter isn't running, Bobulinski has a funny name so he can't be trusted...NOT ONCE ASKING IF
THIS IS a MAJOR PHUCKING PROBLEM.
The problem isn't RUSSIA, it's you bastards in the Big Lies Media!
GoldmanSax , 1 hour ago
Why hasn't the patriotic republicans arrested the evil democrats? Whats the hold up?
tonye , 3 hours ago
At some point we are going to have to break up the corporate media conglomerates.
All of them.
And start racketeering prosecutions.
Salsa Verde , 3 hours ago
Facts mean nothing in a country where emotional outbursts are now considered gospel.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
I think we need to bring back the death penalty in every state and not keep housing these
criminals for lifetimes.
Zorch , 2 hours ago
Wait! What does Gretta say?
VisceralFat1 , 3 hours ago
so... the hunter laptop is fake
and global warming is real
got it
jin187 , 3 hours ago
You just summed up the only thing 90% of students actually learn from 12 years of public
school.
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
correct on both points
Zerogenous_Zone , 3 hours ago
duh...
the Feds have plenty of laptops that have incriminating evidence of our elected leaders
(Wasserman Schultz, Iman Brothers, Weiner, DNC Servers, etc...), Dems and Repubs
at issue is if we REALLY knew the depths of treason from said leaders, we'd run out of
rope and tall trees...
so...anyone who votes Democrat, is complicit in my eyes (and they don't need to vote
Republican) and deserve the heat of the truth, strong enough to melt all the
snowflake-SJW's
Carbon Skidmark , 3 hours ago
ban laptops...it's so simple...no laptops and bad things stop happening
Zerogenous_Zone , 3 hours ago
/sarc
banned public schools first...they're indoctrination centers of controlled deception
NO critical thinking...NO innovative strategies
ONLY State sponsors 'information' filtered by the snowflakes anti-social media platforms
and e-encyclopedia (Schmoogle)
11b40 , 3 hours ago
Ban email & instant messages. Life would be immediately better.
CosmoJoe , 3 hours ago
Dorsey looks like a fvcking homeless person. What a clown. I'd love to rip that ring right
out of his nose.
sunhu , 2 hours ago
losers anger is always fun to watch
chubbar , 3 hours ago
The media is acting against the best interests of the USA. Think about it, "IF" the
allegations are true, we need to find out BEFORE we elect someone who is selling out our
country for personal gain, not after. WHY would the media think differently unless they don't
care whether the allegations are true or not? Are they working for China? Is the DNC? These
are appropriate lines of inquiry given the wholesale censoring the media has levied on the
Biden corruption story. The FBI sat on this for months and it has Child ****, which means
children remain at risk until the FBI goes in and stops it. WTF is wrong with Wray that he
allows this to go on?
somewhere_north , 3 hours ago
Dude, if it was for real Hunter Biden would have been arrested by now. You can't seriously
believe they're just holding back their damning evidence. The obvious conclusion is they
don't have it.
Mr. Universe , 2 hours ago
...except those pictures of a naked Hunter with his niece and the emails of the family
trying to keep a lid on Mom's protestations.
You see lots of pics of Hunter Biden with a blacked out bitch. No way of knowing who he's
actually with.
hugin-o-munin , 2 hours ago
Yeah like duh really man, I mean come on man. Stop thinking so much man, hang ten and
chill bruh.
8-(
Im4truth4all , 2 hours ago
Has Comey, Clapper, Strozk and the list goes on ad infinitum, been arrested? No.
ebear , 1 hour ago
"The obvious conclusion is they don't have it."
An inference, by itself, is not a conclusion.
Soloamber , 2 hours ago
Wray inherited a completely screwed up Comey FBI .
He is not a culture changer .
glasshour , 3 hours ago
Stop calling these people mainstream. There is nothing mainstream about them because
nobody watches their crap.
Joe Rogan's show last night got more views than all of them combined.
WhatDoYouFightFor , 3 hours ago
Hunter is still walking around free, system is F'd. Nothing will right the United States
at this point.
Zerogenous_Zone , 3 hours ago
it's the Hillary conundrum, right?
IF they get Hunter, it's 'election interference'...
deceitful godless individuals...
randocalrissian , 3 hours ago
But but but Her Emails
slightlyskeptical , 3 hours ago
he will always be free on these items as the evidence was all acquired illegally and
likely doctored to all hell.
jin187 , 3 hours ago
This is why I said the day Trump got elected that these people just need to disappear to a
blacksite in Yemen. The best way to drain the swamp is waterboarding all the ones we know to
find the ones we don't know.
Ghost of Porky , 3 hours ago
If Trump rescued 30 drowning children with his helicopter the CNN headline would read
"Trump Increases Carbon Footprint to Risk Superspreader Event.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
Exactly - so tired of MSM and their opinionated lies
pstpetrov , 3 hours ago
Yes Liberals are all about disinformation and Trump has the moral high ground.
randocalrissian , 3 hours ago
Best joke I've heard in October. Well played, sir!
otschelnik , 3 hours ago
How would the MSM react if Don Jr. flew into China on AF1 with his father, met with
Chinese central committee members and intelligence officials, formed a Joint Venture with
them and then got a 5 million dollar no interest loan from the head of a private oil company,
who's chairman used to work in intelligence?
Imagine that. How would ABC MSNBC CNN NPR WaPo NYT PBS broadcast that?
glasshour , 3 hours ago
Better question, who cares. Nobody watches that junk anymore.
fanbeav , 3 hours ago
Liberal sheeple still do.
randocalrissian , 3 hours ago
Let's get the case in a court of law so allegations and wild claims can be proven or
disproven. But wait, this was timed so court isn't an option. So all we are left with is the
sniff test. Smells like baby diaper needs changed.
slightlyskeptical , 3 hours ago
How did they react when it was Kushner doing the traveling and getting the money for his
business?
Iconoclast422 , 3 hours ago
the computer has seized the computer as evidence
Why does every article have these little tidbits that make me think every writer has
stroked out in 2020?
11b40 , 3 hours ago
You see that, too? Something is wrong in the editing process. Sloppy, I guess, or
foreign.
Santiago de Mago , 3 hours ago
I noticed that in several articles today... almost like they are being written by AI
bots.
"My Macaroni And Cheese Is A Lesbian Also She Is My Lawyer"
balz , 3 hours ago
Every time you see someone saying they are a "journalist" at a MSM, don't forget to tell
them they are wrong and their job-title is "propagandist".
Shut. It. Down. , 2 hours ago
Some of the emails have already been verified by the outside recipient or sender.
Next you'll tell me all the sex videos were photoshopped by Putin.
KayaCreate , 1 hour ago
I lost 5 mins of my life watching Hunters **** getting kicked around by a probable minor
while smoking crack. You could tell it was him as his fake teeth glowed in the dark.
Cephisus , 3 hours ago
The media are scum.
Bill of Rights , 3 hours ago
Funny isn't it, every time the Globalist are exposed its " Disinformation " ..Hows that
Russian Collusion evidence coming along? its only been four years.....
American2 , 2 hours ago
The only question remaining to ask is simply this: Who is more enfeebled, Joe Biden; or
the networks and ABC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, WaPo, LA Times?
CosmoJoe , 3 hours ago
I have been out of f*cks to give when it comes to the MSM for a decade now. What is so
comical is that when the MSM so overtly covers for candidates, it backfires horribly. You
can't hyperventilate over an anonymously sourced Trump tax return story and yet ignore the
Biden laptop. People see right through that.
randocalrissian , 3 hours ago
Trump's taxes were made public. Nobody knows where Biden's (or whoever's) laptop came
from. Giuliani is already very late with the promised salacious details. How many people do
you think are really changing their vote to the Domestic Terrorist in the WH?
IndicaTive , 3 hours ago
I know of one person
Invert This MM , 3 hours ago
You are a freaking Share Blue Clown. Nobody buys your monkey dung
IndicaTive , 3 hours ago
You know me so well, after 3 months of trolling here.
Invert This MM , 2 hours ago
You really are one stupid fuuk. You just outed one of your sockpuppets and I was purged in
the Google crack down. I have been posting here for 12 years. You monkeys are really
stupid.
Invert This MM , 2 hours ago
Hey Monkey, I was purged during the Google shake dawn. Been here 14 years. Like a complete
moron, you just outed one of your sockpuppets. Dumbass
replaceme , 3 hours ago
No serious Dem thinks the laptop isn't Hunter's - your supposed to ignore it, or pretend
it has nothing to do with Joe. The Russians, booga boogah
invention13 , 3 hours ago
No, his taxes weren't made public. Claims about his taxes were made public - there is a
difference which you seem happy to elide.
CosmoJoe , 3 hours ago
Trump's taxes as reported by the NY Times were NOT made public, what gives you that idea.
The info was leaked to the Times.
jin187 , 3 hours ago
This is what I want to know. How is it that the NYP is still banned from Twitter based on
them obtaining information "illegally or illicitly", when we know for a fact now that they
didn't? At the same time, I'm pretty sure that the NYT and their followers are still happily
linking and chatting away about the story on how they illegally obtained Trump's tax
returns.
wearef_ckedwithnohope , 3 hours ago
Matt Taibbi has written a series of articles bemoaning the current state of
journalism.
replaceme , 3 hours ago
What's journalism?
invention13 , 3 hours ago
I'm beginning to think it is something that never really existed - just an ideal in some
people's minds.
Shillelagh Pog , 2 hours ago
Journalism is putting down on paper your, or someone you like, or is paying you for,
feelings, duh.
slightlyskeptical , 3 hours ago
He has the same issues with his journalism.
starcraft22 , 1 hour ago
The laptop is real. The media is the foreign disinformation.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
Just shocking how MSM is so quick to dismiss this shocking evidence. We know it's not part
of their brainwashing echo chamber of lies for their low IQ and low informed voters but had
this been one of Trump's sons laptops - this would be MAJOR HEADLINES for the next 12
months.
Remember the 4 year Russiangate investigation, 40 million to Robert Mueller all based on a
bought and paid dossier paid for by the DNC/Clinton foundation, corrupt FBI, FISA warrants
all to spy and setup Trump to incriminate him for the VERY same crimes they were in FACT
committing.
Ar15ak47rpg7 , 2 hours ago
Note to all Zero HEDGERS....there seems to be no difference between the scrubbing of
comments on Twitter and Facebook and ZH. The free flow of ideas on ZH no longer exist. Just
like the Drudge Report the Deep Stater's have gotten to the Tylers. Beware
One of these is not like the others.. , 2 hours ago
I concur, the more thoughtful the post, the more likely it seems to vanish.
ebear , 1 hour ago
I must be an idiot then. As much as I'd like to add that badge to my collection, my stuff
never seems to get scrubbed. Damn!
Urfa Man , 3 minutes ago
Gulag and the shrews that run it are putting big financial pressure on ZH to censor us.
This month I've twice tried to post a URL for the news article that details the censorship
here, but go figure, those posts get scrubbed.
It's all because of you and me. The Bolsheviks at Gulag say this comment section hurts
feelings and therefore must be dominated and controlled with an iron fist.
Gulag Bans ZeroHedge From Ad Platform
If you replace "Gulag" with the name of a major search engine and conduct a search using
the words in italics above - via a search engine like duckduckgo - the results will probably
point you to the news article that gives the details of this ZH censorship and why your
comments disappear.
lacortenews com is the domain that carries the news report
Good luck. There's not much left of free speech or the original freedom of the
internet.
unionbroker , 3 hours ago
A business associate of mine told me with a straight face that he didn't trust Bobulinski
because he had a Russian sounding name. He is on Twitter a lot so maybe that explains it.
slightlyskeptical , 3 hours ago
I don't trust him either. He has already changed his story. he requested to meet Joe Biden
and then later he didn't request it. . And he met him, but he didn't have a meeting with him.
He confirmed that on Fox last night.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
I trust him 100% #imwithhim
remember Dr Christine Ford and her fake as story against Kavanaugh - this is much more
realistic than her fake as
Republicans can play dirty too
jin187 , 2 hours ago
Yeah, this is what it's come to, so **** it. I hope Rudy is out there right now handing
out suitcases of cash to anyone willing to come forward with any lies about Biden, Pelosi,
Schumer, just like our side's Gloria Steinem.
Zerogenous_Zone , 3 hours ago
bring him in under oath and actually investigate...
BUT that would be 'election interference' (you know, the whole Hillary conundrum,
right?)
rule of law is now changed to morality of feelings...if it makes me feel insignificant, it
CAN'T be TRUE!!
WAAAHHHHHH
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
he will testify under oath watch - and he won't be like pencil neck Schiff and those other
cowards and plea the 5th
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
???
you could watch the Tucker Carlson show interview instead of your imagined one.
Uh... did watch it. And yes, the story he tells there about meeting Biden is not the same
as the one he told before. Riddle me this: if this is real, why would they hopelessly
compromise their chain of evidence by dribbling it to the public like this?
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
because no one in the MSM would dummy - they are all in DEEP ****
somewhere_north , 3 hours ago
They don't have to use the MSM, or any media. They simply arrest Hunter Biden, then drop
all the info at once instead of tantalizingly holding the smoking guns out of our view. All
they are doing here, if they actually have anything, is risking the lives of their witnesses
and giving the perps a lot of warning. That's to say nothing about compromising the evidence
to the point of inadmissability. It's running a risk for no gain whatsoever.
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
stuff is only out of your view if your eyes are closed
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
"not the same" ?
missed your weblink (not that you could be making stuff up, cough, cough.)
also, how that would have any significant bearing on the whole matter,
including most MSM news censorship and Russia nonsense ?
RedNeckMother , 3 hours ago
Who told you that bulls hit?
calculator , 2 hours ago
It's entirely possible he is military intelligence and was sent undercover to infiltrate
the Bidens and discover their treachery. The CIA and FBI sure as hell don't appear to be
doing it. Since we may very well be in a shooting war with the CCP at some point in the near
future, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the military is actually doing their jobs to ensure
we are not compromised.
SDShack , 3 hours ago
We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation --
even if they probably aren't."
Cmon Turley, parse these words> Why does the WaPo say 'WE MUST' treat these leaks this
way? This implies that the WaPo is BEING ORDERED to treat these leaks this way! So WHO has
power over the WaPo? Is that power direct, or financial, or BOTH? Also the assumption the
WaPo is trying to propagate is that the Foreign Intelligence Operation is...THE
RUSSIANS...but could it not actually be the CCP that is pulling the WaPo strings? Doesn't the
CCP revelation go to the central heart of the entire Corrupt Joe matter, as well as the
financial angle for the Bezo's Amazon WaPo? Even in their lies, the nuggets of hidden truth
are exposed.
Amel , 3 hours ago
Asking yourself why the CIA control of the MSM favors a Manchurian candidate over Trump ?
Because the CIA's own survival is valued above national security.
invention13 , 3 hours ago
For they same reason they had to treat the Russian collusion allegations as though they
were real.
LetThemEatRand , 3 hours ago
Same reason there was no outrage at the Obama child cages at the Mexico border. Or outrage
at all of the wars Obama started. Or outrage at all of the drone killing under Obama.
Most Blue Team members are satisfied getting their news from MSM, leaving MSM able to
shape the narrative almost completely. There are a handful of guys like Jimmy Dore on the
left who call out the rest of the left on this. Pretty scary, actually.
factorypreset , 3 hours ago
It sure seems like the press is helping to squash this whole thing by asking any questions
in such a way that Joe doesn't perjure himself.
mtl4 , 3 hours ago
Yesterday, former Vice President Joe Biden was again insisting that the scandal
involving Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation despite the direct refutation of
that claim by the FBI.
All makes perfect sense in a time when you chose your gender in the morning while getting
dressed, you only need to be accused of anything to completely ruin your reputation (unless
your a politician in which case there are no laws). So why would anyone deal with reality at
a time when we've gotten so good at simply ignoring it.
Reported by a center-conservative newspaper, curiously, in yesterady´s hearing with
Spanish President, Pedro Sánchez, Pope Francis made a similar analysis to this one
from the left, on the similarities of this moment with Weimar, and the need to low the level of
political twitching, which only benefits those who seek the destruction of nation states. He
referred also to what country, nation and homeland would mean ( and in this, one would say he
is on the same line as Putin...)
Yeah .and how many of those deaths were from the complete mismanagement of the sick elderly
ie throwing them back into nursing homes. American facilities for many of our poorer, middle
class elderly are disgusting places of squalor and nosocomial infections. How many were among
elderly that were already on death's door step? This scamdemic has destroyed this country. If
there is one demographic in this country that should burning it to the ground it's young, white
20 something conservative males who are seeing their future destroyed before their eyes. Seeing
Americans walking around with what amounts to respiratory diapers on their face is disgusting,
pathetic and embarrassing. The elderly, who for the most part have overall lived the peak
American dream, are living in hysteria and fear. The boomers in America are confirmed now as
some of the most selfish, self absorbed, and enfranchised generations ever. To blame the covid
deaths on Trump is the most stupid and intellectually dishonest argument in this whole election
narrative. Dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery you want to wear a worthless diaper on your
face fine .don't force tyranny on the rest of us!
Although many details about the Great Reset won't be rolled out until the World
Economic Forum meets in Davos in January 2021, the general principles of the plan are clear:
The world needs massive new government programs and far-reaching policies comparable to those
offered by American socialists such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Rep. Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in their Green New Deal plan.
Or, put another way, we need a form of socialism - a word the World Economic Forum has
deliberately avoided using, all while calling for countless socialist and progressive
plans.
"We need to design policies to align with investment in people and the environment,"
said the general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, Sharan Burrow.
"But above all, the longer-term perspective is about rebalancing economies."
I guess it's mission accomplished. Trump can loosen his witch hunt of Huawei and end the
tech/trade war now. Or maybe he won't. Maybe the eventual goal is still the toppling of a
government that the Chosenites have no hand in electing through "democracy".
Meanwhile, I'm sure more corrupt CCP elites will take full advantage of the selling out of
their country, sleep(invest) with the enemy, get rich/richer, emigrate to the US, push their
kids into our elite high schools and colleges, and turn us more and more like the
dog-eat-dog, corrupt hellhole from whence they came.
So much for a government that looks out for its people. The CCP is as self-serving as the
US Congress critters or the EU. The only difference is they don't need the charade of
elections to install themselves in power.
"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."
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.............
"... 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
It seems in our complicated world many murky relationships develop that come across as
inappropriate. Over the years, growing crony capitalism has become the bane of modern society
and added greatly to inequality. This is why, when we look at Hunter Biden and how he benefited
from his father's role as Vice President an investigation is in order. Even before we get to
what happened in Ukraine, the ties between China and the Biden family are too many and too
large to ignore. President Trump has received a lot of criticism related to how he gained his
wealth, however, almost all of what Trump has done he did as an outsider and not as part of the
ruling political class.
Before going deeper into this subject it is very important to look at how the "Biden
revelations" are being handled by the media. The way media has handled these allegations reveal
a flaw or bias in both mainstream media and social media to the point where even censorship is
being deployed. A good example of the spin being put on this red flag of corruption can be seen
in an article that appeared under trending stories on my city's main news outlet. Here in the
conservation heartland of America, the media published a piece titled; "Biden email episode
illustrates risk to Trump from Giuliani"
The Associated Press piece written by Eric Tucker shines the spotlight on Rudy Giuliani
portraying him as the messenger of Russian contrived information aimed at damaging Biden and
influencing the election. It starts off referring to "a New York tabloid's puzzling account
about how it acquired emails purportedly from Joe Biden's son has raised some red flags." Then
claims that during Giuliani's travels abroad looking for dirt on the Bidens he developed
relationships with some rather questionable figures. These include a Ukrainian lawmaker who
U.S. officials have described as a Russian agent and part of a broader Russian effort to
denigrate the Democratic presidential nominee.
The piece then moves on to the area of how the FBI seems more interested in the emails as
part of a foreign influence operation than wrongdoing by Hunter or his father. The people
reading this article are informed how this is just another latest episode involving Giuliani
that "underscores the risk he poses to the White House" which has spent years dealing with a
federal investigation into whether Trump associates had coordinated with Russia.
The part of the article that got my goat was when it referred to how " The Washington Post
reported Thursday that intelligence agencies had warned the White House last year that Giuliani
was the target of a Russian influence operation." Sighting the Washington Post as an authority
and bastion of truth is a common tactic used by journalists to add validity to their bias and
lazy reporting. Tucker forgot to mention The Washington Post is the propaganda mouthpiece of
Amazon and owned by its CEO Jeff Bezos the richest man in the world which has had several
run-ins with the President.
The effort to denigrate Giuliani rather than focus on Biden wrongdoings cites both "former
officials' and statements made by a person "who was not authorized to discuss an ongoing
investigation and spoke on condition of anonymity to AP," and of course, the exact scope of
what was being investigated was not clear. Claiming that many people in the West Wing have been
concerned about Giuliani's actions or saying the president has expressed private dismay at
Giuliani's scattershot style does not make it true.
Thinking a case can be made that Hunter enriched himself by selling access to his father but
claiming Giuliani's lack of credibility will cause the allegations to implode is a bit of a
reach. This fact much of what appears to be bribe-taking at the highest levels of government
has been overlooked for so long is in its self is a problem. The appointment of an unqualified
Hunter Biden to the board of a Ukrainian energy company with a reported compensation package
worth some $50,000 per month led the Wall Street Journal, to publish a scathing article, on May
13, 2014. bringing the issue before the public.
At criminal.findlaw.com, FindLaw's team of legal writers and editors detail what constitutes
bribery. It is offering or accepting anything of value in exchange to influence a
government/public official or employee. Bribes can take many forms of gifts or payments of
money in exchange for favorable treatment, such as awards of government contracts. Other forms
of bribes may include property, various goods, privileges, services, and favors. Bribes are
always intended to influence or alter the action of various individuals and are linked to both
political and public corruption. In most situations, both the person offering the bribe and the
person accepting can be charged.
Both giving and receiving bribes is usually a felony with significant legal ramifications.
Influence peddling, the illegal practice of using one's influence in government or connections
with persons in authority to obtain favors or preferential treatment falls into this category.
One thing is clear, whenever we are talking about the involvement of huge sums of money,
foreign players, officials holding high public office, or family members of politicians a few
eyebrows should get raised. With this in mind, the Biden problem extends well past Hunter but
also into how other family members have profited from Joe's time as Vice President such as his
brother's involvement in a huge government contract in Iraq.
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 issue of Hunter Biden receiving money from Russia, Ukraine, and China surfaced during
the first Presidential debate and Biden claimed it was a story already discredited by
authorities. This narrative was destroyed when the Washington Times acknowledged the Treasury
Department records confirm Hunter Biden received a wire transfer for $3.5 million from the
Mayor of Moscow's wife. It is difficult to find anyone that holds Hunter in high esteem and the
fact the United States suspects the woman sending him this money built much of her wealth
through corruption does little to improve his standing. For those of us cynical of all the
so-called public servants that seem to line their pockets and hold the attitude they are above
the law this is a big red flag.
If the veil of secrecy surrounding Hunter's career is lifted we will most likely find
Hunter's dad did share in the spoils bestowed upon not only his son but others in the Biden
family. I contend Joe Biden's cozy relationship with corruption is why former President Obama
did not rush to endorse Biden when he announced he planned to run. To be clear, we are talking
about, millions, and hundreds of millions of dollars or more. For us cynics, we see this as
what may be only the tip of the spear when it comes to public officials throwing the American
people under the bus for fun and profit. As a voter, this dovetails with my concern about
Biden's relationship and attitude towards China which I consider a major issue.
Jan_Michael_Vincent007 , 4 hours ago
The [neoliberal] political class is the problem. ******* all of them. Biden just got
caught.
Jan_Michael_Vincent007 , 4 hours ago
The political class is the problem. ******* all of them. Biden just got caught.
RedDog1 , 4 hours ago
Highly recommend reading Peter Schweitzer's book Secret Empires. It's business as usual to
launder bribes through family members and associates.
philipat , 2 hours ago
Yes agreed, the problem here is actually that the entire US political (and economic)
system is completely corrupt and broken. Why has no action been taken against those
responsible for a proven attempted coup? Or against a MSM and SillyCon Valley that is
censoring everything the average American (rightlly or wrongly) actually reads and which is
stifling the very democracy and free speech upon which the country was founded?
The answer? Follow the money.
I do disagree with the author about the specific Biden situation because "The Biden Crime
Family" would be a better description. They are ALL responsible. It is obvious from the
Hunter laptop that payments were being made to "The Big Man" and other family members also,
so this is NOT a Hunter-specific problem. The game was for Hunter to serve as a proxy for
"The Big Man" and receive the "commissions" (better described as influence peddling payments
and extortion - something the Dems are very good at; The Clinton Foundation Model!!) for
onward distribution to the family, visibly or invisibly. In this way, "The Big Man" would not
have anything to report and could appear to be "clean". Pretty obvious to anyone who can fog
a mirror?
And yet still they vote for him. Does that mean a public acceptance of the sleaze and
corruption which is the US today? I certainly hope not.
Rural Hermit , 2 hours ago
Why do you think Obama picked Biden to be his VP? He knows how to shakedown everyone.
Obama's tutor. I do think that the student has surpassed the teacher though. When the rest of
this shakes out, the Kenyan will be in chains.
gregga777 , 3 hours ago
If the truth ever comes out, it will probably show that, among other things, Hunter Biden
was / is probably connected to human trafficking networks, and most likely Eastern European,
most likely involving The Russian Mafia. It's not a stretch to speculate that it also
included children.
If the United States of America had a functioning [sic] Intelligence Community and [Ha,
ha, ha] national law enforcement the Silicon Valley tech giants and others like Amazon
wouldn't be heavily infiltrated by People's Republic of China Ministry of State Security
operatives. Consequently, the massive extent of political corruption would be common
knowledge, especially specifics regarding names, dates, places and amounts. Right Paul Ryan
and Willard Romney?
Rusty Shorts , 3 hours ago
The hits just keep coming.
"Pelosi's Son Now Involved In Ukraine Scandal, Democrat Party In Shambles"
Seriously, does anyone think a Democrat controlled Congress will investigate Biden and all
his cronies, to include Obama? The whole DC swamp is set up to allow selling out of the
American people. DC is not just a threat to national security it is steeped in Treason.
No sense ranting as it does nothing. The only consolation is that stupid people who vote
Biden/Harris will get the crime and corruption they voted into office.
Stackers , 4 hours ago
In Roman times when someone was caught bribing a public official they would cut off his
nose, sew him in a bag with a wild animal, and throw that bag in the river
The problem with all this is that it is extremely well documented going back a number of
years of Hunter Jnr's shopping trips with his father and nothing has been done about it all.
Just search on Biden and China, Romania or Ukraine and then you see the "deals" that Hunter
gets every time.
Every f\/cking place that Biden turned up, Hunter was right behind with his hand out, like
some sort of mob shakedown. Did Biden senior tell Hunter what to do and who to meet because
junior doesn't seem that clever enough to come up with this on his own? That way, the money
also flows to junior who then funnels it to dad later on (which the laptop seems to
show).
Washington insiders know the f\/cking truth and are desperate to keep the gravy train
going. That is why they hate Trump. That is why Barr and co have no interest in getting to
the truth because they are all implicated. The swamp is very deep.
Merica101 , 4 hours ago
Human nature is swampy - that's why the Founding Fathers tried to design a system that
limited the "swampiness'. Unfortunately, they couldn't even begin to imagine the depravity
and games that are now being played. Pray.
Fuster-cluck , 3 hours ago
I have worked for a number of large multi-national corporations. In each, employees must
take an annual ethics course. The only approved amount you can spend on a client is $0. I
mean, no golf, no lunches, no tee shirts, no hunting weekends, zippo, nothing. If anyone in
your family is connected to government, it is automatically assumed to be a conflict of
interest, and you must remove yourself from any part of the dealings. These policies have
been implemented because of the intense fear of the unlimited penalties that may be applied
by goverment sponsored prosecutorial abuse.
So tell me, have those same standards been applied here? Ha. Ha. Ha.
Smilygladhands , 3 hours ago
i think we must implement a no fraternization rule between DC politicians and staff and
the media. too many personal relationships going on up there
TahoeBilly2012 , 3 hours ago
Tards have finally been caught out, no way back.
Look man, I never would have voted for HILLARY OR JEB, no f'ing way! I am a Ron Paul
Libertarian and I rolled the dice with Trump.
You Tards are all a gang of freaks. The fact you even halfway support Biden (or Hillary)
is pathetic. The only way you get change is sticking to your guns or having a Trump come
along and hope he is for the people and not a Satanic criminal, like the Biden's, the Bush's
and the Clinton's. What exactly is it that you freaks don't get and while Bernie may have
been somewhat more "authentic" than the rest, he's a friggin Bolshevik Commy, in his own way,
worse than them all, likely not as corrupt.
There's nothing left to the Dem Party, zero, zilch, it's a stinking rotting corpse relying
on Corporate Media lie after lie to try to compete with Trump. Hell, every Neocon has left
Trump and joined up with y'all. Geez, the stench!
Pathetic, disgusting, sick.
Lucius Septimius Pertinax , 3 hours ago
What bothers me about all this is the reaction of Democrats in general. They don't seem to
care what the Biden's have done, as long as they defeat Donald Trump. We seen this on a
smaller scale with the impeachment of Bill Clinton, it's all about sex manta. But in this
case we have what appears to be at least for now, almost a watertight case against Joe Biden.
And still no moral outrage at what Biden's family is up to? Guess I should not have been
amazed, but still hope their are a few thinkers left on the left that can still see the truth
when it bites them.
I expected the CNN's of the left to react this way. Further when their "the Russians"
excuse for everything, is exhausted, they will need someone else to blame, cause they know
Biden and son are as pure as the driven snow. Or at least the owners of all these so called
media news companies decide that Joe cannot win and flush the comode on him.
sirnzee , 3 hours ago
The media has done a terrific job of brainwashing half of America. So sad to be a part of
this. Who is to blame? The media, or the people who allowed their minds to be controlled the
way they are?
Fugly
Merica101 , 3 hours ago
Most of the MSM have their own agenda - a globalist agenda where the US is not their
priority.
12Doberman , 4 hours ago
Some deny the Biden's got the money which is absurd since the Senate report details the
wire transfers. Denial of facts seems to be a democrat trait.
chiquita , 3 hours ago
This is the Democrat philosophy--one of the best movie scenes ever.
Biden has used his family as bag men for graft since he was shaking down banks that
incorporated in Delaware for tax purposes.
He was MBNA Joe long before he became dementia Joe.
Totally vile corrupt dullard on his best day.
That is why the DNC wants him.
CogitoMan , 3 hours ago
Any person who has knowledge of Biden family crimes and still votes for him is beyond
deplorable.
Even demonrats that hate Trump IF they have at least minimum token of decency should
abstain from voting.
But alas, most of dumbocrats will vote for Biden even if he raped their daughters and shot
their wives.
This country with such moral attitude has no chance of survival, especially when tough
times come.
Sad, very sad.
12Doberman , 3 hours ago
Trump learned quickly that without powerful allies in powerful positions in the executive
agencies, within congress, and in the courts he's essentially powerless against this
corruption. Pelosi is involved in Ukraine...McConnell is up to his eyeballs in Chinese
graft.
Md4 , 4 hours ago
"Hunter Biden Is Not The Problem, The Problem Is His Dad"
Pops has been demonstrably crooked for years.
But... Hunter is not a child.
He's a grown man... with a law degree.
His problems are now...his own.
He can begin to recover...when he accepts responsibility for them...
Hotspice2020 , 4 hours ago
Stop treating mainstream media as "independent, objective, unbiased" they are "captured
media", and vassal servants to a hidden hand ruling elite ... as are the Bidens and K.
Harris. The Clintons were vassals before as was slamma Obama. The media will say whatever
their master tell them to say. Thus, when a Hard Drive with pedo, crack, bribery is found,
the masters say...blame it on the Russians. When Trump wants to bring Hunters double dealing
to light...the masters say.. Impeach Trump. What is needed is for a bright light to shine on
the owners of the media...e.g., Bezos Rag (Wash. Post) and Laurene Powell Jobs (mistress to
Steve) owns the Atlantic. Once you keep focusing on the fact that the media has owners that
make every story fit their narrative and you shine a light on them, then you can solve the
problem.
tyberious , 5 hours ago
Term limits
Full income disclosures while in office
No benefit for any legislation co-authored after leaving office
zerozerosevenhedgeBow1 , 4 hours ago
No honor, integrity or honesty in politics anymore. Why would there be any, when apart for
a little public shaming, corruption pays and pays big. The Clinton foundation raked in
hundreds of millions, altered policy and maybe even caused death of the impoverished, i.e.,
Haiti and other places. Sold out national and global security with Uranium One and other
controversies. The end result?... They got to keep all the money. When that happens, everyone
in and running for office gets the message and sees dollar signs.
You need serious recourse like some sort of treason charges when you put money over
country. Audit all family members and colleagues. Then do not let lobbying jobs before or
after office.
moneybots , 3 hours ago
"The Associated Press piece written by Eric Tucker shines the spotlight on Rudy Giuliani
portraying him as the messenger of Russian contrived information aimed at damaging Biden and
influencing the election. It starts off referring to "a New York tabloid's puzzling account
about how it acquired emails purportedly from Joe Biden's son has raised some red
flags.""
Yes, it raises Red Flags about the integrity of the Associated Press, considering the
story is a propaganda piece.
Merica101 , 4 hours ago
Joe and Hunter Biden (and the Biden family) aren't the ONLY ONES....there are many
others.
toady , 4 hours ago
The questions that simply are not being asked/answered....
I have not heard that any Biden has been asked about any of this... apparently they
thought they could just have CNN and the other talking heads say it was all "debunked" and
the brain dead general population would nod and say "okay".
And they were right, the demonrats are all just doing the Alfred E Numan "who, me,
worry?"
It's simple. The "17 intelligence agencies" need to be all over this, starting 15 years
ago.
But they aren't. And they won't. And the US will not recover.
TheLastMan , 3 hours ago
perspective:
1. you work 50 hours a week
2. .gov takes 22% for income tax
3. joe biden (and the rest) take your tax $$$ and provides $$$ foreign aid to country
X
4. hunter biden makes business connection to country x
5. country x takes your foreign aid tax dollars (edit) and pays hunter biden $$ for his
services
6. hunter biden pays joe biden $$ for (his service to your country) edit - servicing your
country
7. repeat step 1
Smilygladhands , 3 hours ago
the biggest problem that must be addressed is our dishonest, biased DNC propaganda arm
also known as main stream media.
they've allowed biden to get away with not answering the SCOTUS packing question and now
actively running cover for him. we cannot allow this to continue
Md4 , 4 hours ago
" Both giving and receiving bribes is usually a felony with significant legal
ramifications. Influence peddling, the illegal practice of using one's influence in
government or connections with persons in authority to obtain favors or preferential
treatment falls into this category."
When it involves a mortal adversary... we call it something else...
HailAtlantis , 4 hours ago
Always lots of fun this time of year taking Anti-Money Laundering etc continuing education
courses and reading about high level scandals in finance and governments in current news
(it's just gotten progressively more insidious every year).. Scrutinizing little 'guys' while
making billions at the top.
johnny two shoes , 2 hours ago
Can't forget old Swiftboat Kerry...
At the time, Hunter Biden, now 49, and Christopher Heinz, the stepson of then-Secretary of
State John Kerry, co-owned Rosemont Seneca Partners, a $2.4 billion private equity firm.
Heinz's college roommate, Devon Archer, was managing partner in the firm. In the spring of
2014, Biden and Archer joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas company that was
at the center of a U.K. money laundering probe. Over the next year, Burisma reportedly paid
Biden and Archer's companies over $3 million.
Electing a President is electing someone in formal command of enough power to kill most of
the people on the planet - perhaps three times over. Including you and me. This is not the
mayor of Minneapolis we're talking about.
vasilievich , 4 hours ago
To use biologists' terminology the species may not be adaptive. To be clever at graft does
*not* assure survival in the long run. It may assure extinction.
12Doberman , 4 hours ago
Biden wasn't clever. Hillary was a bit clever using a Foundation and a 'charity' to
launder her graft. Cost her 15% or so but she had the facade of the charity. Biden put his
crackhead son in charge of laundering the graft...needless to say it was careless in the
extreme...and the DNC knew all about this before they selected Biden. Stunning level of
arrogance.
chiquita , 4 hours ago
Nobody ever said Biden was a smart guy. He knew how to plagerize as in words (speeches),
but he didn't know how to copy as in ideas (charitable foundations)
SurfingUSA , 4 hours ago
Per someone on this forum who has met Biden, he is stupid not just by politician standards
but by everyday people standards.
coelacanth10 , 3 hours ago
Bill gets credit for using the Foundation, base on a undergraduate course at Georgetown on
non-profits and foundations.
chiquita , 4 hours ago
Obama had to know what was going on, if not a party to it. There was a clear distance
between the two of them--Obama did not show a great love for Biden and you have to wonder
what that was all about. He tried to tell Joe "he didn't have to do it" relative to running,
which leaves a lot open to interpretation. Trump keeps saying that Biden was not a bright guy
and that's pretty obvious in a lot of Biden's stories and his overall history. Obama knew
Biden wasn't the smartest guy too. Was Obama trying to tell Joe to leave well enough alone
and not run for the presidency, which would surely expose all this stuff? There was a good
chance Biden wasn't going to get this far, but now see what has happened. You have to wonder
what is at play with this--why didn't they shut Biden down before it got this far?
This is not leftist coup. This is intelligence agencies coup. Big difference. And Obama who
is the most probably mastermind and coordinator is as far from leftist as one can get, he is a
typical neoliberal with neocon inclinations, servant of the USA empire with probably some
delusions of American exeptionalism.
The statement " On August 18, 1991, with Mikhail Gorbachev preparing to sign a treaty that
would have decentralized the Soviet Union, his hardline political opponents in the Soviet
leadership arrested the father of perestroika at his Crimean dacha, proclaiming that the
Soviet State Committee on the State of Emergency was in charge." is naive and is not supported by
the facts. Gorbachov probably organized this coup to give himself a chance to get back control of
the country that was spinning out of his control. He failed and that was the end of his political
career of a sleazy second rate politician.
Our country seems headed for a political crisis, with the enemies of Deplorable America
making noises suggesting they are
planning a post-election "
Color Revolution "-type coup against Trump. As a long-time Russia-watcher,
I suggest that the failed Soviet coup of 1991, and the collapse
that it spurred on, is instructive.
The Soviet State Committee on the State of Emergency,
August, 1991
The key point that year came when Soviet military and security units refused to move against
Boris Yeltsin and his defenders. Could something like that happen here, with Trump playing the
Yeltsin role?
Meanwhile, the Democrats, with help from rabid Never Trumpers like Bill Kristol and
David Frum, have been " wargaming
" scenarios for preventing Trump from taking office should he win, developing a
plan for what Trump has correctly described as "an insurrection." [ The
Billionaire Backers of the 'Insurrection' , by Julie Kelly, AmGreatness.com, Sep 14, 2020]
The plan is to claim that Trump has stolen, or attempted to steal, the election. "As far as our
enemies are concerned," as I wrote here last month, "they are on the right side of history, and
neither election law nor the Constitution or any antiquated notions about fair play will stop
them." [
Revolution and Resistance: How can elections continue? , American Remnant, September 4,
2020]
The mail-in balloting plan plays into the Blob's wargaming. If the Democrats can't swing the
election their way by hook or crook, then the lengthy
process of
accounting for all the mail-in ballots could be used as a means to sow confusion and chaos,
giving them room to maneuver in the aftermath of Election Day.
The Blob's minions have been signaling their intention to drag out the vote count. Michigan
Governor
Gretchen Whitmer , for example, declared on Face the Nation that her state would not be
held to any "artificial deadlines" for reporting election results. [
MI Gov. Whitmer: No 'Artificial Deadlines' for Announcing Election Results , by Jeff
Poor, Breitbart, October 11, 2020] In an example of the psychological projection characteristic
of Democrats, Whitmer further claimed that those who might want to expedite the vote count had
"political agendas."
Meanwhile, the Blob's militant wing has been circulating a plan for post-election
disruption. [
READ: Left-wing Radicals Post Online Guide to 'Disrupting' the Country if Election is Close
, by Joel Pollak, Breitbart, October 12, 2020] A Leftist group calling itself ShutDownDC [ Tweet them ] plans to prevent a Trump "coup" -- more
projection
there -- by shutting down the country and forcing Trump out if the vote is too close to call.
The
plan calls for "sustained disruptive movements all over the country." The militants also
state that they intend to demand that "no winner be announced until every vote is counted."
ShutDownDC further proclaims that it has no intention of allowing the country to return to
normal. The goal is to "dismantle" what it calls "interlocking systems of oppression."
In the chaos that appears increasingly likely after Election Day, we may not even have a
clear idea of what happened–-and, indeed, that may be part of the Blob's design.
In a recent segment on "Critical Race Theory" gaining traction at the Pentagon, Tucker
Carlson wondered just why the Left was so intent on capturing the military.
My answer: the Blob was contemplating the possibility of using the military as part of an
attempt to block a second Trump term.
It's quite clear that the top military brass has been subject to "the Great Awokening"
and Trump Derangement Syndrome as much as the rest of the federal bureaucracy. The military
Establishment has steadfastly resisted Trump's inclination to disengage from foreign
interventions. Moreover, the Pentagon has also resisted Trump's order to stop
indoctrinating its personnel in "Critical Race Theory." [
Trump's Anti-Critical Race Theory Order is Necessary But Insufficient , By Timon Cline,
AmGreatness.com, October 5, 2020]
In his book Rage , Bob Woodward
reports that former Defense Secretary and retired Marine General James Mattis once
commented to then Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats that "There may come a time when
we have to take collective action" against Trump, since Mattis deemed the president "dangerous"
and "unfit." [
Mattis told Coats Trump is 'dangerous,' 'unfit': Woodward book , by Tal Axelrod, The Hill,
September 9, 2020]
It's likely that General Mattis's view of Trump is widely shared among top level military
officers.
So how might the military figure into the Blob's wargaming plans? Peter van Buren has
contemplated a post-election scenario in which a "temporary" military government might be
pitched as the only way to break an electoral deadlock and end post-election disorder. [
What
if Trump Won't Leave The White House? The fearmongers are at it again, this time with their
mantle-holder Biden, warning of the coming dictatorship. , American Conservative, June 30,
2020] Van Buren reminded us that Trump's opponents have never accepted his legitimacy, that
"RussiaGate" was good practice for them -- good practice for a coup, that is -- and that they
are gearing up for an all-out effort to dislodge him from the White House.
Obama, Comey And
Eric Holder In The White House
Van Buren further noted that Joe Biden, who has claimed that it is Trump who "is going to
try and steal this election," has also stated quite plainly that if Trump refuses to leave the
White House, he is "absolutely convinced" that the military would "escort him from the White
House with great dispatch." [
Biden: Military Will Remove Trump From the White House if He Refuses to Leave, by Julie
Ross, Daily Beast, June 11, 2020]
It's worth mentioning that van Buren is not a Trump supporter, was a career foreign service
officer, and is an honest man, an Iraq war whistleblower who wrote an excellent book,
We Meant Well: How I
Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , on his
experiences in that country. I reviewed it here ). He
does not believe that a Pentagon-backed coup is merely "paperback thriller material." It's a
plausible scenario.
Nevertheless, an attempt to use the military to block Trump's re-election could result in
the coup plotters stepping into a trap of their own making.
This is what happened in the failed 1991 coup attempt in the Soviet Union.
On August 18, 1991, with Mikhail Gorbachev preparing to sign a treaty that would have
decentralized the Soviet Union, his hardline political opponents in the Soviet leadership
arrested the father of perestroika at his Crimean dacha, proclaiming that the Soviet
State Committee on the State of Emergency was in charge.
The conspiracy against Gorbachev had been organized by KGB Chairman Vladimir Kryuchkov,
Defense Minister Dmitry Yazov and six other top level political and security officials. They
were alarmed by Gorbachev's reforms, which had already loosed centrifugal forces in the USSR
that threatened the power of the Communist party and the Soviet apparatus.
But within three days, the coup attempt collapsed.
Boris Yeltsin at the Russian White
House, August 19, 1991.
The coup collapsed because of resistance by then-Russian Federation President Boris Yeltsin
and his supporters, and the refusal of elite military and security units to move against
them.
On August 19, Muscovites gathered at the Russian "White House," the seat of Russia's
parliament in central Moscow, and erected barriers around it. Boris Yeltsin climbed atop a tank
to address the crowd. Yeltsin condemned the State Emergency Committee as an unlawful gang of
coup plotters and called for military and security forces not to support the "Gang Of
Eight."
Major Sergey Yevdokimov, a battalion commander in the Tamanskaya Division, had already
declared his loyalty to Yeltsin (hence the tank on which Yeltsin made his historic stand).
Yevdokimov later said that early on he had decided that he would not fire on any
Russian citizens. As his battalion approached the "White House," one of Yeltsin's supporters
climbed on Yevdokimov's tank and asked him to come over to their side. The major made his
historically-significant choice, setting in motion events that would help thwart the coup.
KGB special forces units never appeared at the scene. When the planned assault on the
Russian "White House" ("Operation Thunder") failed to materialize after a brief skirmish, it
was clear that the coup was over. This was quickly followed by the collapse of the Communist
party and the Soviet administrative apparatus; and the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
That was an
enormous surprise to the majority of Western Kremlinologists at the time.
Of course, the situation in the U.S. today is not exactly analogous. For starters, Trump is
operating in a hostile environment ("the Swamp") dominated and controlled by his enemies. The
generals are not on his side. It seems unlikely that a large group of citizens from the DC area
would quickly materialize to support Trump against some sort of military-backed coup.
It's possible, however, that Trump may not even be in Washington when a coup is set in
motion. This would leave him an opportunity to do what he does best -- hold mass rallies to
fire up his support base in "Deplorable" areas of the country.
If general disorder and a deadlock over the elections acts as a cover to deploy military
units, it raises the same question Soviet officers and men were faced with in August 1991:
Would the "boots on the ground" obey orders?
Trump may be disliked by top-level officers. But my sense is that he is popular with the
rank-and-file. What if a significant number of them refused to obey a clearly illegal order? It
may take only one Major Yevdokimov refusing unlawful orders for the whole plot to unravel.
The Deplorables have good reason to think the Blob will rig or otherwise reverse the
election results. The past four years have already taught them that. And the Blob's Main Stream
Media arm has been hard at it selling the Narrative of Trump stealing the election. The
Democrats' base appears to be ready and willing to accept drastic measures against Trump
and the Middle Americans they loathe.
The potential for a seismic political crisis is clear.
What we are witnessing is what I've called " the end of politics ." [
Chronicles , May 2019] American elections are becoming more like the zero-sum games they
are in the undeveloped world -- and were to some extent in
pre-modern Britain . A post-election crisis, especially a force majeure situation
precipitated by military intervention, would accelerate the centrifugal forces already at work
in the United States.
The failure of a coup attempt could do to the Democrats' "Coalition of the Fringes" what the
failure of the August coup did to the Communists in the USSR -- opening up
room to maneuver for what I call the American Remnant and VDARE.com calls the Historic
American Nation.
Given the circumstances, with the demographic ring closing in, that may be a providential
outcome.
I'm not as optimistic as Allensworth. Only one escort of the elites moved against
Gorbachev in 1991. Most of the rest held back. That allowed elite sector 2 to help Yeltsin
resist. Plus, the Jew Wolves of Wall Street swarmed in. So there's that.
The military the rank and file is heavily black, especially the career sergeants petty
officers who really carry out the officers orders. I think the Hispanic and White tank and
file will stay loyal. But follow orders from the anti White officer corps and black
sergeants
Consider the French Revolution. It didn't start till most of the officer corps were
revolutionary masons. The National Guards were revolutionary and so were the judges and
lawyers.
Every elite sector from the clergy through academia media professions and occupations
education both unions and employers Chamber of Commerce Association of manufacturers nurses
teachers Drs. Engineers construction probably big Agricultural which is all that matters any
more. Every organized group is against Trump
All Trump has is us individuals maybe half the adult population but just unorganized
individuals The Republican Party is organized but just as anti Trump and anti White as the
most hysterical liberals and Democrats.
Vindemann Jew immigrant colonel inserted into a position where he could get General Flynn
charged wit crime and the elected president impeached. There's Millions of Vindemanns in
tactical and strategic positions all over the country in every sector. The anti Trump anti
White revolutionaries already own media and communications
I hope I'm wrong. But what's been happening in America for the last 56 years and the
acceleration since 2016 fits the pattern of every successful revolution in the last 500
years.
Tom Fowdyis a British writer and analyst of politics and international relations
with a primary focus on East Asia.
His Holiness declining to meet the US secretary of state when he visited the Vatican on his
European tour further proves that his misguided America-first chauvinism is alienating more
nations than it's winning as friends.
Pompeo, everyone's favourite Cold Warrior and American chauvinist,
is on a European tour . Visiting Greece, Italy, Croatia, and notably, the Vatican, the
secretary of state is on a roll to win support for American security and energy interests
across the region. But he wasn't welcomed by all. Attending the Holy See today, the US' 'top
diplomat' found himself
snubbed by the Pope as he rolled into town peddling his vitriolic anti-China agenda, and
demanding the Church take on Beijing and refuse to renew a deal that gives it a say in the
appointment of bishops within that country. Pope Francis wasn't too impressed and refused to
meet him accordingly.
The snub is significant, because it reflects more broadly how Pompeo's highly aggressive and
evangelical foreign policy agenda is being received around the world. In short, it's a
shambles. Rather than respectfully and constructively engage with the interests of other
countries, on his watch, the State Department does nothing but pressure other nations. And it
does this while parroting the clichéd talking points of American exceptionalism,
hysterical anti-Communism, and a refusal to take into account the interests and practicalities
faced by its partners. The Vatican has its differences with Beijing, but how would embarking on
a collision course help it or the cause of Catholics in China? It wouldn't.
Pompeo is repeatedly described by major
US newspapers, the Washington Post among them, as "
the worst secretary of state in American history," and it's no surprise why. Diplomacy
requires the skills of understanding, prudence, compromise, calibration, and negotiation. The
current man in charge of America's relations with the rest of the world has none of those in
his armoury – only a one-sided diatribe about how every nation Washington holds a grudge
against is evil and a threat to the world, and the US' own political system is far superior (as
demonstrated by last night's presidential debate, perhaps ?). Pompeo repeatedly positions
himself as
speaking on behalf of other nations' people against their governments, while pushing a
policy that amounts to little more than bullying.
A look at Pompeo and the State Department's Twitter feed shows it to be a unilateral,
repetitive loop of the following topics: 'The Chinese Communist Party is evil and a threat to
the world', 'Iran is an evil terrorist state', American values are the best', 'We stand with
the people of X', and so on, ad nauseam. To describe it as hubris would be generous, and, of
course, it does nothing to support the equally inadequate foreign policy of the United States
in practice. This is further distorted by the unilateralist and anti-global governance politics
of Donald Trump, which place emphasis only on the projection of power to force other countries
into capitulating to American demands.
Against such a backdrop, it's no surprise that a toxic mixture of foreign policymaking has
led to other countries not being willing to take notice of Washington. It's winning neither
hearts nor minds, and it's this that has set the stage for not only the Vatican snub, but the
largely fruitless outcomes of his European adventures. Pompeo's visit to Greece produced no meaningful
agreements or outcomes of note , and he failed to get Athens to publicly commit to any
anti-China measures or even statements. A similar non-result was achieved from his visit to the
Czech Republic a month or so ago – the Czech prime minister even came out and
played down Pompeo's comments , after he engaged in a spree of anti-Beijing vitriol.
So, what's at stake for the Vatican? Undoubtedly, religion is a sensitive topic in mainland
China. The Chinese state sees unfettered religion as a threat to social stability, or as a
potential vehicle for imperialism against the country, and thus has aimed to strongly regulate
it under terms and conditions set by the state.
This has caused tensions with the Roman Catholic Church, which maintains a strict
ecclesiastical hierarchy, answering to the Vatican and not national governments. With China
being the world's most populous country, having among its vast population nine million
Catholics, this means the Church has had to negotiate and compromise with the Beijing
government to maintain its influence and control, and to secure the rights of its members to
worship. This has resulted in a 'deal' whereby the Vatican can have a say in the appointment of
its bishops in China, rather than the Church being completely subordinate to the
government.
But Pompeo doesn't care about these sensitivities – he wants one thing: Cold War. He
wants unbridled, unrestrained, and evangelical condemnation of China and, as noted above, is
utilizing his 'diplomatic visits' to push that demand. However, building a foreign policy on
preaching America First unilateralism, chauvinism, and zero compromise not surprisingly has its
limitations. As a result, Pompeo is finding himself isolated and ignored in more than a few
areas. Thus it was that, rather than completely squandering the Vatican's interests in
diplomacy with China, Pope Francis simply refused to meet him. For someone as fanatically
religious and pious as Pompeo, that's a pretty damning indictment of the incompetence within
the US State Department right now.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
As (an agnostic) buddhist I find this pope's words needed in this world now. He refused to
see Pompeo last week and then releases this letter. Take heed.
@ suzan | Oct 5 2020 0:48 utc | 79 with the link to the latest encyclical by the Catholic
pope
I skimmed the link to the pope's latest and the following are a few quoted paragraphs from
the more than 287 in the whole thing.
"
15. The best way to dominate and gain control over people is to spread despair and
discouragement, even under the guise of defending certain values. Today, in many countries,
hyperbole, extremism and polarization have become political tools. Employing a strategy of
ridicule, suspicion and relentless criticism, in a variety of ways one denies the right of
others to exist or to have an opinion. Their share of the truth and their values are rejected
and, as a result, the life of society is impoverished and subjected to the hubris of the
powerful. Political life no longer has to do with healthy debates about long-term plans to
improve people's lives and to advance the common good, but only with slick marketing
techniques primarily aimed at discrediting others. In this craven exchange of charges and
counter-charges, debate degenerates into a permanent state of disagreement and
confrontation.
16. Amid the fray of conflicting interests, where victory consists in eliminating one's
opponents, how is it possible to raise our sights to recognize our neighbours or to help
those who have fallen along the way? A plan that would set great goals for the development of
our entire human family nowadays sounds like madness. We are growing ever more distant from
one another, while the slow and demanding march towards an increasingly united and just world
is suffering a new and dramatic setback.
25. War, terrorist attacks, racial or religious persecution, and many other affronts to
human dignity are judged differently, depending on how convenient it proves for certain,
primarily economic, interests. What is true as long as it is convenient for someone in power
stops being true once it becomes inconvenient. These situations of violence, sad to say,
"have become so common as to constitute a real 'third world war' fought piecemeal".
28. The loneliness, fear and insecurity experienced by those who feel abandoned by the
system creates a fertile terrain for various "mafias". These flourish because they claim to
be defenders of the forgotten, often by providing various forms of assistance even as they
pursue their criminal interests. There also exists a typically "mafioso" pedagogy that, by
appealing to a false communitarian mystique, creates bonds of dependency and fealty from
which it is very difficult to break free.
44. Even as individuals maintain their comfortable consumerist isolation, they can choose
a form of constant and febrile bonding that encourages remarkable hostility, insults, abuse,
defamation and verbal violence destructive of others, and this with a lack of restraint that
could not exist in physical contact without tearing us all apart. Social aggression has found
unparalleled room for expansion through computers and mobile devices.
45. This has now given free rein to ideologies. Things that until a few years ago could
not be said by anyone without risking the loss of universal respect can now be said with
impunity, and in the crudest of terms, even by some political figures. Nor should we forget
that "there are huge economic interests operating in the digital world, capable of exercising
forms of control as subtle as they are invasive, creating mechanisms for the manipulation of
consciences and of the democratic process. The way many platforms work often ends up
favouring encounter between persons who think alike, shielding them from debate. These closed
circuits facilitate the spread of fake news and false information, fomenting prejudice and
hate".[47]
46. We should also recognize that destructive forms of fanaticism are at times found among
religious believers, including Christians; they too "can be caught up in networks of verbal
violence through the internet and the various forums of digital communication. Even in
Catholic media, limits can be overstepped, defamation and slander can become commonplace, and
all ethical standards and respect for the good name of others can be abandoned".[48] How can
this contribute to the fraternity that our common Father asks of us?
170. I would once more observe that "the financial crisis of 2007-08 provided an
opportunity to develop a new economy, more attentive to ethical principles, and new ways of
regulating speculative financial practices and virtual wealth. But the response to the crisis
did not include rethinking the outdated criteria which continue to rule the world".[147]
Indeed, it appears that the actual strategies developed worldwide in the wake of the crisis
fostered greater individualism, less integration and increased freedom for the truly
powerful, who always find a way to escape unscathed.
172. The twenty-first century "is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states,
chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tend to prevail over
the political. Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently
organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by
agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions".[149] When we talk
about the possibility of some form of world authority regulated by law,[150] we need not
necessarily think of a personal authority. Still, such an authority ought at least to promote
more effective world organizations, equipped with the power to provide for the global common
good, the elimination of hunger and poverty and the sure defence of fundamental human
rights.
173. In this regard, I would also note the need for a reform of "the United Nations
Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the
concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth".[151] Needless to say, this calls
for clear legal limits to avoid power being co-opted only by a few countries and to prevent
cultural impositions or a restriction of the basic freedoms of weaker nations on the basis of
ideological differences. For "the international community is a juridical community founded on
the sovereignty of each member state, without bonds of subordination that deny or limit its
independence".[152] At the same time, "the work of the United Nations, according to the
principles set forth in the Preamble and the first Articles of its founding Charter, can be
seen as the development and promotion of the rule of law, based on the realization that
justice is an essential condition for achieving the ideal of universal fraternity There is a
need to ensure the uncontested rule of law and tireless recourse to negotiation, mediation
and arbitration, as proposed by the Charter of the United Nations, which constitutes truly a
fundamental juridical norm".[153] There is need to prevent this Organization from being
delegitimized, since its problems and shortcomings are capable of being jointly addressed and
resolved.
177. Here I would once more observe that "politics must not be subject to the economy, nor
should the economy be subject to the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of
technocracy".[158] Although misuse of power, corruption, disregard for law and inefficiency
must clearly be rejected, "economics without politics cannot be justified, since this would
make it impossible to favour other ways of handling the various aspects of the present
crisis".[159] Instead, "what is needed is a politics which is far-sighted and capable of a
new, integral and interdisciplinary approach to handling the different aspects of the
crisis".[160] In other words, a "healthy politics capable of reforming and coordinating
institutions, promoting best practices and overcoming undue pressure and bureaucratic
inertia".[161] We cannot expect economics to do this, nor can we allow economics to take over
the real power of the state.
"
Nice words but Pope Francis is still pulling punches. He knows exactly how global private
finance works because before the Enlightenment the religious folk in the West ran the money
system for a while. Pope Francis knows that finance is private in the West but not in China.
The problem Pope Francis has with China is that the China government is the religion in China
and governance is otherwise totally secular. In the West, monotheistic religions are given
lots more than the lip service they are suppose to get in governance.....in the US there is
suppose to be separation of church and state, correct? Do the financial holdings of the
Catholic church make Pope Francis one of the elite that own global private finance in the
West that I keep writing about?...I wouldn't be surprised
The words "oligarchy" and "plutocracy" do not appear in the Pope's Encyclical. The Pope
argues a moral case for feeding the poor and even calls for directing money spent on arms to
the third world but he steers clear of any concern about class inequity in an age of record
wealth inequality.
In this way, he "pulls punches" (as psychohistorian notes) as much as any Western
politician. Many of the evils that the Pope rails against - including his remarks regarding
populism vs popular government - have their origin in the extreme wealth of a small number of
people.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Capitalism vs. Socialism is a red herring. The real problem is oligarch capitalism which
leads to neoliberalism (a sort of fascism) and supremacist thinking of neoconservativism (a
sort of aristocracy) and zionism (a sort of colonialism).
Thanks for the link to the latest encyclical by the Catholic pope
Some of the WOKE crowd take offence to Pope Francis encyclical. Pathetic.
"Pope slams capitalism & injustices in WOKE view on post-Covid world but gets heat for
insufficiently inclusive letter"
"Although the encyclical was woke-friendly in many respects, its title, "Fratelli Tutti,"
translates to "Brothers All" in English – connoting male dominance to some. The Vatican
said the title was taken from the words of St. Francis of Assisi, the pope's namesake, and
couldn't be changed. And in any case, an encyclical is inherently addressed to the whole
world, and the Italian word "Fratelli" means brothers but can be used to mean brothers and
sisters."
@ uncle tungsten | Oct 5 2020 3:28 utc | 89 who I think meant "..no one is being
prosecuted in the courts."
uncle tungsten also wrote
"
So the head of the Roman Catholic Church is expressing compassion.
"
That compassion, if you read the screed, is coming from Saint Francis who was showing all
this compassion to folks during the time of the Crusades......
The anglican church is a front for the faith based belief that global finance leaders are
doing God's work.
.............
The commenters here making fun of the visceral fear associated with potential impending
death have never faced such themselves it is clear. I am not excusing Trump's actions but
Trump is having to face his mortality in a way he has not had to before and he doesn't want
to give up the reins of power so he has to look like still in control. I don't think Trump is
out of the woods yet and may be setting himself up for a bigger crash given all the drugs he
has crammed into his body in the past 72 hours.
I was taught in my Christian youth that my body was just a vessel in the here and now but
what is more important than ones body is their soul. I blame that stupidity for much of the
obesity in the US....and I blame genius Trump for that stupidity as well...
Fox News
Fox News
5.73M subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
White employees were informed that their so-called 'white' qualities were offensive and unacceptable.
#FoxNews
#Tucker
"... The REASON they won't release them: The TRUMP Collusion wasn't with the Russians , but with APARTHEID Isra-h-e-l-l. But NO ONE will investigate that. M.A.G.A. is out. M.I.G.A is in. ..."
"... 'Bloody Gina' is Trump's loyalist appointee, following through on what loyalist Pompeo started to protect Trump Crime Family Corruption, Chabad Mafia, and ZOG. ..."
"... please allow me to still congratulate Gina on reducing the almighty Third Option into the Toiletpaper Option. ..."
"... 2018, BREAKING: Trump appoints Haspel as first female CIA director ..."
"... 2017: Breaking: CIA Director Mike Pompeo appoints Haspel as the first female CIA officer to be named deputy director. ..."
"... Fathead and Esper were best buds at West Point.. ..."
"... Evidence destruction was one the main purposes of the Mueller "investigation". ..."
"... Please. If you can see what Trump has done, basically bending the US and its taxpayers over for Israel, you'd realize he's just another in a long line of AIPAC Presidents. Ain't nobody opposing him. CIA knows what Russia knows about him, and they're just using him as bait. ..."
"... proof is in the pudding, Hillary still walks free, none of the corrupt ones are in jail and won't ever go to jail. Face it, Biff has many fooled. ..."
"... U.S. Navy Reserve Doctor on Gina Haspel Torture Victim: "One of the Most Severely Traumatized Individuals I Have Ever Seen" ..."
"... What bothers me more is how deep the Deep State goes in Washington. They totally control the government and without mass firings it is impossible to even make a dent in it. This country is gone and just doesn't know it yet. Once Kamala is crowned as queen reality will come slamming home pdq. By the time the country realizes what has happened to them it will be way too late, no matter how many guns they have at home. Once they cut off access to your money, very few people will be independent enough to survive on their own. ..."
"... Trump has opened the eyes of more Americans to the simple fact that an unelected bureaucracy is running the country ..."
"... DJT hired this c8nt, sure, but the pool of candidates equipped to take over the CIA is very small, and all are career swamp things. If DJT put in a true outsider, the ranks would close and the "Director" would know nothing, could do nothing, and nothing would change. The ranks would just wait for another President. Trump is powerless over the CIA. After all, they could easily have him 'accidentally' killed; they've done it before. ..."
"... The CIA just needs to be dissolved in acid. The political, psychological and historical deep-rooted corruption isn't fixable by anyone. ..."
"... McConnell would never confirm a "true outsider". Mitch is the real problem here, he tells Trump who he will and will not confirm, so Trump has to accept one of Mitch's choices. ..."
"... He could put in Mike Flynn. And any vested employee who "closed ranks" would go on immediate and permanent furlough. ..."
"... Here's something we Americans can learn from the Russians. In August 1991 after Gorbachev left to the Black Sea for a short vacation, the heads of the USSR "power ministries" (KGB chairman, armed forces chief of staff, Minister of Interior, etc. etc.) formed the "State Committee for Extrordinary Situation" ( G.K.Ch .P.) and tried to overthrow the government. ..."
"... That's what happened in Washington in 2016-2018 - "GKChP Lite." ..."
"... After the putsch attempt failed, the leaders were arrested and the power ministries reorganized - the KGB was split into several departments including the FSB and SVR for internal and external intelligence. ..."
"... Trump can declassify these personally if he wants, at any time. He could even go live on air and read portions of it to the public. He has the power, but he refuses to use it. ..."
"... Trumps entire cabinet is full of Goldman Sachs, Skull and Bones, CFR, Pentagon, CIA, Career politicians... at what point do you realize he was never going to drain the swamp? Both candidates are a joke and so is this website for becoming a Big R Republican website. ..."
"... This is all kabuki theater because Trump could have signed an Executive Order releasing everything back to JFK 3 years ago instead of flapping his yap. Comey has a Hollywood movie coming out this fall, As Biden said, "Shut up, man". ..."
"... No one is going to prison that deserves to over this. They'll crucify some desk monkey or intern, pat each other on the back and brag about a job well done. We've seen it the last four years, some low level schmuck changes the footer on some emails and the DOJ is all over it like white on rice. Totally ignoring the fact there is a seditionist movement, maybe even treasonous, happening at a systemic level throughout government. Four years is enough time to build a case, lord knows any one with half a mind can find all the evidence needed in four damned days. ..."
"... The a-holes running the DOJ won't prosecute Comey, or Clinton, or Brennan or any other name we know. Because they're doing dirty deeds themselves and don't want to set the precedent in fear those who come after them might in turn prosecute them ..."
"Federalist" co-founder Sean Davis reports that CIA Director Gina Haspel is personally
blocking the release of documents that will show "what actually happened" with Russiagate.
" This isn't just a scandal about Democrat projection, this is a scandal about what was a
coup planned against the incoming administration at the highest levels and I can report here
tonight that these declassifications that have come out," Davis told FOX News host Tucker
Carlson on Wednesday. "Those weren't easy to get out and there are far more waiting to get
out."
"Unfortunately those releases and declassifications according to multiple sources I've
talked to are being blocked by CIA director Gina Haspel who herself was the main link between
Washington and London ," Davis said.
"As the London station chief from John Brennan's CIA during the 2016 election. Recall, it
was London where Christopher Steele was doing all this work. And I'm told that it was Gina
Haspel personally who is blocking a continued declassification of these documents that will
show the American people the truth of what actually happened."
Watch:
pier , 1 hour ago
The REASON they won't release them: The TRUMP Collusion wasn't with the Russians , but with APARTHEID Isra-h-e-l-l. But NO ONE will investigate that. M.A.G.A. is out.
M.I.G.A is in.
Joseph Sullivan , 1 hour ago
No. This is all the UK. And Brit east India/pharma complex I'm serious. Israel is a UK proxy.
tion , 1 hour ago
True. 'Bloody Gina' is Trump's loyalist appointee, following through on what loyalist
Pompeo started to protect Trump Crime Family Corruption, Chabad Mafia, and ZOG.
My last
comment including my sentiments towards Gina got eaten by censorship for reasons obvious to
me, but please allow me to still congratulate Gina on reducing the almighty Third Option into
the Toiletpaper Option.
acetrumchura , 1 hour ago
2018, BREAKING: Trump appoints Haspel as first female CIA director
acetrumchura , 1 hour ago
2017: Breaking: CIA Director Mike Pompeo appoints Haspel as the first female CIA officer
to be named deputy director.
BGen. Jack Ripper , 49 minutes ago
Fathead and Esper were best buds at West Point..
NoWorries77 , 1 hour ago
Evidence destruction was one the main purposes of the Mueller "investigation".
realitybiter , 2 hours ago
Trump Has played like Tom Brady. Without either guard or tackle. Take the CIA and the FBI. They are both still ran by rats. Tree of liberty is VERY thirsty.
eatapeach , 1 hour ago
Please. If you can see what Trump has done, basically bending the US and its taxpayers
over for Israel, you'd realize he's just another in a long line of AIPAC Presidents. Ain't
nobody opposing him. CIA knows what Russia knows about him, and they're just using him as
bait.
GreatUncle , 57 minutes ago
Either they are accountable or they are treasonous. CIA is the globalist intelligence agency now.
MAGAMAN , 2 hours ago
It will happen, the fuse just keeps getting shorter. Nobody even refutes that Obama is a
traitor that spied on Trump's campaign and tried to overthrow the President. The evidence is
overwhelming and continues to snow ball.
ChiangMaiXPat , 1 hour ago
It will never happen as Trump appointed these Clowns. Imagine appointing people working
DIRECTLY against your self interest. Does this sound logical or even remotely plausible? I
don't recall it EVER happening in any other administration.
spqrusa , 2 minutes ago
He cannot do anything without Consent from the Privy Council and the circle of demons.
ThaBigPerm , 2 hours ago
Aaaand Trump can just order declassification over "her" head. Do it.
Lather Rinse Repeat , 1 hour ago
Surfaces the cabal's foot soldiers. CIA Director Haspel was a great leader when appointed. But when process drives Haspel to
block an action, the message is that Haspel is rot and so is Haspel's network. These networks run deep and wide and prosecuting 1 or 10 does nothing - you need them all,
or the problem comes back in 5 years.
Lokiban , 2 hours ago
He won't
proof is in the pudding, Hillary still walks free, none of the corrupt ones are in jail
and won't ever go to jail. Face it, Biff has many fooled.
spam filter , 2 hours ago
The way he's constantly saying, "someone should do something about this" ...Tells my
spidey sense that he has little power in the swamp.
Propaganda Phil , 2 hours ago
Isn't she the same chick who destroyed all the torture tapes? Good luck.
Mr. Bones , 1 hour ago
All power of classification is derived from the office of the executive.
He could do exactly this, unilaterally.
Farmer Tink , 1 hour ago
First, normal people who consume news from the networks, particularly those that get their
news from MSNBC and social media, would never hear this. Second, if they did find out about
this, they'd never believe it. It would cause too much cognitive dissonance for them to
believe.
They wouldn't believe it unless the four legacy broadcast media told them so. They
just live in a land of Orange Man Bad as far as news go. A plot to overthrow the US
government by Obama and the Brits would be unfathomable to them.
Someone Else , 2 hours ago
Trump had an abrasive demeanor during the debate and in general.
How could he not, when truly everybody for four years HAS fought him tooth and nail? Few
would have had the ability to stand up to what he has stood up to.
Quia Possum , 1 hour ago
He had that demeanor before he was president too, so I don't accept that excuse.
desertboy , 27 minutes ago
U.S. Navy Reserve Doctor on Gina Haspel Torture Victim: "One of the Most Severely
Traumatized Individuals I Have Ever Seen"
justyouwait , 2 hours ago
All this crap needs to come out. Any date for the release before the election will have
the Dems and their media lap dogs crying foul. It just doesn't matter. They will NEVER
support the release of any documents that are damming to them. He should release it all right
up to the day of the election. This country needs to know all the criminality that went down.
That goes for the so called Durham report too, of which there have been so many rumors. That
one is likely to be a huge zero though by the time Barr gets done with it and then tells us
there were "improprieties" but nothing really bad. What a joke.
What bothers me more is how deep the Deep State goes in Washington. They totally control
the government and without mass firings it is impossible to even make a dent in it. This
country is gone and just doesn't know it yet. Once Kamala is crowned as queen reality will
come slamming home pdq. By the time the country realizes what has happened to them it will be
way too late, no matter how many guns they have at home. Once they cut off access to your
money, very few people will be independent enough to survive on their own.
John Couger , 2 hours ago
Trump has opened the eyes of more Americans to the simple fact that an unelected
bureaucracy is running the country
Sigh. , 2 hours ago
DJT hired this c8nt, sure, but the pool of candidates equipped to take over the CIA is
very small, and all are career swamp things. If DJT put in a true outsider, the ranks would
close and the "Director" would know nothing, could do nothing, and nothing would change. The
ranks would just wait for another President. Trump is powerless over the CIA. After all, they
could easily have him 'accidentally' killed; they've done it before.
The CIA just needs to be dissolved in acid. The political, psychological and historical
deep-rooted corruption isn't fixable by anyone.
Mclovin , 1 hour ago
McConnell would never confirm a "true outsider". Mitch is the real problem here, he tells
Trump who he will and will not confirm, so Trump has to accept one of Mitch's choices.
gcjohns1971 , 1 hour ago
He could put in Mike Flynn. And any vested employee who "closed ranks" would go on immediate and permanent
furlough.
There are only a couple or three thousand CIA agents and analysts. The rest are
contractors.
To bypass the swamp things you sideline them and put your own people in charge of the
contracts.
otschelnik , 1 hour ago
Here's something we Americans can learn from the Russians. In August 1991 after Gorbachev
left to the Black Sea for a short vacation, the heads of the USSR "power ministries" (KGB
chairman, armed forces chief of staff, Minister of Interior, etc. etc.) formed the "State
Committee for Extrordinary Situation" ( G.K.Ch
.P.) and tried to overthrow the government.
That's what happened in Washington in 2016-2018 - "GKChP Lite."
After the putsch attempt failed, the leaders were arrested and the power ministries
reorganized - the KGB was split into several departments including the FSB and SVR for
internal and external intelligence.
Trump has to do the same thing - break them up.
Occams_Razor_Trader , 1 hour ago
Kennedy wasn't a big fan................. look where it got him......................
Back and to the left.................................
LostinRMH , 2 hours ago
Trump can declassify these personally if he wants, at any time. He could even go live on
air and read portions of it to the public. He has the power, but he refuses to use it.
LostinRMH , 2 hours ago
The only timing Trump is interested in is running out the clock. If he get's a second term, a lot of these current issues will magically vanish, and new
ones will appear. This is just a scripted political show for the sheeple. It's all fake.
Oldwood , 2 hours ago
The swamp owns the government's employment agency. All hires come from within the swamp.
LooseLee , 1 hour ago
Sorry Old Man. Trump could have handled this sooooo much better and differently. I call
BS.
knightowl77 , 50 minutes ago
Here is the "B.S."
80 to 90% of the Federal Government are swamp creatures or friendly to the swamp...90 out
of 100 U.S. Senators are either swamp members or at least friendly to the swamp....Trump can
only get people confirmed to certain agencies who are Not hostile to the swamp...McConnell
and company are blocking the draining....The Dems would be even worse or just impeach
Trump....
No One else has even tried...I doubt anyone else could've survived the swamp as long as
Trump has....So you tell us HOW he could have done it better and differently?????????
AlexTheCat3741 , 1 hour ago
Not one person who has had a prior association with John Brennan should be doing anything
in the Trump Administration. And if that person cannot be fired, then reassign them to
cleaning toilets or picking up trash.
WHERE IS PRESIDENT TRUMP GETTING HIS PERSONNEL CHOICES FROM? We know Chris Cristie was one
who recommended director of the "Fibbers Bureau of Insurrection", Chris Wray and he is an
absolute disaster AND NEARLY AS BAD AS JAMES COMEY WHO MUST BE SUFFERING FROM DEMENTIA TOO AS
HE CANNOT SEEM TO REMEMBER ANYTHING WHILE UNDER OATH BEFORE A SENATE COMMITTEE.
And now we have this Gina Haspel running the CIA? ARE YOU F CKING KIDDING??
The first person to next get the ax in the Trump Administration is whoever it is that is
giving him these personnel choices, e.g., Rex Tillerson, James Matis, John Kelly, Kirsten
Nielson, Mark Esper, Mark Miley..........WHO IS PICKING THIS TRASH WHEN THE PRESIDENT NEEDS
REAL HELP PERFORMING A COLON FLUSH ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO GET THE GARBAGE OUT AND TO
UNDO THE DAMAGE DONE BY 8 YEARS OF BARACK O'DINGLEBARRY AND SLOW JOE BIDEN??
Citi The Real , 1 hour ago
Trumps entire cabinet is full of Goldman Sachs, Skull and Bones, CFR, Pentagon, CIA,
Career politicians... at what point do you realize he was never going to drain the swamp?
Both candidates are a joke and so is this website for becoming a Big R Republican
website.
DeeDeeTwo , 1 hour ago
This is all kabuki theater because Trump could have signed an Executive Order releasing
everything back to JFK 3 years ago instead of flapping his yap. Comey has a Hollywood movie
coming out this fall, As Biden said, "Shut up, man".
Alfred , 2 hours ago
The Director of the CIA is a cabinet position. If she doesn't want to take direction from POTUS, she should be fired.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 53 minutes ago
Yeah, there's a reason she's blocking it. If those papers are released, it'll lead to
someone high up the food chain facing a courtroom out of necessity because people will lose
their goddamed ****.
Once that happens, you'll by necessity have to go after six more. Then six more. Then
everyone in D.C., their families, friends, and pet dogs are gonna be locked up.
They protect themselves. "Obeyance of the law is for thee, not for me."
Wild Bill Steamcock , 41 minutes ago
No one is going to prison that deserves to over this. They'll crucify some desk monkey or
intern, pat each other on the back and brag about a job well done. We've seen it the last
four years, some low level schmuck changes the footer on some emails and the DOJ is all over
it like white on rice. Totally ignoring the fact there is a seditionist movement, maybe even
treasonous, happening at a systemic level throughout government. Four years is enough time to
build a case, lord knows any one with half a mind can find all the evidence needed in four
damned days.
The a-holes running the DOJ won't prosecute Comey, or Clinton, or Brennan or any other
name we know. Because they're doing dirty deeds themselves and don't want to set the
precedent in fear those who come after them might in turn prosecute them
radical-extremist , 1 hour ago
Be aware CIA people stick together like glue. They're more loyal to each other than they
are the US or any president. Once you're in the CLUB, you're in the CLUB for life. Trump was
absolutely right about not trusting "our intelligence agencies".
12Doberman , 1 hour ago
I hate the CIA...and it's been a power unto itself for a very long time. The idea that it
is under civilian oversight is a joke.
Max21c , 1 hour ago
the CIA...and it's been a power unto itself for a very long time. The idea that it is
under civilian oversight is a joke.
Quite true there is no oversight and the secret police community and intelligence
community are presently and have been for a long time above the law, above the Constitution,
above the very framework of government per above Congress & above the President and above
the Courts... and everybody just goes along with the pack of criminals in the security state
and accepts that they have the right to commit crimes, run criminal activities, and abuse
secret police powers... and nobody ever stands up to the Nazis and NeoNazis and these
radicals in the military secret police, military intelligence, Pentagon Gestapo, National
Security Council, FBI & CIA and the rest of the criminal underworld network inside and
around the organized criminal enterprises and organized criminal networks of the security
state...
12Doberman , 1 hour ago
That's right and the civilian government is largely just a facade.
ken , 1 hour ago
CIA wasn't W-A-S for preventing 9/11...or were they involved in it? Did the missing
trillions go to Israel, and that other country, as payment for services???
_arrow
protrumpusa , 2 hours ago
Someone asked in previous post - why do democrats hate Trump? Good question.
It can't be his policies - who except illegals don't want secure borders, who doesn't want a
strong private buisiness economy, who doesn't want manufacturing jobs to be brought back from
China.
Our democrat leaders, plus Romney all have a connection to Ukraine's stolen treasury money
and Soros's money too, and Trump doesn't . This I believe is the reason democrats hate
President Trump
protrumpusa , 2 hours ago
The Obama administration and the FBI knew that it was they who were meddling in a
presidential campaign - using executive intelligence powers to monitor the president's
political opposition. This, they also knew, would rightly be regarded as a scandalous abuse
of power if it ever became public. There was no rational or good-faith evidentiary basis to
believe that Trump was in a criminal conspiracy with the Kremlin or that he'd had any role in
Russian intelligence's suspected hacking of Democratic Party email accounts.
[snip]
In the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, President Obama authorized his administration's
investigative agencies to monitor his party's opponent in the presidential election, on the
pretext that Donald Trump was a clandestine agent of Russia. Realizing this was a gravely
serious allegation for which there was laughably insufficient predication, administration
officials kept Trump's name off the investigative files. That way, they could deny that they
were doing what they did. Then they did it . . . and denied it.
LEEPERMAX , 30 minutes ago
Gina Haspel worked directly for the instigator of the Crossfire Hurricane operation
– John Brennan. It would have been impossible for Haspel not to have known about the
British spying from London since it was reported in UK newspaper on a weekly basis.
She certainly was controlling Stefan
Halper , Josef
Mifsud ,
Stephan Roh , Alexander Downer, Andrew Wood, John McCain, Mark Warner, Adam Schiff and
the other conspirators.
Kan , 2 hours ago
The FBI and CIA are the enemy of the people. There is little doubt at this point that they
serve nobody but the bankers that formed the organization and themselves.
Gunston_Nutbush_Hall , 2 hours ago
How convenient.
CIA operative Trump nominates Haspel to be the CIA director, after CIA Operative Trump
picked CIA chief Mike Pompeo to replace Rex Tillerson as secretary of state, thereafter
Epstein is Trumpincided on CIA Operatives Barr Pompeo Trump's watch, while running smoke
cover for the CIA's Obama's False Flag National Government.
Shortly after taking office in 1999, Jesse Ventura writes he was asked to attend a meeting
at the state Capitol. He says 23 CIA agents were waiting for him in a basement conference
room.
The greatest False Flag ever? Brainwashing Americans to think Constitutional Federal
Government exists.
Kefeer , 17 minutes ago
The people who want to know and care to know the truth already know the truth. It is
suspect that Trump appoints people like Christopher Wray and Gina Haspel and I really do not
know what to make of it - is he part of the swamp or making bad decisions? I honestly do not
know, but my biblical lens filter tells me we are in trouble regardless of the outcomes
because so many of the institutions in government and industry are so corrupt.
Maltheus , 29 minutes ago
Trump is absolutely incompetent, when it comes to selecting people. He always has been.
Flynn was one of the few, who was halfway decent, and he got thrown to the wolves. Pretty
much everyone else, he's ever chosen, has knifed him in the back, and most of us saw it
coming a mile away.
Tuffmug , 13 minutes ago
The Swamp is deep and has had twenty + years to grow . Trump had to chose the ones who
stunk least from a slimy pool of corrupted officials and fight against every agency, each
filled with deep state snakes. I'm just surprised he is still breathing.
Kinskian , 29 seconds ago
So his incompetence begins and ends with "selecting people" and that gets no downvotes
from the 'tards. I understand why. You're still blaming other people for Trump's failures in
office instead of placing the blame squarely with HIM. He is incompetent in his role as
President, and that is his responsibility.
LEEPERMAX , 36 minutes ago
Gina Haspel would have known about the coup. If she has not reported all of this to the
President Trump, she is complicit in the overthrow attempt and is guilty of HIGH TREASON.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 49 minutes ago
Spooks run this world. And they certainly like power, and money. But do you want to know
what they like most of all?
Information.
Control of information drives everything else. And anyone who has even sniffed that world
knows to get quality information you can't buy it. Instead you have to trade information of
equal value.
We're not important enough to have the opportunity to know what they know. I don't know
about you, but I'm a little angry about that.
StealthBomber , 30 minutes ago
That is because they are un-accountable.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 30 minutes ago
and untouchable.
Take one out and the whole thing collapses.
insanelysane , 51 minutes ago
Don't think we need declassifications to know what happened. We know what
happened.
as I've stated many times, governments would be completely unstable if the government
legally proved that organizations within the government were involved is sedition. With the
IRS scandal the deflection was that a few rogue employees did some things even though the
entire IRS was involved in harassing far right and far left organizations.
The problem with Russiagate is that none of the rogue employees are willing to to go down
without taking everyone involved down. The IRS rogues got nice payouts and no prison
time.
radical-extremist , 1 hour ago
She doesn't want them released because obviously it implicates her in Strzok's Crossfire
Hurricane scheme. It also puts mud on the face of MI6, which is why Trump might be
hesitant.
October is young.
12Doberman , 1 hour ago
Haspel is also likely a figurehead in many respects. From what I've read about CIA over
the years those at the top have competing agendas and don't trust and share information with
each other. The idea that a president is sworn in ever 4-8 years and is brought up to speed
on everything they are doing is laughable...and likely impossible. No president fully
controls the CIA and it has it's own agenda that runs across and through
administrations...may as well call it the head of the deep state snake.
Felix da Kat , 2 hours ago
Haspel is a Brennan redux.
The deep state is much deeper than anyone dare thought.
If Trump cannot do unwind the DS,then all is lost.
If Biden gets in, he will only serve to further entrench DS operatives.
Looking bleak out there, folks.
1nd1v1s1ble1 , 3 hours ago
*sigh* As if anything is going to come of this...when has any high ranking politician EVER
been taken to task or incarcerated for their crimes? It's the same political theater brought
to you by the MSM/Jesuit/Jooish/Freemason cult who ritually perform their televised 'skits'
to the masses to make it appear as if justice exists or better yet, we have a Republic-
newsflash: it died a long, long time ago. The frightened mask-wearing, compliant sheeple lap
it up every f'n time-when do you awake and realize there is no bi-partisan political machine,
there is no blue versus red, just like their cronies in Hollyweird, these politicians are
simply actors who were too ugly to make it there, orange man aint gonna save ya, bumbling joe
aint gonna save ya, understand Stockholm Syndrome-survivors of 'merica....they DO NOT GIVE A
F#*K ABOUT YOU OR YOUR FAMILY and would prefer you were dead.
Even the POTUS cannot do anything in DC alone, no matter what he wants to do. He needs
people to cooperate or follow orders. It seems many or most of the people around him are deep
state spies. I think they are scared ****less of what Trump might try to declassify. I think
the CIA would destroy evidence before providing proof of a seditious coup. If you've
committed murder or treason, destroying evidence seems like jaywalking.
Now we know Haspel is personally involved and we probably know exactly why she is blocking
the release of this information.
Jack_Ewing , 17 minutes ago
Trump was supposed to drain the swamp but surrounded himself with the scariest of swamp
creatures, this Medusa-like entity being one of the most terrifying. Pompeo, Mnuchin, Wray,
Miller, Haspel, Kushner, and the chief of the all, the official cover-upper for the Deep
State for the last 40 years, William Barr.
donkey_shot , 45 minutes ago
surprise, surprise: one-time iraqi detainee torturer and current CIA chief gina haspel is
a nasty piece of work: geez, whodathunk?
The only reason I can think of for holding these documents is that the conspiracy is so
vast and intricate, it might destroy 80 plus percent of the government! If that's what it
comes down to, so be it! Blow the whole PHUCKING thing to kingdom come!
Philthy_Stacker , 45 minutes ago
An accurite assumption.
LOL123 , 1 hour ago
Gina Haspel doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
"The most explosive revelation was that the dossier was
bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee , a
fact that the Clinton campaign took pains to hide, that Clinton officials lied about, and
that Fusion GPS refused to reveal on its own. It wasn't an intelligence report at all. It was
a political hit job paid for by Trump's opponent."
Political issues " incorporated" into public stock holding corporations.
"Individual shareholders cannot generally sue over the deprivation of a corporation's
rights; only the board of directors has the standing to assert a corporation's constitutional
rights in court. [7]
-USA
Ever since Citizens United, the Supreme Court's 2010 decision allowing unlimited
corporate and union spending on political issues, Americans have been debating whether, as
Mitt Romney said, "Corporations are people, my friend."
The question came to the Supreme Court in a challenge to regulations implementing
President Obama's landmark health care law. Those regulations require employers with 50 or
more employees to provide those employees with comprehensive health insurance, which must
include certain forms of contraception. The contraception requirement was designed to protect
the rights of women. Studies show that access to
contraception has positive benefits for women's education, income, mental health, and family
stability.
since a political entity ( DNC and Hillary Campaign funded a public corporation which
is a " corporate personhood" and can be sued it is open to discovery in a court of
law.
the chickens have come home to roost....as Mitt Romney says....corporations are the
citizens "best friend".
R.G. , 1 hour ago
Citizens ARE corporaions.
4Y_LURKER , 1 hour ago
Finkel is Einhorn!
Einhorn is Finkel!
Totally_Disillusioned , 1 hour ago
If Sean Davis was able to unearth this, President Trump, Pompeo have known this for some
time and Ratcliffe certainly knows this. the question is "why is she allowed to block
disclosure?". None of the players are currently in service and would not be at risk if their
involvement was disclosed. What possibly is the excuse? Are they using the old excuse of not
revealing sources and methods?
All these people need a stern reminder the govt is owned by the people...they work for us.
So far we are the only people kept in the dark. Breakup the intel 17 agencies and re-engineer
down to two - one domestic and one international.
SirBarksAlot , 1 hour ago
It's always a national security issue when it's your responsibility to release the
documents that would incriminate you.
Gunston_Nutbush_Hall , 3 hours ago
Exactly why CIA Trump hand selected her. Exactly for the same reason CIA Trump hand
selected BARR.
TO PROVIDE CLEAN SMOKE N COVER FOR THEIR CIA NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.
Barr: CIA operative
It is a sobering fact that American presidents (many of whom have been corrupt) have gone
out of their way to hire fixers to be their attorney generals.
Consider recent history: Loretta Lynch (2015-2017), Eric Holder (2009-2015), Michael
Mukasey (2007-2009), Alberto Gonzales (2005-2007), John Ashcroft (2001-2005),Janet Reno
(1993-2001), **** Thornburgh (1988-1991), Ed Meese (1985-1988), etc.
Barr was a full-time CIA operative, recruited by Langley out of high school, starting
in 1971. Barr's youth career goal was to head the CIA.
CIA operative assigned to the China directorate, where he became close to powerful CIA
operative George H.W. Bush, whose accomplishments already included the CIA/Cuba Bay of
Pigs, Asia CIA operations (Vietnam War, Golden Triangle narcotics), Nixon foreign policy
(Henry Kissinger), and the Watergate operation.
When George H.W. Bush became CIA Director in 1976, Barr joined the CIA's "legal office"
and Bush's inner circle, and worked alongside Bush's longtime CIA enforcers Theodore "Ted"
Shackley, Felix Rodriguez, Thomas Clines, and others, several of whom were likely involved
with the Bay of Pigs/John F. Kennedy assassination, and numerous southeast Asian
operations, from the Phoenix Program to Golden Triangle narco-trafficking.
Barr stonewalled and destroyed the Church Committee investigations into CIA
abuses.
Barr stonewalled and stopped inquiries in the CIA bombing assassination of Chilean
opposition leader Orlando Letelier.
Barr joined George H.W. Bush's legal/intelligence team during Bush's vice presidency
(under President Ronald Reagan) Rose from assistant attorney general to Chief Legal Counsel
to attorney general (1991) during the Bush 41 presidency.
Barr was a key player in the Iran-Contra operation, if not the most important member of
the apparatus, simultaneously managing the operation while also "fixing" the legal end,
ensuring that all of the operatives could do their jobs without fear of exposure or
arrest.
In his attorney general confirmation, Barr vowed to "attack criminal organizations",
drug smugglers and money launderers. It was all hot air: as AG, Barr would preserve,
protect, cover up, and nurture the apparatus that he helped create, and use Justice
Department power to escape punishment.
Barr stonewalled and stopped investigations into all Bush/Clinton and CIA crimes,
including BCCI and BNL CIA drug banking, the theft of Inslaw/PROMIS software, and all
crimes of state committed by Bush
Barr provided legal cover for Bush's illegal foreign policy and war crimes
Barr left Washington, and went through the "rotating door" to the corporate world,
where he took on numerous directorships and counsel positions for major companies. In 2007
and again from 2017, Barr was counsel for politically-connected international law firm
Kirkland &
Ellis . Among its other notable attorneys and alumni are Kenneth Starr, John Bolton,
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and numerous Trump administration attorneys.
K&E's clients include sex trafficker/pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and Mitt Romney's Bain
Capital.
A strong case can be made that William Barr was as powerful and important a figure in the
Bush apparatus as any other, besides Poppy Bush himself.
...Shortly after taking office in 1999, Jesse Ventura writes he was asked to attend a
meeting at the state Capitol. He says 23 CIA agents were waiting for him in a basement
conference room.
Bobby Farrell Can Dance , 3 hours ago
The Navalny "incident" is the latest pathetic CIA and British MI6 operation and the
Belarus incitement. Sloppy, unoriginal and going to backfire in their stupid faces.
Everybody knows the evil empire wants Nordstream II dead, Navalny is the latest lever and
that woman they recognized as leader of Belarus is as laughable as that Guaido goon they
recognized in Venezuela, but he's actually outside of Venezuela - yeah that's how popular he
is. Western intelligence agenices are hacks, they are past their peak.
John Hansen , 3 hours ago
The real stupid thing is the West will succeed.
Spinifex , 20 minutes ago
Christopher Steele is THE GUY who 'doctored all this up'. Why has he not been bought
before congress and asked questions?
Sergi Scripal worked for Christopher Steele. Sergi Scripal earned tens of thousands of
pounds 'providing information' to Christopher Steele. Why is he 'not being asked questions?
He's not 'dead'. Sergi Scripal is 'alive and well' and 'being hidden' by the U.K. Government
'for his own safty.' The U.K. can provide 'access to Sergi Scripal.
Pablo Miller worked for Christopher Steele. Pablo Miller was Sergi Scripals 'handler' with
MI6. Pablo Miller was also the 'last person to talk to Sergi Scripal' before Sergi Scripal
'surccumed to Novichok poison.' Why is Pablo Miller (aka: Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo -
https://gosint.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/who-is-mi6-officer-pablo-miller/
All three worked for Orbis Business Intelligence the company that wrote the 'Steele
Dossier' that Gina Haspel had access to and 'approved' sending onto the FBI and CIA. All
three, Christopher Steele, Sergi Scripal and Pablo Miller are 'alive and well' and all three
are able to provide information about the Steele Dossier, what was in the Steele Dossier, and
WHERE the information in the Steele Dossier came from. Ask the questions dammit, and you'll
get the answers.
headless blogger , 58 minutes ago
Not a fan of Trump, although I voted for him the first time, but he will be in serious
trouble if Biden gets into office as there are too many vengeful people on that side of the
isle. They attempted a coup d'etat which is the worse treason, where most of these people
would be executed in "normal" times.
So, they HAVE TO win at all costs, in their thinking. They will then turn the tables on
Trump as well as the entire Conservative camp. It looks like an ugly future if they win. If
Trump wins, it will be ugly too.
Sure signs to get the hell out now if you can.
The Technocracy crowd is behind all of this, btw. They are waiting for the full collapse
at which time we will be inundated with Tech Billionaires coming forward to "save us".
BEWARE!!
4 play_arrow 1
1nd1v1s1ble1 , 1 hour ago
*sigh* As if anything is going to come of this...when has any high ranking politician EVER
been taken to task or incarcerated for their crimes? It's the same political theater brought
to you by the MSM/Jesuit/Jooish/Freemason Satanic cult who ritually perform their televised
'skits' to the masses to make it appear as if justice exists or better yet, we have a
Republic- newsflash: it died a long, long time ago. The frightened mask-wearing, compliant
sheeple lap it up every f'n time-when do you awake and realize there is no bi-partisan
political machine? There is no blue versus red, just like their cronies in Hollyweird, these
colluding politicians are simply actors who were too ugly to make it there, orange man aint
gonna save ya, bumbling joe aint gonna save ya, understand Stockholm Syndrome-survivors of
'merica....they DO NOT GIVE A F#*K ABOUT YOU OR YOUR FAMILY and would actually prefer you
were dead.
Better/cheaper than sending US military to fight in another useless war.
headless blogger , 1 hour ago
Gina Haspel was selected by Trump!! When you take into consideration Trump's selections of
Haspel, Bolton, and many others, it becomes obvious there is someone in his admin that is
directing him to bring these people on. He brings them on and then they betray him.
5onIt , 1 hour ago
Pence is the dude you are looking for.
Haspel was the CIA Station Chief in London, when this was all going down.
Be sure, she has chit to hide.
LEEPERMAX , 1 hour ago
John Brennan led the coup this side of the Atlantic, while Gina Haspel , who was in the
CIA London office at the time, worked the coup from London as the CIA chief in cooperation
with GCHQ and Robert Hannigan. Both are creepy, corrupt traitors of America.
The current head of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gina Haspel, oversaw one such site
where torture was carried out. ... Abu Zubaydah, Courtesy Professor Mark P. Denbeaux, Seton
Hall University ...
y_arrow
Mister Delicious , 2 hours ago
She was Brennan's London pet.
She should be fired and escorted from the building, and then DOJ NSD should open an
investigation into her contacts with Brennan.
Think there might be a Demstate coup attempt?
Well, don't you imagine any friend of John Brennan's is not a friend of Trump.
I don't care how much you love Orange Jesus - he has picked absolutely terrible people
over and over and over.
Good DNI now but he needs to take charge.
richsob , 3 hours ago
Orange Fat Boy is getting played like a violin. You and I both know it. Does he? Probably
because you can see it on his face but he's just not willing to do what it would take to get
everything out into the open. And if he tries to expose everything after he's lost the
election nobody will listen to him......even you and I. It will be too late then.
We would think that the New York Slimes would know something about losses. After all, they
paid $1.1 Billion in 1993 for The Boston Globe and in 2013, sold it for $70 Million to
businessman John Henry, the principal owner of the Boston Red Sox, and a massive 93%
loss.
But it's worse than that because included in that sale is BostonGlobe.com ; Boston.com ; the direct-mail marketing company Globe Direct; the
company's 49 percent interest in Metro Boston, a free daily paper; Telegram.com and The Worcester Telegram & Gazette. The Times
bought the Telegram & Gazette for $295 million in 1999.
We should be convinced to pay any attention to Fake News Tabloid, The New York Slimes,
given that kind of Business Acumen? I don't think so.
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
Hope & Change, Drain the swamp, End the wars
Angelic Obama allegedly prevented from saving us by "deep state" Republicans.
Angelic Trump allegedly prevented from saving us by "deep state" Democrats.
Poor us, our chosen leaders and parties are always so blameless in failing us.
protrumpusa , 4 hours ago
President Trump has gotten rid just about everyone in this article I found 3 years ago
> The ATLANTIC COUNCIL is funded by BURISMA, GEORGE SOROS OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATION &
others. It was a CENTRIST, MILITARISTIC think tanks,now turned leftist group
> JOE BIDEN extorted Ukraine to FIRE the prosecutor investigating BURISMA, HUNTER's
employer.
> LTC VINDMAN & FIONA HILL met MANY TIMES with DANIEL FRIED of the ATLANTIC
COUNCIL. FIONA HILL is a former CoWorker of CHRISTOPHER STEELE !
> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH is connected to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, is PRAISED in their
documents, gave Ukraine a "do not prosecute" list, was involved in PRESSURING Ukraine to not
prosecute GEORGE SOROS Group.
> BILL TAYLOR has a financial relationship with the ATLANTIC COUNCIL and the US UKRAINE
BUSINESS COUNCIL (USUBC) which is also funded by BURISMA.
> TAYLOR met with THOMAS EAGER (works for ADAM SCHIFF) in Ukraine on trip PAID FOR by
the ATLANTIC COUNCIL. This just days before TAYLOR first texts about the "FAKE" Quid Pro Quo
!
> TAYLOR participated in USUBC Events with DAVID J. KRAMER (JOHN MCCAIN advisor) who
spread the STEELE DOSSIER to the media and OBAMA officials.
> JOE BIDEN is connected to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, he rolled out his foreign policy
vision while VP there, He has given speeches there, his adviser on Ukraine, MICHAEL CARPENTER
(heads the Penn Biden Center) is a FELLOW at the ATLANTIC COUNCIL.
> KURT VOLKER is now Senior Advisor to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, he met with burisma
President Trump took to the debate stage tonight shortly after Tucker Carlson aired and it
seemed like he was on the right track with his feisty hits on Joe Biden and plan to help all
Americans by rebuilding the economy. Pedro Gonzalez, a popular guest of top-rated Tucker
Carlson's show spoke to Tucker about why more Hispanics may be supporting President Trump.
Here's a clue, it's not by pandering. It's by showing the American people that he is a strong,
alpha leader.
It's by not treating Hispanics as though they need to be put on some higher playing field
than White Americans to show them they matter. They already know they matter, they just want to
know what President Trump is going to do to make America a safer country for business owners
and law-abiding citizens who don't care to be known by their race, to begin with.
"People who work for a living don't like disorder because they're vulnerable to it". "You're
right," Pedro says. "The GOP is starting to recycle these talking points while denigrating
their white base they patronize Latinos by saying things like, one group of people does the job
that another group doesn't want to do, it's not just untrue, it's morally repugnant," he says.
Gonzales goes on to say that the GOP should stop trying to beat the Democrats at their own
game. He says Trump should play his own game because "he's good at it and it's more popular"
and he goes on to describe his thoughts more below.
Perhaps President Trump should start listening to the organic voices from the right and stop
listening to paid bureaucrats who are out of touch with reality going into the election as he
faces a more challenging demographic voter situation than any Republican presidential candidate
ever.
" A US District judge has made an 11th hour intervention to block a federal government
order prohibiting downloads of TikTok from app stores by American users.
US District Judge Carl Nichols issued a preliminary injunction, which would allow the
popular app to still be on offer in Apple and Google stores, shortly before the ban was
supposed to come into force on Sunday midnight. Earlier in the day, Nichols allowed a
90-minute hearing, where a lawyer representing TikTok made the case for it remaining
available to users in the US.
Last week, a judge in California blocked a similar order ousting the WeChat app from
American stores hours before it was supposed to take effect."
What a bummer. Looks like your neocon handlers took a couple of hits, whitney. No doubt
those judges were agents of The B.L.M.
When the "Fox News Sunday" host takes the stage on Tuesday to moderate the first
presidential debate of 2020, he will for 90 minutes be the most important person in the
world.
His questions, his demeanor, his raised eyebrow will signal to millions of voters how they
are to assess the two candidates -- President Donald John Trump and former Vice President
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.
If his questions are piercing for both, if his skepticism is applied equally to both the
Republican and Democrat, then all is well in this corner of the world of journalism. But if
instead Wallace accuses Trump and coddles Biden, we will have one more instance of media bias,
which has become so rampant that President Trump had to christen it with a pet name -- Fake
News.
Every day, the supposedly professional press corps cozies up to Biden with softball
questions ("Why aren't you more angry at President Trump?" has to be my favorite!) while
accusing Trump of being a mass murderer, a racist and a Putin puppet. So conservatives are
entirely justified in having low expectations for the debate and for Wallace, who has
exhibited symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrome more than once.
Wallace can ask anything he wants of Trump. I am confident the president will acquit himself
admirably, but the litmus test for Wallace playing fair in the debate will be whether or not he
asks any hard-hitting questions of Biden -- especially about the new Senate
report on the corrupt activities of his son Hunter in Ukraine and elsewhere.
If you have heard anything about the Biden report on CNN and MSNBC, or read about it in your
newspapers, chances are you came away thinking that Republicans had made up a series of fake
charges against the Bidens. "Nothing to see here. Move along."
The
Washington Post , as usual, was at the front of the pack for Fake News coverage. The Post
used its headline to focus entirely on Hunter's position on the board of the corrupt Ukrainian
energy company Burisma, and claimed that the report doesn't show that the cozy arrangement
"changed U.S. policy" -- as if that were the only reason you would not want a vice president's
son enriching himself at the trough of foreign oligarchs.
The story then spent most of its 35 paragraphs excusing Hunter's behavior either directly or
through surrogates such as Democrat senators, and most nauseatingly by quoting Hunter Biden's
daughter, Naomi, who "offered a personal tribute to her father" in the form of a series of
tweets, including the following:
"Though the whole world knows his name, no one knows who he is. Here's a thread on my dad,
Hunter Biden -- free of charge to the taxpayers and free of the corrosive influence of
power-at-all-costs politics. The truth of a man filled with love, integrity, and human
struggles." Oh my, that's convincing evidence of innocence of wrongdoing. I imagine she also
endorses her grandfather for president, for what it's worth.
The three reporters who wrote the Post piece also spin the facts like whirling dervishes.
They say that the report by Sens. Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley "rehashes" known details of
the matter. They quote Democrats to say without evidence that the report's key findings are
"rooted in a known Russian disinformation effort."
The following passage in particular shows how one-sided the story is:
"Democrats argue that Johnson has 'repeatedly impugned' Biden, and they pointed to his
recent comments hinting that the report would shed light on Biden's 'unfitness for office,'
as reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, to argue that the entire investigation was
orchestrated as a smear campaign to benefit Trump."
Using the "shoe on the other foot" test, can you ever imagine a similar statement being made
in the Washington Post about the Trump impeachment investigation? Let's see. How would that
go?
"Republicans argue that Rep. Adam Schiff has 'repeatedly impugned' Trump, and they pointed
to his recent comments hinting that the report would shed light on Trump's 'unfitness for
office' to argue that the entire investigation was orchestrated as a smear campaign to
benefit Biden."
Oh yeah, sure! The chance of reading that paragraph in the Washington Post news pages would
have been absolutely zero.
Perhaps even more insidious was the decision by the editors to push the most significant
news in the report to the bottom of the Post's story. That is the lucrative relationship that
Hunter Biden established in 2017 with a Chinese oil tycoon named Ye Jianming. Biden was
apparently paid $1 million to represent Ye's assistant while he was facing bribery charges in
the United States.
Even more disturbing, "In August 2017, a subsidiary of Ye's company wired $5 million into
the bank account of a U.S. 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, according to the report."
Then, in late 2017, "Hunter Biden and a financier associated with Ye also opened a line of
credit for Hudson West III that authorized credit cards for Hunter Biden, James Biden and Sara
Biden, according to the report, which says the Bidens used the credit cards to purchase more
than $100,000 worth of items, including airline tickets and purchases at hotels and
restaurants."
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 Post also glossed over payments received by Hunter Biden from Yelena Baturina, who the
story acknowledges "is the widow of former Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov and is a member of
Kazakhstan's political elite." What the story doesn't say is that the payments received by
Hunter Biden's companies while Joe Biden was vice president totaled close to $4 million. Does
anyone have even the slightest curiosity why Hunter's companies received these payments from a
Russian oligarch? As Donald Trump Jr. noted, if he had the same record of taking money from
foreign nationals, he "would be in jail right now."
In other words, the headline and the lede of the Washington Post story were entirely
misleading. What readers should have been told is that there is a pattern of corruption and
inexplicable enrichment in the Biden family that has continued for years and that Joe Biden has
turned his back on it.
Seems worthy of the attention of the voters who will determine the nation's leadership for
the next four years. So the most important question at the debate Tuesday night is the
following: Will Chris Wallace take the same cowardly path as the Washington Post, or will he
demand an answer from candidate Biden as to why influence peddling, conflicts of interest and
virtual money laundering are acceptable?
Based on Wallace's track record, I'm not holding my breath that we will get either the
question or the answer, but if we do, I will happily applaud him as the tough-as-nails
journalist he is supposed to be.
play_arrow chubbar , 1 hour ago
Wallace is co-opted, he's a plant. NO way does he ask about corruption or go after
Joe.
CosmoJoe , 1 hour ago
All Trump needs to do is jab Biden every time his brain locks up; toss in phrases like
"Its OK Joe, take your time". Keep doing that until Biden gets angry and its all over. (Well,
its over anyhow, but....)
Karl Malden's Nose , 1 hour ago
He knew how to push Hillary's buttons and even though she's a spaz she's lightyears
smarter than Joe. Biden is going to fume and crap his depends because Trump is about to knock
him flat on his ***. He'll be stammering to answer while Trump has already moved on to the
next gut punch. There's no gotcha's on Trump, only Biden. Trump is plugged in to everything
and sharp as a knife. Biden will be struggling to remember his instructions and I'm sure
they'll have an ear piece on him he won't hear too clearly.
Hoax Fatigue , 25 minutes ago
Nobody is expecting (((Wallace))) to be fair.
High Vigilante , 1 hour ago
Trump should bring it up, as soon as possible.
There is no guarantee Biden won't skip other debates.
Plus it would make Biden angry and negate the effect of drugs he will be loaded with.
True Historian , 1 hour ago
I have watched Wallace and he is a pretentious pile of excrement. FOX with its "Fair and
Balanced" left the station when they were bought out by Disney.
Wallace sample questions:
Trump : When did you stop being a corrupt NAZI/Russian bitch?
Biden : Are you feeling OK today? If not, how can I make you more comfortable.
CosmoJoe , 1 hour ago
Trump had some fairly hostile moderators in the 2016 debates and he held his own. He has
to be just as merciless with Biden as he was with Hillary. The news doesn't want to talk
about Hunter and his wire transfers from Russia. This is Trump's chance to throw that crap
right into the spotlight.
alexcojones , 1 hour ago
Quote : "Every day, the supposedly professional press corps cozies up to Biden with
softball questions... while accusing Trump of being a mass murderer, a racist and a Putin
puppet."
Why? That's because the so-called "Legacy" media is now the Enemy of The American
People.
Soloamber , 1 hour ago
The question is how long can Wallace hide his anti-Trimp bias ?
Mr. Biden ...what is your favorite color ?
President Trump why do you pay no tax ?
Mr. Biden Isn't China our greatest ally ?
President Trump have you heard from Stormy lately ?
Mr . Biden Please provide your wife's first name .
President Trump.... You appear over weight have you had your blood pressure checked ?
Would you agree to do it now ?
Mr . Biden what are some of your greats political achievements in your distinguished
political legacy ?
President Trump why have you caused global warming ?
DeplorableGlobalConflictWatch , 1 hour ago
Chris Wallace is a joke. Make sure he's sick and replaced by Tucker Carlson.
RealEstateArbitrage , 1 hour ago
Wally is a plant by the deep state. He is a liar and a fool.
Migao , 1 hour ago
Wallace, like his dad, pretentious snob. Yeah, Trump's a jerk, but he's a lovable jerk.
Wallace is a pretentious snob.
JUICE E SMALL IT EMPIRE , 2 hours ago
No, Ukraine and China should be front and center. It is an election year. And the Dems
have screwed us royally.
It was a week ago that Beijing made clear it won't be signing off on the messy and mired in
confusion proposed Oracle-TikTok deal, citing that it would harm its "national security
interests," which is exactly the same reason given by Trump for trying to shut TikTok down in
the first place.
China's state-run Global Times is out with a new editorial Saturday indicating that Beijing
will stick to protecting TikTok "at all costs" . The theme of "compromised" national security
is still being presented as the crux of the matter.
" China is prepared to prevent Chinese firm TikTok and its advanced technologies from
falling into US hands at all cost ," Global Times introduces.
This even if that should mean the hugely popular app "risks being shut
down in the US, because allowing the US to seize the firm and its technology will not only set
a dangerous precedent for other Chinese firms, but also pose a direct threat to China's
national security , Chinese experts said on Saturday, a day ahead of a court battle in the US
over a ban of the app."
Again, interestingly this seems to be the mirror image argument the Trump administration has
harped on for much of the past year, especially on Huawei. GT's argument continues:
More importantly, for Beijing, the case goes way beyond just a mafia-style robbery of a
lucrative Chinese business and cutting-edge technologies , but a threat to its national
security, because the US could find loopholes in those technologies to launch cyber and other
attacks on China and other countries to preserve its hegemony, the experts added.
Voicing the communist government's rationale further, GT cites an expert at the China
Electronics Standardization Institute Liu Chang, who says "What the US wants, we definitely
cannot give."
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.
"From the perspective of both the company and the Chinese government, this cannot be allowed
to happen ," he said. y_arrow 1 Pliskin , 18 hours ago
American Pirates looking for more stuff to steal..no surprises there!
Go and make your own stuff，piss-ant Yanks!
...And get the message into your thick skulls，the whole World hates you!
Srbutterfly , 13 hours ago
Except for Israel.
TheRapture , 19 hours ago
The USA has abandoned Ronald Reagan and free trade, and morphed into an incompetent rogue
state that behaves like the Mafia. Tik Tok, Huawei, etc. The U.S. can't compete fairly, so it
cheats, steals and launches "regime-change" wars.
R.I.P, America.
LEEPERMAX , 20 hours ago
The CCP is nothing but A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION with that pompous clown Xi JinPig as their
despicable ringleader.
Criminals, all of them.
HoyeruNew , 18 hours ago
its called projection.
Srbutterfly , 13 hours ago
The ccp is an extension of the imperial system, they are no better off than when the
emperors were calling the shots.
kleptomistic , 19 hours ago
TikTok is "cutting edge technology"? Exactly what is this app capable of? It must really
be something since it's worth billions and everyone is fighting over it.
kleptomistic , 19 hours ago
Installing TikTok is literally like handing your phone to the CCP.
You give them total control of your phone...to listen/watch...to track you...to upload
your address book so they know everyone you know...you also allow them to upload stuff to
your phone.
HoyeruNew , 18 hours ago
prove it. BTW< I hear USA is STILL looking for Saddam's weapons of mass
distraction.
Suey Cidal , 18 hours ago
It is valuable as a distraction, keeping the sheep believing the lie that China and USA
are independent countries and that they are not both owned by the same rich fuktards.
Yen Cross , 18 hours ago
Lets look realistically at the situation. China is not cheap for manufacturing, has zero
interest honoring 'favored nation' trade status, and is definitely NOT a developing third
world country.
The Chinese love to gamble, yet call themselves, "long game" players?
Tic Tok is a fad. Just an information gathering scheme.
Ex-Kalifornian , 12 hours ago
Our society would be better off if we had no social media, so just ban it and make
everyone that more productive.....
halcyon , 15 hours ago
Good for them
**** Silicon Valley/NSA spy monopoly.
At least this way we'll have a spy duopoly, with one of them free of Israel's UNIT 8200
backdoor crap, and we can make them compete against each other.
Monopoly and no choice is the worst possible choice.
If we allow the Black Lives Matter movement to become America's Bolshevik Revolution, we
will lose our liberty, and many of us will likely lose our lives, as well, for daring to
question them. This was never about racism. It has been about power anBlack Lives
Matter is a Modern Totalitarian Revolution
Classic totalitarian regimes share a number of common characteristics. The
rise of these regimes began with a cultural revolution, aimed at angering the citizens against
the current system. During that period domestic enemies are designated, and the people in the
radical movement aiming at overthrowing the old system rally together against those common
enemies, calling it a common struggle, as they adopt a new official ideology that stands
significantly apart from the old one. They seek to control every aspect of the lives of their
people, enlisting everyone they can to participate in the struggle. Even persons who may belong
to enemy classes or groups join up, hoping to receive mercy when the new regime gains control.
In Stalin's Russia and Mao's China the enemies were anyone who reminded them of the old system,
and anyone who could challenge them if left with enough power. The state enemies were the
capitalists, landlords, richer peasants and foreign agents of all kinds. Nazi Germany included
those outside the national community, which included socialists (even though Nazism was a form
of socialism) and communists, Jews, Christians, and any ethnic minorities that did not fit into
the German model of a loyal elite specimen.
The goal of each of the totalitarian regimes of the past were to eliminate the old system,
eradicate any history or remnant of the old regimes, and create a dominant single party that
stood as a rebellious alternative of the traditional State. Then, once in power, the perceived
enemies were murdered or imprisoned, as were many of their allies for the crime of knowing too
much. The younger generation was used as a controlling mechanism, taught to tattle on their
older counterparts for not being one hundred percent in favor of the new party in charge. The
youngsters were uniformed and organized into militias to turn their energies towards advancing
the party line, and improving upon the power of the new political elite.
In each case anything that even resembled the free market was eliminated, and the new
government controlled the economy. They took over the means of production either by taking
control of it and nationalizing it, or through heavy regulations (as we saw in Italy and
Germany). The immigration structure was altered, they orchestrated a break-down of morality and
what were considered moral norms in their culture, they worked on the destruction of the
nuclear family, they forcibly reallocated farmland, they formed a socialist economy that was
designed to redistribute the wealth away from the designated domestic enemies into the hands of
those revolutionaries who deserved some kind of reparations for what was allegedly lost at the
hands of the domestic enemies, and early on looting and rioting was encouraged and championed.
Interestingly, the list I just gave you was not just something the NAZIs and communists did,
but is also a list of demands currently being voiced by Black Lives Matter.
Public expression was also controlled by past dictatorial regimes so that no dissent could
emerge. If dissent was spotted, the party members acted as a mob, actively mobilized to quell
the dissent in the name of the "people's struggle" against a constant list of enemies. Again,
Black Lives Matter fits the bill on this one, too.
These regimes exaggerated real problems, and real aspects of human nature, and created an
on-going revolution against their enemies. It was a common struggle to liberate the people from
whomever the leadership designated as an enemy. To not pull the party line was to be socially
asleep, or an agent of the enemy, which then would place the person under great scrutiny, and
if they remained uncorrected, they would be ridiculed, shamed, and eventually jailed, or
murdered.
The fuel was passion, and anger, and a common demand for answers.
Sound familiar?
Black Lives Matter is an embodiment of everything that the 20th Century dictatorships
were
Eventually, Black Lives Matter will lose its appeal, and the players will grow weary of the
struggle. The regime will weaken, and when they try to invigorate their revolutionaries for a
new fight in order to strengthen the resolve of the regime and its followers, they will find
that all of their enemies are dead or in exile, and the problem can no longer be blamed on
others. However, it could take half a century, or more, before that happens, and in a Black
Lives Matter America the damage will already have been done. The death of liberty and the
annihilation of the free market will have left a long path of sorrow and misery following it.
By then, the enemy will only be themselves, and as all regimes in history, the struggle will
turn inward, and the murders will be against their own. Through the paranoia imaginary enemies
will be concocted, where nobody is safe from the suspicions of one's neighbors or children.
People begin to vanish, and the party begins to struggle to hold on to control.
Black Lives Matter, like all past dictatorial regimes, has successfully unleashed the
passions of many members of the public. The campaigns of terror are in full swing, in the name
of protesting, in the name of social justice, and in the name of standing against racism. They
claim that science and reason are in their corner, when, like Stalin and Mao of the Soviet
Union and Communist China, it is all a great big lie. They claim whites have unfair privilege
and must be forced to kneel to their true overlords, as Hitler did with the Jews when he
believed it would allow him to create a better Germany. In the end, as with all violent
totalitarian regimes, violence will bring them down just as violence brought them into
power.
Tucker on the incredible popularity of Black Lives Matter
Islamic totalitarianism solidifies in the Middle East, and works to spread across the
nations of Europe
As Islamic totalitarianism solidifies in the Middle East, and works to spread across the
nations of Europe, Black Lives Matter totalitarianism is working its way through its birthing
canal in the United States. Both bear all of the markers of totalitarianism. They work to
control the lives, speech, and actions of those below them. They terrorize and murder,
committing themselves to endless struggles against a long list of designated enemies. They pose
as more than an ideological challenge. They are poised to bring down Western Civilization,
which has prospered due to America's Liberty, and free market capitalistic system.
Should we fall, to where may one escape? There is no other place to go. Black Lives Matter
is a real threat, an enemy who desires to overthrow America and control this country. There is
no criticizing Black Lives Matter. The mobs threaten anyone who holds dissent. It is already
happening. People are losing their jobs for criticizing Black Lives Matter, and they are still
only a political movement. Black Lives Matter is enjoying complete immunity from criticism
while they are not in power. Imagine what will happen if they ever gain a hold on the reins of
our system.
It has gone beyond a demand for equality. Equality is no longer acceptable. If one were to
say "All Lives Matter," for example, that is now unacceptable, and racist. Only "Black Lives
Matter" we are told. White lives don't matter because of what your ancestors allegedly did a
couple hundred years ago. Christianity and the American System is based on the idea of equality
in the eyes of God, and equality in opportunity (or at least the attempt to create a system
that accomplishes such), but now if you say that out loud, you are called a racist, and your
very life could be at risk. Dissent is hate speech. You could be fired from your job, or in
some cases, fined and jailed for daring to speak out against the rising totalitarian regime
known as Black Lives Matter because such murmurings could be considered "hate speech".
The latest demand by Black Lives Matter is ridiculous, yet it is happening. It began with a
chant, "defund the police," and now has advanced to cries to abolish the police. The City of
Minneapolis is in the process of doing exactly that. When asked on CNN who, then, if the police
were gone, should we call in the middle of the night while our house is being burglarized,
a member of the Minneapolis city council said that the question "comes from a place of
privilege." In other words, if some feel like law enforcement is not on their side,
everyone should feel that way, otherwise, you have an unfair privilege, and you are racist.
Black Lives Matter is enjoying a rise to power largely because of the liberal media
Black Lives Matter is enjoying a rise to power largely because of the liberal media. Any
counter-arguments against their claims are going unheard. CNN, MSNBC, NPR, the alphabet
networks, and any of the other liberal outlets aren't going to report any criticism of Black
Lives Matter. And as Hitler's team explained, if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the
truth. In this case, if you tell one side of the story, and the other side is never heard, it
becomes true.
Unchallenged claims must be true, therefore, Black Lives Matter must be on to something. The
polls say so.
Black Lives Matter is achieving their power in the same way past revolutionaries did.
Through force. They break things, they burn things, and they hurt anyone who gets in the way.
They believe they deserve whatever they want, and if you don't give it to them, they will take
it. Then, on the way out, they will set your business on fire. They occupy, they terrorize, and
nobody is willing to stop them, because if you do, you are a racist. They know this. They know
you are paralyzed by your fear of them, and fear of being considered racist. They have a
message. Step out of line and we will hurt you, your family, or your business. That is the
strategy of Black Lives Matter, and it is becoming the strategy of the Democrat Party. If you
are afraid to defy the mob, the mob rules.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution created this system to protect us from the mob. That is
why they created a constitutional republic, not a democracy (as some people like to say).
Democracy is historically a transitional type of government. When the mobs of democracy begin
to take control, which usually accompanies a continuous vote for benefits from the treasury,
liberty breaks down and dictators begin to take control.
If we allow the Black Lives Matter movement to become America's Bolshevik Revolution, we
will lose our liberty, and many of us will likely lose our lives, as well, for daring to
question them. This was never about racism. It has been about power and control since the very
beginning. Black Lives Matter seeks to overthrow the U.S. Constitution, and replace our system
with a Marxist-based government that destroys liberty and the free market, and places their
radical leaders in control of the country. If we don't stop it, and recognize the revolutionary
nature of what is going on, America will disappear forever. And, if there is no America,
Liberty dies worldwide.
Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary,
has been featured on "Hannity" and "Fox and Friends" on Fox News Channel, and other television
shows and networks. Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution
Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writ
Escobar reviews the UNGA's
first day that revealed Trump's desperation a few alluded to above. Psychohistorian will
be pleased to read Pepe's channeling his #1 premise:
" As for the 'rules-based international order,' at best it is a euphemism for
privately-controlled financial capitalism on a global scale ." [My Emphasis]
As I wrote yesterday, every national leader I read backed a Multilateral UN and its
Charter while including various degrees of reproach for the illegalities of the Outlaw US
Empire and its vassals, even the
Emir of Qatar :
"The outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic has reminded us that we live on the same planet,
and that multilateral cooperation is the only way to address the challenges of epidemics,
climate and the environment in general, and it's also preferable to remember this when
dealing with the issues of poverty, war and peace, and realizing our common goals for
security and stability....
"And during the unjust and unlawful blockade it is going through it also has securely
established its policy founded on respecting the rules and principles of international law
and the United Nations Charter, especially, the principle of respecting the sovereignty of
states and rejecting intervention in their internal affairs.
"And based on our moral and legal responsibilities towards our peoples, we have affirmed,
and we will continue to reaffirm, that unconditional dialogue based on common interests and
respect for the sovereignty of states is the way to solve this crisis which had started with
an illegal blockade, and whose solution starts with lifting this blockade."
If the Saudi blockade is "unjust and unlawful," then all those imposed by the Outlaw US
Empire are also.
Pepe apparently doesn't agree with Lieven's essay and writes:
"Sinophobia is the perfect tool for shifting blame -- for the abysmal response to
Covid-19, the extinction of small businesses and the looming New Great Depression -- to the
Chinese 'existential threat.'
"The whole process has nothing to do with 'moral defeat' [Lieven] and complaints that 'we
risk losing the competition and endangering the world.'
"The world is not 'endangered' because at least vast swathes of the Global South are fully
aware that the much-ballyhooed 'rules-based international order' is nothing but a quite
appealing euphemism for Pax Americana -- or exceptionalism [Neocolonialism].
"What was designed by Washington for post-World War II, the Cold War and the 'unilateral
moment' does not apply anymore."
As the dirty domestic underwear of the Outlaw US Empire becomes more visible to nations,
they are emboldened to stand up for themselves and join the Strategic Partnership's Eurasian
project.
Tucker: This parading of Ginsburg death wish "is ridiculous and insulting"
Two neoliberal faction of the US elite ("hard neolibs" and "soft neolibs") struggle for power
really entered a new phase. BTW control of Supreme Court was always a part of struggle for power.
And this "royal wish" think is just one episode of this entertaining
fight. Great spectacle, but friends will unite when the time comes to approve the military
budget.
Why are people so upset about this "final wish" thing? Like it just seems convenient to me
and made up; and even if wasn't made up, who gives her the right to dictate how the
constitution works. It's obvious the Dems are using this to try and keep the GOP from getting
an extra seat on the Supreme Court, and I don't really blame them, GOP would have probably
done the same thing, they're both hypocrites.
"... 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.
Tom Fowdy is a British writer and analyst of politics and international relations
with a primary focus on East Asia. The battle over TikTok is all because the US finds the idea
of a Chinese social media app gaining global acclaim as intolerable and a threat to its own
monopolies in Silicon Valley.
Did I miss the announcement that The Apprentice has got a new episode out? You know,
the one where Donald Trump shouts " You're fired! " to TikTok's owners in Beijing? Oh,
wait, that's not a reality TV show – it is reality. At least in his mind.
Were it not so serious, you would have to laugh at this week's flip-flopping antics of the
former TV show host turned president of the USA.
On Sunday, he stated he was giving his " blessing " to a deal between US giants
Oracle and Walmart and ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese owner. ' TikTok-Oracle Deal Wins Trump's
Approval ,' read
the headline on Bloomberg.
By Monday, he had made a U-turn, demanding that the Chinese firm cede control of its US
operations completely, or he would ban the popular platform. ' Trump Says ByteDance Can't
Keep Control of TikTok in Oracle Deal ,'
said Bloomberg.
Initially, the deal reported by the media involved the two US companies taking a 20 percent
stake in the creation of a new venture, TikTok Global, which would see its data managed by the
American stakeholders. But now the White House has seemingly reverted to its old position of
demanding that ByteDance, or as it puts it, " China ," cedes " complete control" of
the application in the US, including the handover of its technology and algorithm. Under the
headline 'Say 'No!' to US robbery of Tik Tok,' China's Global Times stated the country will
"not accept an unequal treaty that targets Chinese companies. "
Trump's actions concerning this app, irrespective of the eventual outcome, should be
understood not as legitimate " national security concerns, " but a clear attempt to
subjugate and humiliate China for his own political and electoral gain, as well as to maintain
American primacy over technology and global social media.
His approach has been infused with his classical ' Art of the Deal ' approach so
beloved of fans of The Apprentice . It essentially involves pushing a given target to
the brink in an attempt to extort an outcome on terms favorable to him. Beijing, however, sees
painful historical parallels in Trump's conduct, and is prepared to rise to the
challenge.
There is a period in China's history, roughly dating from 1830 to the 1950s, which is
popularly referred to as the " century of humiliation. " It describes an era when the
country was subjugated to political and economic exploitation by Western powers and forced to
accept agreements on unequal terms, particularly by Britain, France, Germany and Japan, amongst
others.
The era is commonly defined to have begun with the commencement of the opium wars, whereby
the British Empire waged war against the Qing Dynasty in order to open up its markets by force
to export opium, resulting in the Treaty of Nanking, which forced China to accept British
demands and the subsequent annexation of Hong Kong.
The legacy of the century of humiliation has a deep influence on how China perceives its
relations with the rest of the world today, particularly the West. To Beijing, the Trump
administration has sought to forcefully confront and contain China on multiple fronts,
especially in the field of technology and trade, in ways reminiscent of the bad old days.
The US evidently does not accept China on equal terms, and once having believed trade and
engagement would " reform " the country towards America's image and preferences, the
impetus has now shifted to Washington attempting to stifle the country's rise and force changes
to its political-economic system.
This is where TikTok comes into the picture. The claim that the popular video application is
a threat to US national security should not be taken seriously – it's a platform used by
young people to post videos, mostly of them doing silly dances.
Washington has a way of whipping up fear and hysteria in order to manufacture consent for
its aggressive foreign policies. There is no serious evidence TikTok has engaged in any
wrongdoing. Instead the impetus is geopolitical: the US finds the idea of a Chinese social
media application gaining global acclaim as intolerable and a threat to its own monopolies in
Silicon Valley. The Trump administration's response to any Chinese initiative which challenges
or outgrows US capabilities is simply to attempt to crush it by coercive force.
In this case, however, an outright ban on an application as popular as TikTok (it has around
80 million users in the US) would be politically damaging for Trump. Which is why he has sought
to utilize state force with the view to extorting the app into American ownership. The fact
that the proposed venture is called TikTok Global is an obvious indicator that the new "
US " version of the platform would quickly aim to compete with and make obsolete
ByteDance's market in the rest of the world.
Little wonder then that, in line with the rest of the administration's policies, China
perceives the attempt by Trump to extort TikTok as an attempt to start a new century of
humiliation. Their judgement is correct. Once again, a Western power believes that China ought
only to exist on terms which are tolerable to the West, and that the way to "handle" the
country involves attempting to subjugate it into accepting unequal agreements.
But this is 2020, not 1920. China will no longer be treated in this way or approve any deal
which extorts ByteDance's business. Beijing would rather see TikTok banned in America than have
it stolen from them through Trumpian coercion.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
In what is perhaps the most compelling sign yet that Beijing has put the kibosh on the
Oracle-TikTok deal, the Global Times on Tuesday published a scathing editorial attacking
President Trump for attempting a "robbery" of TikTok and violate China's "dignity."
The paper's editorial writers echoed claims made in an editorial published more than six
weeks ago by
the People's Daily - that Beijing would never tolerate Trump transferring majority
ownership of TikTok to the US. Furthermore, as
Kyle Bass explained earlier, anything that would require the company to fork over its
content-recommendation algorithm is an instant deal breaker. Beijing has previously said it
would rather shut down TikTok US than hand the business to the Americans.
Writers explained that by turning over source code from TikTok to Oracle, Americans would
also gain insight into the operations of Douyin, TikTok's counterpart built for the Chinese
market (which, remember, runs on an entirely separate, cordoned-off internet).
Throwing Trump's words back in his face, the writers insisted Beijing didn't appreciate the
president's characterization that the new TikTok would have "nothing" to do with China.
Because even more than money, China must have the credit. Like
Bass explained, the CCP is fighting a narrative war against the US.
And in case the point wasn't clear, the Global Times editor, Hu Xijin, drives it home with a
tweet.
It was reported Sunday, Beijing time, that US President Donald Trump approved a deal in
principle between TikTok's parent company ByteDance, and Oracle and Walmart. The main content
of the deal was later disclosed. From the information provided by the US, the deal was unfair.
It caters to the unreasonable demands of Washington. It's hard for us to believe that Beijing
will approve such an agreement.
Although people can have various interpretations, some articles in the agreement show what
the problems are.
For instance, American citizens will take up four of the five board seats for TikTok Global
and only one can be Chinese. The board of TikTok Global would include a national security
director, who will have to be approved by the US.
Oracle will have the authority to check the source code of TikTok USA and updates. As the
TikTok and Douyin should have the same source code , this means the US can get to know the
operations of Douyin, t he Chinese version of TikTok.
TikTok Global will control the business of TikTok around the world except China. It will
block IP from the Chinese mainland to access it. This means the Americans can take control of
the global business of TikTok and reject Chinese to access it.
It is clear that these articles extensively show Washington's bullying style and hooligan
logic. They hurt China's national security, interests and dignity. ByteDance is an ordinary
company in China. The US suppresses it with all its national strength and forces it to sign a
deal under coercion. China, also a major country, will not yield to US intimidation and will
not accept an unequal treaty that targets Chinese companies.
When Trump said he had approved the new TikTok deal, he noted the new company would have
"nothing to do" with China and would be fully controlled by the US. On Monday, he said Oracle
and Walmart would have total control of the service; otherwise, "we're not going to approve the
deal."
It seems this is not his campaign language, but the Trump administration's real attitude
toward restructuring TikTok. Washington is way too confident and has underestimated China's
determination to defend its basic rights and dignity.
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 US is a big market. If the reorganization of TikTok under US manipulation becomes a
model, it means once any successful Chinese company expands its business to the US and becomes
competitive, it will be targeted by the US and turned into a US-controlled company via trickery
and coercion, which eventually serves only US interests.
If China surrenders, which country in the world can resist? The US encirclement of TikTok
and the global huntdown of Huawei are stifling the hopes of high-tech companies around the
world for having world-class technologies and independent development. Once Washington
succeeds, the US will enjoy global technological hegemony forever.
China will not accept this kind of bullying arrangement of the US. The US is taking
discriminatory action to squeeze TikTok. In an era when countries have concerns about network
data security, US internet giants set up branches around the world. But does any one of them
hand over its control to companies of the host country? Which company's board members must be
approved by the government of the host country?
Washington's huntdown on TikTok is creating problems for US internet companies worldwide.
With cyber security increasingly becoming a common issue, there must be countries that will
imitate the US to take action against American companies. The precedent set by the US will
eventually hurt its own companies.
Issues concerning global internet data security should be addressed in a fair, reasonable
and effective manner. China has put forward an eight-point proposal for this. The US seeks its
own interests in a hegemonic way, and attempts to maintain its technological hegemony under the
guise of cyber security. This cannot be accepted by international society, including China.
It's hoped the US returns to globalization from "America First," and retake the universal
commercial values that will not only benefit itself but also others.
Unfortunately in his brilliant analysis of USA-Russia relations Stephen Cohen never pointed out that the USA policy toward
Russia is dictated by the interests of maintaining global neoliberal empire and the concept of "Full Spectrum Dominance" which was
adopted by the USA neoliberal elite after the collapse of the USSR.
Like British empire the USA neoliberal empire is now overextended, metropolia is in secular stagnation with deterioration
standard of living of the bottom 80% of population, so the USA under Trump became more aggressive and dangerous on the international
arena. Trump administration behaves behaves like a cornered rat on international arena.
Notable quotes:
"... On Friday, 18 September, professor Steve Cohen passed away in New York City and we, the "dissident" community of Americans standing for peace with Russia – and for peace with the world at large – lost a towering intellectual and skillful defender of our cause who enjoyed an audience of millions by his weekly broadcasts on the John Batchelor Show, WABC Radio. ..."
"... from the start of the Information Wars against Russia during the George W. Bush administration following Putin's speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007, no voice questioning the official propaganda line in America was tolerated. Steve Cohen, who in the 1990s had been a welcome guest on U.S. national television and a widely cited expert in print media suddenly found himself blacklisted and subjected to the worst of McCarthyite style, ad hominem attacks. ..."
"... the opposition to Steve was led by experts in the Ukrainian and other minority peoples sub-categories of the profession who were militantly opposed not just to him personally but to any purely objective, not to mention sympathetic treatment of Russian leadership in the territorial expanse of Eurasia. ..."
"... Almost no one outside our 'dissident' community is concerned about the possibility of Armageddon in say two years' time due to miscalculations and bad luck in our pursuing economic, informational and military confrontation with Russia and China. ..."
"... My point in this discussion is that in the last decade of his life Stephen Cohen became one of the nation's most fearless and persistent defenders of the right to Free Speech. ..."
"... It was forced upon him by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other major media who pilloried him or blacklisted him over his unorthodox, unsanctioned, nonconformist views on the "Putin regime." It was forced upon him by university colleagues who sought to deny his right to establish graduate school fellowships in Russian affairs bearing his name and that of his mentor at Indiana University, Professor Tucker. ..."
"... In the face of vicious personal attacks from these McCarthyite forces, in the face of hate mail and even threats to his life, Steve decided to set up The American Committee and to recruit to its governing board famous, patriotic Americans and the descendants of the most revered families in the country. In this he succeeded, and it is to his credit that a moral counter force to the stampeding bulls of repression was erected and has survived to this day. ..."
On Friday, 18 September, professor Steve Cohen passed away in New York City and we, the
"dissident" community of Americans standing for peace with Russia – and for peace with
the world at large – lost a towering intellectual and skillful defender of our cause who
enjoyed an audience of millions by his weekly broadcasts on the John Batchelor Show, WABC
Radio.
A year ago, I reviewed his latest book, War With Russia? which drew upon the
material of those programs and took this scholar turned journalist into a new and highly
accessible genre of oral readings in print. The narrative style may have been more relaxed,
with simplified syntax, but the reasoning remained razor sharp. I urge those who are today
paying tribute to Steve, to buy and read the book, which is his best legacy.
From start to finish, Stephen F. Cohen was among America's best historians of his
generation, putting aside the specific subject matter that he treated: Nikolai Bukharin, his
dissertation topic and the material of his first and best known book; or, to put it more
broadly, the history of Russia (USSR) in the 20 th century. He was one of the very
rare cases of an historian deeply attentive to historiography, to causality and to logic. I
understood this when I read a book of his from the mid-1980s in which he explained why Russian
(Soviet) history was no longer attracting young students of quality: because there were no
unanswered questions, because we smugly assumed that we knew about that country all that there
was to know. That was when our expert community told us with one voice that the USSR was
entrapped in totalitarianism without any prospect for the overthrow of its oppressive
regime.
But my recollections of Steve also have a personal dimension going back six years or so when
a casual email correspondence between us flowered into a joint project that became the launch
of the American Committee for East West Accord (ACEWA). This was a revival of a
pro-détente association of academics and business people that existed from the mid-1970s
to the early 1990s, when, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the removal of the
Communist Party from power, the future of Russia in the family of nations we call the
'international community' seemed assured and there appeared to be no further need for such an
association as ACEWA.
I hasten to add that in the original ACEWA Steve and I were two ships that passed in the
night. With his base in Princeton, he was a protégé of the dean of diplomats then
in residence there, George Kennan, who was the leading light on the academic side of the ACEWA.
I was on the business side of the association, which was led by Don Kendall, chairman of
Pepsico and also for much of the 1970s chairman of the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council of
which I was also a member. I published pro-détente articles in their newsletter and
published a lengthy piece on cooperation with the Soviet Union in agricultural and food
processing domains, my specialty at that time, in their collection of essays by leaders in the
U.S. business community entitled Common Sense in U.S.-Soviet Trade .
The academic contingent had, as one might assume, a 'progressive' coloration, while the
business contingent had a Nixon Republican coloration. Indeed, in the mid-1980s these two sides
split in their approach to the growing peace movement in the U.S. that was fed by opposition in
the 'thinking community' on university campuses to Ronald Reagan's Star Wars agenda. Kendall
shut the door at ACEWA to rabble rousing and the association did not rise to the occasion, so
that its disbanding in the early '90s went unnoticed.
In the re-incorporated American Committee, I helped out by assuming the formal obligations
of Treasurer and Secretary, and also became the group's European Coordinator from my base in
Brussels. At this point my communications with Steve were almost daily and emotionally quite
intense. This was a time when America's expert community on Russian affairs once again felt
certain that it knew everything there was to know about the country, and most particularly
about the nefarious "Putin regime." But whereas in the 1970s and 1980s, polite debate about the
USSR/Russia was entirely possible both behind closed doors and in public space, from the
start of the Information Wars against Russia during the George W. Bush administration following
Putin's speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007, no voice questioning the
official propaganda line in America was tolerated. Steve Cohen, who in the 1990s had been a
welcome guest on U.S. national television and a widely cited expert in print media suddenly
found himself blacklisted and subjected to the worst of McCarthyite style, ad hominem
attacks.
From my correspondence and several meetings with Steve at this time both in his New York
apartment and here in Brussels, when he and Katrina van der Heuvel came to participate in a
Round Table dedicated to relations with Russia at the Brussels Press Club that I arranged, I
knew that Steve was deeply hurt by these vitriolic attacks. He was at the time waging a
difficult campaign to establish a fellowship in support of graduate studies in Russian affairs.
It was touch and go, because of vicious opposition from some stalwarts of the profession to any
fellowship that bore Steve's name. Allow me to put the 'i' on this dispute: the opposition
to Steve was led by experts in the Ukrainian and other minority peoples sub-categories of the
profession who were militantly opposed not just to him personally but to any purely objective,
not to mention sympathetic treatment of Russian leadership in the territorial expanse of
Eurasia. In the end, Steve and Katrina prevailed. The fellowships exist and, hopefully,
will provide sustenance to future studies when American attitudes towards Russia become less
politicized.
At all times and on all occasions, Steve Cohen was a voice of reason above all. The problem
of our age is that we are now not only living in a post-factual world, but in a post-logic
world. The public reads day after day the most outrageous and illogical assertions about
alleged Russian misdeeds posted by our most respected mainstream media including The New
York Times and The Washington Post . Almost no one dares to raise a hand and
suggest that this reporting is propaganda and that the public is being brainwashed. Steve did
exactly that in War With Russia? in a brilliant and restrained text.
Regrettably today we have no peace movement to speak of. Youth and our 'progressive' elites
are totally concerned over the fate of humanity in 30 or 40 years' time as a consequence of
Global Warming and rising seas. That is the essence of the Green Movement. Almost no one
outside our 'dissident' community is concerned about the possibility of Armageddon in say two
years' time due to miscalculations and bad luck in our pursuing economic, informational and
military confrontation with Russia and China.
I fear it will take only some force majeure development such as we had in 1962 during the
Cuban Missile Crisis to awaken the broad public to the risks to our very survival that we are
incurring by ignoring the issues that Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Princeton and New
York University was bringing to the airwaves week after week on his radio program.
Postscript
In terms of action, the new ACEWA was even less effective than its predecessor, which had
avoided linking up with the peace movement of the 1980s and sought to exert influence on policy
through armchair talks with Senators and other statesmen in Washington behind closed doors of
(essentially) men's clubs.
However, the importance of the new ACEWA, and the national importance of Stephen Cohen lay
elsewhere.
This question of appraising Stephen Cohen's national importance is all the more timely given
that on the day of his death, 18 September, the nation also lost Supreme Justice Ruth Ginsburg,
about whose national importance no Americans, whether her fans or her opponents, had any
doubt.
My point in this discussion is that in the last decade of his life Stephen Cohen became
one of the nation's most fearless and persistent defenders of the right to Free Speech. It
was not a role that he sought. It was thrust upon him by the expert community of international
affairs, including the Council on Foreign Relations, from which he reluctantly resigned over
this matter.
It was forced upon him by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other major media
who pilloried him or blacklisted him over his unorthodox, unsanctioned, nonconformist views on
the "Putin regime." It was forced upon him by university colleagues who sought to deny his
right to establish graduate school fellowships in Russian affairs bearing his name and that of
his mentor at Indiana University, Professor Tucker.
In the face of vicious personal attacks from these McCarthyite forces, in the face of
hate mail and even threats to his life, Steve decided to set up The American Committee and to
recruit to its governing board famous, patriotic Americans and the descendants of the most
revered families in the country. In this he succeeded, and it is to his credit that a moral
counter force to the stampeding bulls of repression was erected and has survived to this
day.
[If you found value in this article, you should be interested to read my latest collection
of essays entitled A Belgian Perspective on International Affairs, published in
November 2019 and available in e-book, paperback and hardbound formats from amazon, barnes
& noble, bol.com, fnac, Waterstones and other online retailers. Use the "View Inside" tab
on the book's webpages to browse.]
Fox News
6.2M subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
For Americans living under coronavirus restrictions, it's a question too rarely asked. In fact it's actively discouraged.
Nice take on imbecilization of important and complex topics by the US MSM and politicians.
Money quote about neoliberal Dems like Obama and Biden "
But there are others for whom altruism is an alien concept.
Self-interest is all they know. These people never pause. They relentlessly press for any advantage, under any circumstances. They
see human suffering as a means to increase their power."
Another money quote: "in the hands of Democratic politicians, climate change is like systemic racism in the sky: You can't see it, but it's everywhere and
it's deadly."
Notable quotes:
"... But there are others for whom altruism is an alien concept. Self-interest is all they know. These people never pause. They relentlessly press for any advantage, under any circumstances. They see human suffering as a means to increase their power. ..."
"... Joe Biden's closest friend in the world, a prominent Martha's Vineyard kite-surfer called Barack Obama, echoed that message with his trademark restraint. Obama declawed that your "life" depends on voting for Joe Biden. ..."
"... One of the few Republicans who still hold elected office in California, state Assemblyman Heath Flora, last year called on using the state's $22 billion budget surplus to implement vegetation management. ..."
"... Fires don't spread as well without huge connected forests functioning as kindling. It's obvious, which is why it's unthinkable to mention it in some Democratic circles." ..."
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Massive wildfires continue to sweep across huge portions of the Pacific Northwest.
In Oregon, half a million residents have been forced to evacuate -- one out of every ten people in the state.
Dozens are dead tonight, including small children. But the fires still aren't close to contained. Watch this report from Fox's
Jeff Paul:
Video report
And it continues as we speak, walls of flame consuming everything in their path: homes, animals, human beings. Tragedy on a
massive scale.
When something this awful happens, decent people pause. They put aside their own interests for a moment. They consider how they
can help. We've seen that kind of selflessness before.
This is, remember, the anniversary of 9-11.
But there are others for whom altruism is an alien concept. Self-interest is all
they know. These people never pause. They relentlessly press for any advantage, under any circumstances. They see human suffering
as a means to increase their power.
These are the people who turn funerals into political rallies and feel no shame for doing it.
As Americans burned to death, people like this swung into action immediately. They went on television with a partisan talking
point: Climate change caused these fires, they said. They didn't explain how that happened. They just kept saying it.
In the hands of Democratic politicians, climate change is like systemic racism in the sky: you can't see it, but it's everywhere,
and it's deadly. And, like systemic racism, it's your fault: The American middle class did it. They ate too many hamburgers,
drove too many SUVs, had too many children.
A lot of them wear T-shirts to work and didn't finish college. That causes climate change too. And, worst of all, some of them
may vote for Donald Trump in November.
If there's anything that absolutely, definitively causes climate change -- and literally over a hundred percent of scientists
agree with this established fact -- it's voting for Donald Trump. You might as well start a tire fire. You're destroying the ozone
layer.
Joe Biden has checked the science, and he agrees. Yesterday, the people on Biden's staff who understand the internet tweeted out
an image of the wildfires, along with the message, "Climate change is already here -- and we're witnessing its devastating effects
every single day. We have to get President Trump out of the White House."
Again, by voting for Donald Trump, you've made hundreds of thousands of Oregonians homeless tonight. You've killed people.
Joe Biden's closest friend in the world, a prominent Martha's Vineyard kite-surfer called Barack Obama, echoed that message
with his trademark restraint. Obama declawed that your "life" depends on voting for Joe Biden.
At a time when sea levels are rising and we're about to see killer whales in the Rockies? Honestly, it doesn't seem like Obama is
overly concerned about climate change? And by the way, didn't he go to law school? When he did become a climate expert?
Those seem like good questions. But lawyers pretending to be scientists are now everywhere in the Democratic Party.
Here's the governor of Washington, Jay Inslee, a proud graduate of Willamette University law school, explaining that he's already
figured out the "cause" of the fires. Watch:
INSLEE: Fires are proof we need a stronger liberal agenda Sept 8 TRT: 18 Inslee: And these are conditions that are exacerbated
by the changing climate that we are suffering. And I do not believe that we should surrender these subdivisions or these houses
to climate change-exacerbated fires. We should fight the cause of these fires.
This is a crock. In fact, there is not a single scientist on earth who knows whether, or by how much, these fires may have been
"exacerbated" by warmer temperatures caused by "climate change," whatever that means anymore.
All we have is conjecture from a handful of scientists, none of whom have reached any definitive conclusions.
Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA, for example, has admitted that it's, quote, "hard to determine whether climate change
played a role in sparking the fires."
Meanwhile, investigators have determined that the massive El Dorado fire in California, which has torched nearly 14,000 acres,
was caused by morons setting off some kind of fireworks. And then on Wednesday, police announced that a criminal investigation is
underway into the massive Almeda fire in Ashland, Oregon.
The sheriff there said it's too early to say what caused the fire, but he's said human remains were found at the suspected origin
point. Nothing is being ruled out, including arson.
The more you know, the more complicated it is, like everything. Serious people are just beginning to gather evidence to determine
what happened to cause this disaster.
But at the same time, unserious people are now everywhere on the media right now, drowning out nuance. Don't worry about the
facts, they say. Just trust us -- the sky orange is orange over San Francisco because households making $40,000 a year made the
mistake of voting for a Republican.
Therefore you must hand us total control of the nation's economy. Watch amateur arson detective Nancy Pelosi explain:
PELOSI: Mother Earth is angry. She's telling us, whether she's telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the
west, whatever it is, the climate crisis is real and has an impact.
Mother Nature is angry. Please. When was the last time Nancy Pelosi went outside? No one asked her. All we know is what she said:
climate change caused this. Of course.
No matter the natural disaster -- hurricanes, tornadoes, whatever -- climate change did it. Keep in mind, Nancy Pelosi owns two
sub-zero freezers. They cost $10,000 apiece.
We know because she showed them off on national television. Those use a lot of energy. Like Barack Obama, she constantly flies
private between her multi-million dollar estates all over the country.
Obviously, she doesn't care about climate change. And neither do her supporters -- otherwise, they'd be trying to destroy the
mansions she owns, not the hair salons that expose her hypocrisy.
For the left, this is really about blaming and ritually humiliating the middle-class for the election of Donald Trump. Joe Biden
knows that the Pennsylvanians who would be financially ruined by his
fracking
ban
are the same Pennsylvanians who flipped the state red in 2016 for the first time in a generation.
That's the whole point. One of the reasons Joe Biden is barely allowed outside is that he has no problem showing his contempt for
the middle-class he supposedly cares so much about.
In 2019, he openly
mocked
coal miners
and suggested they just get programming jobs once they're all fired. Watch:
BIDEN: I come from a family, an area where's coal mining – in Scranton. Anybody, that can go down 300 to 3,000 feet in a mine,
sure as hell can learn how to program as well.
Learn to code! Hilarious. Joe Biden should try it. But there isn't time. The world is ending. Last summer, Sandy Cortez [AOC] did
the math and calculated we only have
12
years left to live
.
If that sounds bad, consider this -- Just four months after that warning, Sandy Cortez tweeted that we only have 10 years to "cut
carbon emissions in half."
Think about the math here. We lost two years in just four months. At that rate, we could literally all die unless Joe Biden wins
in November. Which is of course what they're saying.
On Tuesday, California Gavin Newsom pretty much said it Newsom abandoned science long ago. Science is too stringent, too western,
too patriarchal.
Newsom is a man of faith now. He's decided
climate
change caused all of this
, and that's final. He's not listening to any other arguments. Watch:
NEWSOM: I have no patience. And I say this lovingly, not as an ideologue, but as someone who prides himself on being open to
argument, interested in evidence. But I quite literally have no patience for climate change deniers. It simply follows completely
inconsistent, that point of view, with the reality on the ground.
People like Gavin Newsom don't want to listen to any "climate change deniers." What's a "climate change denier?" Anyone who
thinks our ruling class has no idea how to run their states or protect their citizens.
Are we "climate change deniers" if we point out that California has failed to implement meaningful deforestation measures that
would have dramatically slowed the spread of these wildfires?
In 2018, a state oversight agency in California found that years of poor or nonexistent
forest
management policies
in the Sierra Nevada forests had contributed to wildfires.
One of the few Republicans who still hold elected office in California, state Assemblyman Heath Flora, last year called on
using the state's $22 billion budget surplus to implement vegetation management.
Fires don't spread as well without huge connected forests functioning as kindling. It's obvious, which is why it's
unthinkable to mention it in some Democratic circles."
Presumably, you're also a climate-change denier if you point out that six of the Oregon National Guard's wildfire-fighting
helicopters are currently in Afghanistan.
Instead of dropping water to suppress blazes, the Chinook aircraft are busy supplying a war effort that's been going on for
nearly 20 years. That seems significant. Has anyone asked Gavin Newsom or Jay Inslee about that? Do any of the Democrats who
control these states even care?
The answer, of course, is probably not. It was just last week that Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti admitted on-the-record that
his city has become completely third-world.
Of course, Garcetti didn't blame himself for this turn of events. He blamed you. Quote: "It's almost 3 p.m," Garcetti tweeted.
"Time to turn off major appliances, set the thermostat to 78 degrees (or use a fan instead, turn off excess lights and unplug any
appliances you're not using. We need every Californian to help conserve energy. Please do your part."
"Please do your part." Garcetti wants his constituents to suffer to try to solve a problem that Democrats in his state created.
Even now, as residents in Northern California are facing sweeping power outages in addition to wildfires.
In the meantime, Gavin Newsom has vowed that 50 percent of California's energy grid will be based on quote "renewable" energy
sources within a decade.
That means sources like wind and solar power -- which can't be dialed up to meet periods of extreme demand, like California is
seeing right now during its heatwave.
Newsom was asked last month whether he would consider revising this stance given the blackouts that have left millions of
Californians without power.
Newsom responded, quote, "We are going to radically change the way we produce and consume energy." In other words, The blackouts
will continue until morale improves. So will the wildfires. Get used to it.
Fox News
6.2M subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
In the hands of Democratic politicians, climate change is like systemic racism in the sky: You can't see it, but it's
everywhere and it's deadly.
#FoxNews
#Tucker
This is a direct result of Gavin Newsom eliminating forestation controls. Jerry Brown kept them in place, the only thing he
did correctly. Democrats are to blame for all of this.
When environmentalists pushed through their "leave forests alone, allow nature to be undisturbed" bs, California and other
states stopped clearing underbrush, also known as fire fuel and now we see a perfect example of cause and effect.
Don't get me wrong I am a conservatist , but with common sense , we can't conserve unless we protect and nurture nature to
thrive. In fact extremism in environmentalism destroys as we see. People dead, animals dead, homes destroyed, forest destroyed
because of extremism.
The narrative to leave forests alone happened long before Trump, believing otherwise makes you a useful idiot.
Congratulations.
You could Google this old narrative but will you find it, well it's Google, you have to find the people who heard and lived
the so called natural environmental push narrative, we remember and we remember the warnings. Congratulations, your ignorance
has caused harm.
"... We are witnessing a political game of chess where the only pieces being moved are the pawns, while the king and queen sit safely on a different board. ..."
@
6:29
""There needs to be unrest in the streets as there is unrest in our lives"" When the elite oligarchy ignore peaceful
protests, you get aggressive uprisings. It's human nature and good ol' fashioned patriotism.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God
"... In a world that is increasingly confusing and awash with propaganda, Cohen's death is a
blow to humanity's desperate quest for clarity and understanding. ..."
Stephen F Cohen, the renowned American scholar on Russia and leading authority on US-Russian
relations, has died of lung cancer at the
age of 81.
As one of the precious few western voices of sanity on the subject
of Russia while everyone else has been frantically flushing their brains down the toilet,
this is a real loss. I myself have cited Cohen's expert analysis many times in my own work, and
his perspective has played a formative role in my understanding of what's really going on with
the monolithic cross-partisan manufacturing of consent for increased western aggressions
against Moscow.
In a world that is increasingly confusing and awash with propaganda, Cohen's death is a blow
to humanity's desperate quest for clarity and understanding.
I don't know how long Cohen had cancer. I don't know how long he was aware that he might not
have much time left on this earth. What I do know is he spent much of his energy in his final
years urgently trying to warn the world about the rapidly escalating danger of nuclear war,
which in our strange new reality he saw as in many ways completely unprecedented.
The last of the many books Cohen authored was 2019's
War
with Russia? , detailing his ideas on how the complex multi-front nature of the post-2016
cold
war escalations against Moscow combines with Russiagate and other factors to make it in
some ways more dangerous even than the most dangerous point of the previous cold war.
"You know it's easy to joke about this, except that we're at maybe the most dangerous moment
in US-Russian relations in my lifetime, and maybe ever," Cohen told The Young Turks in 2017. "And the reason is that we're
in a new cold war, by whatever name. We have three cold war fronts that are fraught with the
possibility of hot war, in the Baltic region where NATO is carrying out an unprecedented
military buildup on Russia's border, in Ukraine where there is a civil and proxy war between
Russia and the west, and of course in Syria, where Russian aircraft and American warplanes are
flying in the same territory. Anything could happen."
Cohen repeatedly points to the most likely cause of a future nuclear war: not one that is
planned but one which erupts in tense, complex situations where "anything could happen" in the
chaos and confusion as a result of misfire, miscommunication or technical malfunction, as
nearly
happened many times during the last cold war.
"I think this is the most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations, at least since the
Cuban missile crisis," Cohen told Democracy
Now in 2017. "And arguably, it's more dangerous, because it's more complex. Therefore, we
-- and then, meanwhile, we have in Washington these -- and, in my judgment, factless
accusations that Trump has somehow been compromised by the Kremlin. So, at this worst moment in
American-Russian relations, we have an American president who's being politically crippled by
the worst imaginable -- it's unprecedented. Let's stop and think. No American president has
ever been accused, essentially, of treason. This is what we're talking about here, or that his
associates have committed treason."
"Imagine, for example, John Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis," Cohen added. "Imagine
if Kennedy had been accused of being a secret Soviet Kremlin agent. He would have been
crippled. And the only way he could have proved he wasn't was to have launched a war against
the Soviet Union. And at that time, the option was nuclear war."
"A recurring theme of my recently published book War with Russia? is that the new Cold War
is more dangerous, more fraught with hot war, than the one we survived," Cohen wrote
last year . "Histories of the 40-year US-Soviet Cold War tell us that both sides came to
understand their mutual responsibility for the conflict, a recognition that created political
space for the constant peace-keeping negotiations, including nuclear arms control agreements,
often known as détente. But as I also chronicle in the book, today's American Cold
Warriors blame only Russia, specifically 'Putin's Russia,' leaving no room or incentive for
rethinking any US policy toward post-Soviet Russia since 1991."
"Finally, there continues to be no effective, organized American opposition to the new Cold
War," Cohen added. "This too is a major theme of my book and another reason why this Cold War
is more dangerous than was its predecessor. In the 1970s and 1980s, advocates of détente
were well-organized, well-funded, and well-represented, from grassroots politics and
universities to think tanks, mainstream media, Congress, the State Department, and even the
White House. Today there is no such opposition anywhere."
"A major factor is, of course, 'Russiagate'," Cohen continued. "As evidenced in the sources
I cite above, much of the extreme American Cold War advocacy we witness today is a mindless
response to President Trump's pledge to find ways to 'cooperate with Russia' and to the
still-unproven allegations generated by it. Certainly, the Democratic Party is not an
opposition party in regard to the new Cold War."
"Détente with Russia has always been a fiercely opposed, crisis-ridden policy
pursuit, but one manifestly in the interests of the United States and the world," Cohen
wrote in another
essay last year. "No American president can achieve it without substantial bipartisan
support at home, which Trump manifestly lacks. What kind of catastrophe will it take -- in
Ukraine, the Baltic region, Syria, or somewhere on Russia's electric grid -- to shock US
Democrats and others out of what has been called, not unreasonably, their Trump Derangement
Syndrome, particularly in the realm of American national security? Meanwhile, the Bulletin of
Atomic Scientists has recently reset its Doomsday Clock to two minutes before
midnight."
And now Stephen Cohen is dead, and that clock is inching ever closer to midnight. The
Russiagate psyop that he predicted would pressure Trump to advance dangerous cold war
escalations with no opposition from the supposed opposition party
has indeed done exactly that with nary a peep of criticism from either partisan faction of
the political/media class. Cohen has for years been correctly
predicting this chilling scenario which now threatens the life of every organism on earth,
even while his own life was nearing its end.
And now the complex cold war escalations he kept urgently warning us about have become even
more complex with the
addition of nuclear-armed China to the multiple fronts the US-centralized empire has been
plate-spinning its brinkmanship upon, and it is clear from the ramping
up of anti-China propaganda since last year that we are being prepped for those aggressions
to continue to increase.
We should heed the dire warnings that Cohen spent his last breaths issuing. We should demand
a walk-back of these insane imperialist aggressions which benefit nobody and call for
détente with Russia and China. We should begin creating an opposition to this
world-threatening flirtation with armageddon before it is too late. Every life on this planet
may well depend on our doing so.
Stephen Cohen is dead, and we are marching toward the death of everything. God help us
all.
People are just now starting to realize that possible alternate path. But the Demoncrats
in the USA must first be put down, politically euthanized, along with their neocon
never-Trump Republican partners. And that cleaning up is on the way. Trump's second term will
be the advancement of the USA-Russia initiative that is so long overdue.
PerilouseTimes , 48 minutes ago
Putin won't let western billionaires rape Russia's enormous natural resources and on top
of that Putin is against child molesters, that is what this Russia bashing is all about.
awesomepic4u , 1 hour ago
Sad to hear this.
What a good man. It is a real shame that we dont have others to stand up to this crazy pr
that is going on right now. Making peace with the world at this point is important. We dont need or
want another war and i am sure that both Europe and Russia dont want it on their turf but it
seems we keep sticking our finger in their eye. If there is another war it will be the last
war. As Einstein said, after the 3rd World War we will be using sticks and stones to fight
it.
Clint Liquor , 44 minutes ago
Cohen truly was an island of reason in a sea of insanity. Ironic that those panicked over
climate change are unconcerned about the increasing threat of Nuclear War.
thunderchief , 41 minutes ago
One of the very few level headed people on Russia.
All thats left are anti Russia-phobic nut jobs.
Send in the clowns.
Stephen Cohen isn't around to call them what they are anymore.
Eastern Whale , 55 minutes ago
cooperate with Russia
Has the US ever cooperated with anyone?
fucking truth , 3 minutes ago
That is the crux. All or nothing.
Mustafa Kemal , 49 minutes ago
Ive read several of his books. They are essential, imo, if you want to understand modern
russian history.
Normal , 1 hour ago
The bankers created the new CCP cold war.
evoila , 19 minutes ago
Max Boot is an effing idiot. Tucker wiped him clean too. It was an insult to Stephen to
even put them on the same panel.
RIP Stephen.
Gary Sick is the equivalent to Stephen, except for Iran. He too is of an era of competence
which is and will be missed as their voices are drowned out by neocon warmongers
thebigunit , 17 minutes ago
I heard Stephen Cohen a number of time in John Bachelor's podcasts.
He seemed very lucid and made a lot of sense.
He made it very clear that he thought the Democrat's "Trump - Russia collusion schtick"
was a bunch of crap.
He didn't sound like a leftie, but I'm sure he never told me the stuff he discussed with
his wife who was editor of the left wing "The Nation" magazine.
Boogity , 9 minutes ago
Cohen was a traditional old school anti-war Liberal. They're essentially extinct now with
the exception of a few such as Tulsi Gabbard and Dennis Kucinich who have both been
ostracized from the Democrat Party and the political system.
So, it appears the War on Populism is building
toward an exciting climax. All the proper pieces are in place for a Class-A GloboCap color
revolution , and maybe even civil war. You got your unauthorized Putin-Nazi president, your
imaginary apocalyptic pandemic, your violent identitarian civil unrest, your heavily-armed
politically-polarized populace, your ominous rumblings from military quarters you couldn't
really ask for much more.
OK, the plot is pretty obvious by now (as it is in all big-budget action spectacles, which
is essentially what color revolutions are), but that won't spoil our viewing experience. The
fun isn't in guessing what is going to happen. Everybody knows what's going to happen. The fun
is in watching Bruce, or Sigourney, or "the moderate rebels," or the GloboCap "Resistance,"
take down the monster, or the terrorists, or Hitler, and save the world, or democracy, or
whatever.
Trump represent new "national neoliberalism" platform and the large part of the US neoliberal elite (Clinton gang and large part
of republicans) support the return to "classic neoliberalism" at all costs.
Highly recommended!
The essence of color revolution is the combination of engineered contested election and mass organized protest and civil disobedience
via creation in neoliberal fifth column out of "professionals", especially students as well as mobilizing and put on payroll some useful
disgruntled groups which can be used as a foot soldiers, such as football hooligans. Large and systematic injection of dollars into
protest movement. All with the air cover via domination in a part or all nation's MSM.
He served as US ambassador in Chich Republic from 2011 to 2014. Based on his experience wrote that book
Democracy's Defenders published by The Brookings Institution, a neoliberal think tank, about the role of US embassy in neoliberal
revolution in Czechoslovakia (aka Velvet Revolution of 1989) which led to the dissolution of the country into two. BTW demonstrations
against police brutality were an essential part of the Velvet Revolution
Notable quotes:
"... Same tactics - color revolutions they (Soros, Nuland/Kagan, Eisen, McCain when alive) used to overthrow Orthodox countries in Eastern Europe. Belarus the latest. Ukraine (Orange, Maidan) 2014. Georgia (Rose rev). Serbia, Montenegro. Use young people who have bad sense of history and are more sympathetic to the "West." ..."
This is, without ANY question, one of Tucker's most important segments that he has ever done. IT IS EXTREMELY-RARE THAT
"""they""" ARE EXPOSED, BY-NAME, SO OPENLY AND DIRECTLY, BUT, IT HAPPENED, TONIGHT.
Please bring back Dr. Darren Beattie back. More info. on the color revolutions, Mr. Eisen, crew, and their relationship
to mail in voting fraud and their impact on the 2020 election is needed. If Mr. Eisens methods are to be used in the 2020 election
mass awareness is needed.
This is not about Trump. The endgame of the deep state is to enslave people through social division. The election is a wrestling
match for entertainment.
Sheesh, he looks scared. I hope he's being well protected now. Darren is a very brave man who is trying to tell the citizens
of the US that there is malice aforethought towards the President and this election. It is now not a choice between Republicans
or Democrats, it is a fight between good and evil. I'm sure Trump and his team are aware of the playbook and will do everything
they can to sort this, with God's help. It may get hairy, but trust the plan.
I have a feeling dems will "rig for red" to frame republicans for voter fraud, overlooking the overwhelming amount of voter
fraud in favor of Biden Harris. Causing outrage and calls to remove the President from office and saying Biden actually won.
When he really did not. Be prepared. Stay strong.
Same tactics - color revolutions they (Soros, Nuland/Kagan, Eisen, McCain when alive) used to overthrow Orthodox countries
in Eastern Europe. Belarus the latest. Ukraine (Orange, Maidan) 2014. Georgia (Rose rev). Serbia, Montenegro. Use young people
who have bad sense of history and are more sympathetic to the "West."
american people still don't know and can't understand what's happening and what their government is doing, even right now
it's happening in Belarus, it happened in Ukraine, Venezuela, Hong Kong and etc. and now it's happening in your own country,
wake up people and don't forget who's behind all this - a NGO founded by CIA called NED (National endowment for democracy),
Soros and his NGOs and the deep state.
"... Russian military leaders view the "colour revolutions" as a "new US and European approach to warfare that focuses on creating destabilizing revolutions in other states as a means of serving their security interests at low cost and with minimal casualties. ..."
"... the activities of radical public associations and groups using nationalist and religious extremist ideology, foreign and international nongovernmental organizations, and financial and economic structures, and also individuals, focused on destroying the unity and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, destabilizing the domestic political and social situation -- including through inciting "color revolutions" -- and destroying traditional Russian religious and moral values ..."
Worldwide media use the term Colour Revolution (sometimes Coloured Revolution
) to describe various
related movements that developed in several countries of the former Soviet Union , in the People's Republic of
China and in the Balkans during the early-21st century. The term has
also been applied to a number of revolutions elsewhere, including in the Middle East and in the
Asia-Pacific region,
dating from the 1980s to the 2010s. Some observers (such as Justin Raimondo and Michael Lind ) have called the events a
revolutionary
wave , the origins of which can be traced back to the 1986 People Power Revolution (also known
as the "Yellow Revolution") in the Philippines .
Participants in colour revolutions have mostly used nonviolent resistance , also called
civil resistance .
Such methods as demonstrations, strikes and interventions have aimed to
protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian and to advocate democracy , and they have built up
strong pressure for change.
Colour-revolution movements generally became associated with a specific colour or flower as
their symbol. The colour revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and particularly student activists in organising creative
non-violent resistance .
Such movements have had a measure of success as for example in the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia 's Bulldozer
Revolution (2000), in Georgia 's Rose Revolution (2003) and in Ukraine 's Orange Revolution (2004). In most but not
all cases, massive street-protests followed disputed elections or requests for fair elections
and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders regarded by their opponents as authoritarian . Some events have been called "colour revolutions", but differ from the
above cases in certain basic characteristics. Examples include Lebanon's Cedar Revolution (2005) and
Kuwait 's Blue Revolution
(2005).
Russia and China share nearly identical views that colour revolutions are the product of
machinations by the United States and other Western powers and pose a vital threat to their
public and national security.
The 1986 People Power Revolution (also
called the " EDSA " or the "Yellow"
Revolution) in the Philippines was the first successful non-violent uprising in the
contemporary period. It was the culmination of peaceful demonstrations against the
rule of
then-President Ferdinand Marcos – all of which
increased after the 1983 assassination of
opposition Senator Benigno S. Aquino,
Jr. A contested snap election on 7 February 1986 and a
call by the powerful Filipino Catholic
Church sparked mass protests across Metro Manila from 22–25 February.
The Revolution's iconic L-shaped Laban sign comes from the Filipino term for
People Power, " Lakás ng Bayan ", whose acronym is " LABAN " ("fight").
The yellow-clad protesters, later joined by the Armed Forces , ousted
Marcos and installed Aquino's widow Corazón as the country's eleventh
President, ushering in the present Fifth
Republic .
Long-standing secessionist sentiment in Bougainville eventually led to conflict with
Papua New Guinea. The inhabitants of Bougainville Island formed the Bougainville
Revolutionary Army and fought against government troops. On 20 April 1998, Papua New
Guinea ended the civil war. In 2005, Papua New Guinea gave autonomy to Bougainville.
in 1989, a peaceful demonstration by students (mostly from Charles University ) was attacked by
the police – and in time contributed to the collapse of the communist government in
Czechoslovakia.
The 'Bulldozer Revolution' in 2000, which led to the overthrow of
Slobodan Milošević . These demonstrations are usually considered to be the
first example of the peaceful revolutions which followed. However, the Serbians adopted an
approach that had already been used in parliamentary elections in Bulgaria (1997) ,
Slovakia (1998) and
Croatia (2000) ,
characterised by civic mobilisation through get-out-the-vote campaigns and unification of
the political opposition. The nationwide protesters did not adopt a colour or a specific
symbol; however, the slogan " Gotov je " (Serbian Cyrillic:
Готов је , English: He is finished
) did become an aftermath symbol celebrating the completion of the task. Despite the
commonalities, many others refer to Georgia as the most definite beginning of the series of
"colour revolutions". The demonstrations were supported by the youth movement Otpor! , some of whose members
were involved in the later revolutions in other countries.
Following the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the
Adjara
crisis (sometimes called "Second Rose Revolution" or Mini-Rose
Revolution ) led to the
exit of Chairman of the Government Aslan Abashidze from office.
Purple
Revolution was a name first used by some hopeful commentators and later picked up by
United States President George W. Bush to describe the coming of
democracy to Iraq following the 2005 Iraqi
legislative election and was intentionally used to draw the parallel with the Orange
and Rose revolutions. However, the name "purple revolution" has not achieved widespread use
in Iraq, the United States or elsewhere. The name comes from the colour that voters' index
fingers were stained to prevent fraudulent multiple voting. The term first appeared shortly
after the January 2005 election in various weblogs and editorials of individuals supportive
of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The term
received its widest usage during a visit by U.S. President George W. Bush on 24 February 2005 to
Bratislava , Slovak
Republic, for a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin . Bush stated: "In recent
times, we have witnessed landmark events in the history of liberty: A Rose Revolution in
Georgia, an Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and now, a Purple Revolution in Iraq."
The Tulip
Revolution in Kyrgyzstan (also sometimes called the "Pink Revolution") was more violent
than its predecessors and followed the disputed 2005 Kyrgyz
parliamentary election . At the same time, it was more fragmented than previous
"colour" revolutions. The protesters in different areas adopted the colours pink and yellow
for their protests. This revolution was supported by youth resistance movement KelKel .
The Cedar
Revolution in Lebanon between February and April 2005 followed not a disputed election,
but rather the assassination of opposition leader Rafik Hariri in 2005. Also, instead of the
annulment of an election, the people demanded an end to the Syrian occupation of
Lebanon . Nonetheless, some of its elements and some of the methods used in the
protests have been similar enough that it is often considered and treated by the press and
commentators as one of the series of "colour revolutions". The Cedar of Lebanon is the symbol of the
country, and the revolution was named after it. The peaceful demonstrators used the colours
white and red, which are found in the Lebanese flag. The protests led to the pullout of
Syrian troops
in April 2005, ending their nearly 30-year presence there, although Syria retains some
influence in Lebanon.
Blue Revolution was a term used by some Kuwaitis to refer to
demonstrations in Kuwait in support of women's suffrage
beginning in March 2005; it was named after the colour of the signs the protesters used. In
May of that year the Kuwaiti government acceded to their demands, granting women the right
to vote beginning in the 2007 parliamentary elections. Since there was
no call for regime change, the so-called "blue revolution" cannot be categorised as a true
colour revolution.
In Belarus, there have been a number of protests against President Alexander Lukashenko , with
participation from student group Zubr . One round of
protests culminated on 25 March 2005; it was a self-declared attempt to emulate the
Kyrgyzstan revolution, and involved over a thousand citizens. However, police severely
suppressed it, arresting over 30 people and imprisoning opposition leader Mikhail Marinich .
A second, much larger, round of protests began almost a year later, on 19 March 2006,
soon after the presidential
election . Official results had Lukashenko winning with 83% of the vote; protesters
claimed the results were achieved through fraud and voter intimidation, a charge echoed
by many foreign governments.
Protesters camped out in October Square in Minsk over the next week, calling variously for
the resignation of Lukashenko, the installation of rival candidate Alaksandar
Milinkievič , and new, fair elections.
The opposition originally used as a symbol the white-red-white former flag of Belarus ; the
movement has had significant connections with that in neighbouring Ukraine, and during
the Orange Revolution some white-red-white flags were seen being waved in Kiev. During
the 2006 protests some called it the " Jeans Revolution " or "Denim
Revolution",
blue jeans being considered a symbol for freedom. Some protesters cut up jeans into
ribbons and hung them in public places. It is
claimed that Zubr was responsible for coining the phrase.
Lukashenko has said in the past: "In our country, there will be no pink or orange, or
even banana revolution." More recently he's said "They [the West] think that Belarus is
ready for some 'orange' or, what is a rather frightening option, 'blue' or ' cornflower blue '
revolution. Such 'blue' revolutions are the last thing we need". On
19 April 2005, he further commented: "All these coloured revolutions are pure and simple
banditry."
In Myanmar (unofficially called Burma), a series of anti-government protests were
referred to in the press as the Saffron Revolution
after Buddhist monks ( Theravada Buddhist monks normally
wear the colour saffron) took the vanguard of the protests. A previous, student-led
revolution, the 8888
Uprising on 8 August 1988, had similarities to the colour revolutions, but was
violently repressed.
The opposition is reported to have hoped for and urged some kind of Orange revolution,
similar to that in Ukraine, in the follow-up of the 2005 Moldovan
parliamentary elections , while the Christian
Democratic People's Party adopted orange for its colour in a clear reference to the
events of Ukraine.
A name hypothesised for such an event was "Grape Revolution" because of the abundance
of vineyards in the country; however, such a revolution failed to materialise after the
governmental victory in the elections. Many reasons have been given for this, including a
fractured opposition and the fact that the government had already co-opted many of the
political positions that might have united the opposition (such as a perceived
pro-European and anti-Russian stance). Also the elections themselves were declared fairer
in the OSCE election monitoring reports than had been the case in other countries where
similar revolutions occurred, even though the CIS monitoring mission strongly condemned
them.
Green Movement is a term widely used to describe the 2009–2010
Iranian election protests . The protests began in 2009, several years after the main
wave of colour revolutions, although like them it began due to a disputed election, the
2009 Iranian
presidential election . Protesters adopted the colour green as their symbol because it
had been the campaign colour of presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi , whom many
protesters thought had won the elections .
However Mousavi and his wife went under house arrest without any trial issued by a
court.
The Kyrgyz Revolution of 2010 in
Kyrgyzstan (also sometimes called the "Melon Revolution") led to the
exit of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev from office. The
total number of deaths should be 2,000.
Jasmine Revolution was a widely used term for the
Tunisian
Revolution . The Jasmine Revolution led to the exit of President Ben Ali from office and
the beginning of the Arab Spring .
Lotus Revolution was a term used by various western news sources to describe the
Egyptian Revolution of 2011
that forced President Mubarak to step down in 2011 as part of the Arab Spring , which followed the Jasmine
Revolution of Tunisia. Lotus is known as the flower representing resurrection, life and the
sun of ancient Egypt. It is uncertain who gave the name, while columnist of Arabic press,
Asharq Alawsat, and prominent Egyptian opposition leader Saad Eddin Ibrahim claimed to name
it the Lotus Revolution. Lotus Revolution later became common on western news source such
as CNN. Other names,
such as White Revolution and Nile Revolution, are used but are minor terms compare to Lotus
Revolution. The term Lotus Revolution is rarely, if ever, used in the Arab world.
In February 2011, Bahrain was also affected by protests in Tunisia and Egypt. Bahrain
has long been famous for its pearls and Bahrain's speciality. And there was the Pearl
Square in Manama, where the demonstrations began. The people of Bahrain were also
protesting around the square. At first, the government of Bahrain promised to reform the
people. But when their promises were not followed, the people resisted again. And in the
process, bloodshed took place (18 March 2011). After that, a small demonstration is taking
place in Bahrain.
An anti-government protest started in Yemen in 2011. The Yemeni people sought to resign
Ali Abdullah Saleh as the ruler. On 24 November, Ali Abdullah Saleh decided to transfer the
regime. In 2012, Ali Abdullah Saleh finally fled to the United States(27 February).
A call which first appeared on 17 February 2011 on the Chinese language site Boxun.com in the United States
for a "Jasmine revolution" in the People's Republic of China and repeated on social
networking sites in China resulted in blocking of internet searches for "jasmine" and a
heavy police presence at designated sites for protest such as the McDonald's in central
Beijing, one of the 13 designated protest sites, on 20 February 2011. A crowd did gather
there, but their motivations were ambiguous as a crowd tends to draw a crowd in that area.
Boxun experienced a denial of service attack
during this period and was inaccessible.
Protests started on 4 December 2011 in the capital, Moscow against the results of the parliamentary
elections, which led to the arrests of over 500 people. On 10 December, protests erupted in
tens of cities across the country; a few months later, they spread to hundreds both inside
the country and abroad. The name of the Snow Revolution derives from December - the month
when the revolution had started - and from the white ribbons the protesters wore.
Many analysts and participants of the protests against President of Macedonia Gjorge
Ivanov and the Macedonian
government refer to them as a "colourful Revolution", due to the demonstrators throwing
paint balls of different colours at government buildings in Skopje , the capital.
In 2018, a peaceful revolution was led by
member of parliament Nikol Pashinyan in opposition to the
nomination of Serzh
Sargsyan as Prime Minister of Armenia ,
who had previously served as both President of Armenia and prime
minister, eliminating term limits which would have otherwise
prevented his 2018 nomination. Concerned that Sargsyan's third consecutive term as the most
powerful politician in the government of Armenia gave him too much political influence,
protests occurred throughout the country, particularly in Yerevan , but demonstrations in solidarity with
the protesters also occurred in other countries where Armenian diaspora live.
During the
protests, Pashinyan was arrested and detained on 22 April, but he was released the
following day. Sargsyan stepped down from the position of Prime Minister, and his
Republican Party decided to
not put forward a candidate. An interim
Prime Minister was selected from Sargsyan's party until elections were held, and protests
continued for over one month. Crowd sizes in Yerevan consisted of 115,000 to 250,000 people
at a time throughout the revolution, and hundreds of protesters were arrested. Pashinyan
referred to the event as a Velvet Revolution. A vote was
held in parliament, and Pashinyan became the Prime Minister of Armenia.
Many have cited the influence of the series of revolutions which
occurred in Central and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, particularly the
Velvet Revolution
in Czechoslovakia in 1989. A
peaceful demonstration by students (mostly from Charles University ) was attacked by the
police – and in time contributed to the collapse of the communist government in
Czechoslovakia. Yet the roots of the pacifist floral imagery may go even further back to the
non-violent Carnation Revolution of Portugal in
April 1974, which is associated with the colour carnation because carnations were worn, and the 1986 Yellow Revolution in
the Philippines where demonstrators offered peace flowers to military personnel manning
armoured tanks.
Student movements
The first of these was Otpor! ("Resistance!") in the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, which was founded at Belgrade University in October 1998 and
began protesting against Miloševic' during the Kosovo War . Most of them were already veterans
of anti-Milošević demonstrations such as the 1996–97 protests
and the 9 March
1991 protest . Many of its members were arrested or beaten by the police. Despite this,
during the presidential campaign in September 2000, Otpor launched its " Gotov je " (He's finished) campaign that
galvanised Serbian discontent with Miloševic' and resulted in his defeat.
Members of Otpor have inspired and trained members of related student movements including
Kmara in Georgia, Pora in
Ukraine, Zubr in Belarus and
MJAFT! in Albania. These
groups have been explicit and scrupulous in their practice of non-violent resistance as advocated
and explained in Gene
Sharp 's writings. The massive
protests that they have organised, which were essential to the successes in the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, Georgia and Ukraine, have been notable for their colourfulness and use
of ridiculing humor in opposing authoritarian leaders.
Critical analysis
The analysis of international geopolitics scholars Paul J. Bolt and Sharyl N. Cross is that
"Moscow and Beijing share almost indistinguishable views on the potential domestic and
international security threats posed by colored revolutions, and both nations view these
revolutionary movements as being orchestrated by the United States and its Western democratic
partners to advance geopolitical ambitions."
Russian
assessment
According to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for
Strategic and International Studies , Russian military leaders view the "colour revolutions" as a "new US and
European approach to warfare that focuses on creating destabilizing revolutions in other states
as a means of serving their security interests at low cost and with minimal casualties."
Government figures in Russia , such as Defence Minister
Sergei Shoigu (in
office from 2012) and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (in office from 2004), have
characterised colour revolutions as externally-fuelled acts with a clear goal to influence the
internal affairs that destabilise the economy, conflict with the law and represent a new form of warfare. Russian President
Vladimir Putin has
stated that Russia must prevent colour revolutions: "We see what tragic consequences the wave
of so-called colour revolutions led to. For us this is a lesson and a warning. We should do
everything necessary so that nothing similar ever happens in Russia".
The 2015 presidential decree The Russian Federation's National Security Strategy (
О Стратегии
Национальной
Безопасности
Российской
Федерации ) cites "foreign sponsored
regime change" among "main threats to public and national security," including
the activities of radical public associations and groups using nationalist and religious
extremist ideology, foreign and international nongovernmental organizations, and financial
and economic structures, and also individuals, focused on destroying the unity and
territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, destabilizing the domestic political and
social situation -- including through inciting "color revolutions" -- and destroying
traditional Russian religious and moral values
Chinese view
Articles published by the Global Times , a state-run nationalist tabloid, indicate that Chinese
leaders also anticipate the Western powers, such as the United States, using "color revolutions" as a means to undermine the one-party state. An article published on 8 May 2016 claims: "A
variation of containment seeks to press China on human rights and democracy with the hope of
creating a 'color revolution.'" A 13 August 2019
article declared that the 2019 Hong Kong extradition
bill protests were a colour revolution that "aim[ed] to ruin HK 's future."
The 2015 policy white paper "China's Military Strategy" by the State Council
Information Office said that "anti-China forces have never given up their attempt to
instigate a 'color revolution' in this country."
Azerbaijan
A number of movements were created in Azerbaijan in mid-2005, inspired by the examples
of both Georgia and Ukraine. A youth group, calling itself Yox! (which means No!), declared its opposition to
governmental corruption. The leader of Yox! said that unlike Pora or Kmara , he wants to change not just the leadership,
but the entire system of governance in Azerbaijan. The Yox movement chose green as its colour.
The spearhead of Azerbaijan's attempted colour revolution was Yeni Fikir ("New Idea"), a
youth group closely aligned with the Azadlig (Freedom) Bloc of opposition political parties.
Along with groups such as Magam ("It's Time") and Dalga ("Wave"), Yeni Fikir deliberately
adopted many of the tactics of the Georgian and Ukrainian colour revolution groups, even
borrowing the colour orange from the Ukrainian revolution.
In November 2005 protesters took to the streets, waving orange flags and banners, to protest
what they considered government fraud in recent parliamentary elections. The Azerbaijani colour revolution finally fizzled out with the police riot on 26
November, during which dozens of protesters were injured and perhaps hundreds teargassed and
sprayed with water cannons.
On 5 February 2013, protests began in Shahbag and later spread to other parts of
Bangladesh following
demands for capital punishment for Abdul Quader Mollah , who had been
sentenced to life imprisonment, and for others convicted of war crimes by the International
Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh . On that
day, the International Crimes
Tribunal had sentenced Mollah to life in prison after he was convicted on five of six
counts of war crimes . Later
demands included banning the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami party
from politics including election and a boycott of institutions supporting (or affiliated with)
the party.
Protesters considered Mollah's sentence too lenient, given his crimes. Bloggers and online activists called for additional protests at Shahbag.
Tens of thousands of people joined the demonstration, which gave rise to protests across the
country.
The movement demanding trial of war criminals is a protest movement in Bangladesh, from 1972
to present.
Belarus
In Belarus , there have
been a number of protests against President Alexander Lukashenko , with
participation from student group Zubr . One round of protests
culminated on 25 March 2005; it was a self-declared attempt to emulate the Kyrgyzstan
revolution, and involved over a thousand citizens. However, police severely suppressed it,
arresting over 30 people and imprisoning opposition leader Mikhail Marinich .
A second, much larger, round of protests began almost a year later, on 19 March 2006, soon
after the presidential election
. Official results had Lukashenko winning with 83% of the vote; protesters claimed the results
were achieved through fraud and voter intimidation, a charge echoed by many foreign
governments.
Protesters camped out in October Square in Minsk over the next week, calling variously for the
resignation of Lukashenko, the installation of rival candidate Alaksandar Milinkievič ,
and new, fair elections.
The opposition originally used as a symbol the white-red-white former flag of Belarus ; the movement has had
significant connections with that in neighbouring Ukraine, and during the Orange Revolution
some white-red-white flags were seen being waved in Kiev. During the 2006 protests some called
it the " Jeans
Revolution " or "Denim Revolution", blue
jeans being considered a symbol for freedom. Some protesters cut up jeans into ribbons and hung
them in public places. It is
claimed that Zubr was responsible for coining the phrase.
Lukashenko has said in the past: "In our country, there will be no pink or orange, or even
banana revolution." More recently he's said "They [the West] think that Belarus is ready for
some 'orange' or, what is a rather frightening option, 'blue' or ' cornflower blue ' revolution. Such 'blue'
revolutions are the last thing we need". On 19
April 2005, he further commented: "All these colored revolutions are pure and simple
banditry."
In Burma (officially called Myanmar), a series of anti-government protests were referred to
in the press as the Saffron Revolution after
Buddhist monks ( Theravada Buddhist monks normally wear
the colour saffron) took the vanguard of the protests. A previous, student-led revolution, the
8888 Uprising on 8
August 1988, had similarities to the colour revolutions, but was violently
repressed.
A call which first appeared on 17 February 2011 on the Chinese language site Boxun.com in the United States for
a "Jasmine revolution" in the People's Republic of China and repeated on social networking
sites in China resulted in blocking of internet searches for "jasmine" and a heavy police
presence at designated sites for protest such as the McDonald's in central Beijing, one of the 13
designated protest sites, on 20 February 2011. A crowd did gather there, but their motivations
were ambiguous as a crowd tends to draw a crowd in that area.
Boxun experienced a denial of service attack during
this period and was inaccessible.
In the 2000s, Fiji suffered numerous coups. But at the same time, many Fiji citizens
resisted the military. In Fiji, there have been many human rights abuses by the military.
Anti-government protesters in Fiji have fled to Australia and New Zealand. In 2011, Fijians
conducted anti Fijian government protests in Australia. On 17 September
2014, the first democratic general election was held in Fiji.
In 2015, Otto
Pérez Molina , President of Guatemala, was suspected of corruption. In Guatemala City,
a large number of protests rallied. Demonstrations took place from April to September 2015.
Otto Pérez
Molina was eventually arrested on 3 September. The people of Guatemala called this event
"Guatemalan Spring".
Moldova
The opposition is reported to have hoped for and urged some kind of Orange revolution,
similar to that in Ukraine, in the follow-up of the 2005 Moldovan
parliamentary elections , while the Christian
Democratic People's Party adopted orange for its colour in a clear reference to the events
of Ukraine.
A name hypothesised for such an event was "Grape Revolution" because of the abundance of
vineyards in the country; however, such a revolution failed to materialise after the
governmental victory in the elections. Many reasons have been given for this, including a
fractured opposition and the fact that the government had already co-opted many of the
political positions that might have united the opposition (such as a perceived pro-European and
anti-Russian stance). Also the elections themselves were declared fairer in the OSCE election
monitoring reports than had been the case in other countries where similar revolutions
occurred, even though the CIS monitoring mission strongly condemned them.
On 25 March 2005, activists wearing yellow scarves held protests in the capital city of
Ulaanbaatar , disputing
the results of the 2004 Mongolian
parliamentary elections and calling for fresh elections. One of the chants heard in that
protest was "Let's congratulate our Kyrgyz brothers for their revolutionary spirit. Let's free
Mongolia of corruption."
An uprising commenced in Ulaanbaatar on 1 July 2008, with a peaceful meeting in protest of
the election of 29 June. The results of these elections were (it was claimed by opposition
political parties) corrupted by the Mongolian People's Party (MPRP).
Approximately 30,000 people took part in the meeting. Afterwards, some of the protesters left
the central square and moved to the HQ of the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party –
which they attacked and then burned down. A police station was also attacked. By the night
rioters vandalised and then set fire to the Cultural Palace (which contained a theatre, museum
and National art gallery). Cars torching, bank
robberies and looting were reported. The
organisations in the burning buildings were vandalised and looted. Police used tear gas, rubber
bullets and water cannon against stone-throwing protesters. A 4-day
state of emergency was installed, the capital has been placed under a 2200 to 0800 curfew, and
alcohol sales banned, rioting not
resumed. 5 people
were shot dead by the police ,
dozens of teenagers were wounded from the police firearms and disabled and
800 people, including the leaders of the civil movements J. Batzandan, O. Magnai and B.
Jargalsakhan, were arrested. International
observers said 1 July general election was free and fair.
In 2007, the Lawyers' Movement started in Pakistan with the aim of restoration
of deposed judges. However, within a month the movement took a turn and started working towards
the goal of removing Pervez Musharraf from power.
The liberal opposition in Russia is represented by several parties and
movements.
An active part of the opposition is the Oborona youth movement. Oborona
claims that its aim is to provide free and honest elections and to establish in Russia a system
with democratic political competition. This movement under the leadership of Oleg
Kozlovsky was one of the most active and radical ones and is represented in a number of
Russian cities. During the elections of 8 September 2013, the movement contributed to the
success of Navalny in Moscow and other opposition candidates in various regions and towns
throughout Russia. The "oboronkis" also took part with other oppositional groups in protests
against fraud in the Moscow mayoral elections.
Since the 2012 protests, Aleksei Navalny mobilised with support of
the various and fractured opposition parties and masses of young people against the alleged
repression and fraud of the Kremlin apparatus. After a strong
campaign for the 8 September elections in Moscow and the regions, the opposition won remarkable
successes. Navalny reached a second place in Moscow with surprising 27% behind Kremlin-backed
Sergei Sobyanin
finishing with 51% of the votes. In other regions, opposition candidates received remarkable
successes. In the big industrial town of Yekaterinburg, opposition candidate Yevgeny Roizman received the majority
of votes and became the mayor of that town. The slow but gradual sequence of opposition
successes reached by mass protests, election campaigns and other peaceful strategies has been
recently called by observers and analysts as of Radio Free Europe "Tortoise Revolution"
in contrast to the radical "rose" or "orange" ones the Kremlin tried to prevent.
The opposition in the Republic of Bashkortostan has held protests demanding
that the federal authorities intervene to dismiss Murtaza Rakhimov from his position as
president of the republic, accusing him of leading an "arbitrary, corrupt, and violent" regime.
Airat
Dilmukhametov , one of the opposition leaders, and leader of the
Bashkir National Front , has said that the opposition movement has been inspired from the
mass protests of Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. Another
opposition leader, Marat
Khaiyirulin , has said that if an Orange Revolution were to happen in Russia, it would
begin in Bashkortostan.
From 2016 to 2017, the candlelight protest was going on in South Korea with the aim to force the ousting
of President Park
Geun-hye . Park was impeached and removed from office, and new presidential
elections were held.
In Uzbekistan , there
has been longstanding opposition to President Islam Karimov , from liberals and Islamists.
Following protests in 2005, security forces in Uzbekistan carried out the Andijan massacre that successfully
halted country-wide demonstrations. These protests otherwise could have turned into colour
revolution, according to many analysts.
The revolution in neighbouring Kyrgyzstan began in the largely ethnic Uzbek south, and
received early support in the city of Osh . Nigora
Hidoyatova , leader of the Free
Peasants opposition party, has referred to the idea of a peasant revolt or 'Cotton
Revolution'. She also said that her party is collaborating with the youth organisation
Shiddat , and that she
hopes it can evolve to an organisation similar to Kmara or Pora. Other nascent
youth organisations in and for Uzbekistan include Bolga
and the freeuzbek
group.
When groups of young people protested the closure of Venezuela's RCTV television station in June 2007, president
Hugo Chávez
said that he believed the protests were organised by the West in an attempt to promote a "soft
coup" like the revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia. Similarly,
Chinese authorities claimed repeatedly in the state-run media that both the 2014 Hong Kong protests
– known as the Umbrella Revolution – as well as
the 2019–20 Hong Kong
protests , were organised and controlled by the United States.
In July 2007, Iranian state television released footage of two Iranian-American prisoners,
both of whom work for western NGOs, as part of a documentary called "In the Name of Democracy."
The documentary purportedly discusses the colour revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia and accuses
the United States of attempting to foment a similar ouster in Iran.
Other
examples and political movements around the world
The imagery of a colour revolution has been adopted by various non-revolutionary electoral
campaigns. The 'Purple Revolution' social media campaign of Naheed Nenshi catapulted his platform from 8%
to become Calgary's 36th Mayor. The platform advocated city sustainability and to inspire the
high voter turn out of 56%, particularly among young voters.
In 2015, the NDP of Alberta earned a majority
mandate and ended the 44-year-old dynasty of the Progressive
Conservatives . During the campaign Rachel Notley 's popularity gained momentum,
and the news and NDP supporters referred to this phenomenon as the "Orange Crush" per the
party's colour. NDP parodies of Orange flavoured Crush soda logo became a popular meme on
social media.
"... One NGO called the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group (TDWG) was bold or reckless enough to draw the parallels between the Color Revolution in Belarus and the events playing out against Trump explicitly ..."
"... Now, would the reader care to take a guess as to who runs the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group? If you guessed Norm Eisen, you would be correct. ..."
In our report on Never
Trump State Department official George Kent , Revolver News first drew attention
to the ominous similarities between the strategies and tactics the United States government
employs in so-called "Color Revolutions" and the coordinated efforts of government bureaucrats,
NGOs, and the media to oust President Trump.
Our recent follow-up to this initial report focused specifically on a shadowy, George Soros
linked group called the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), which convened "war games"
exercises suggesting the likelihood of a "contested election scenario," and of ensuing chaos
should President Trump refuse to leave office. We further showed how these "contested election"
scenarios we are hearing so much about play perfectly into the Color Revolution framework
sketched out Revolver News' first installment in the Color Revolution series.
This third installment of Revolver News ' series exposing the Color Revolution
against Trump will focus on one quiet and indeed mostly overlooked participant in the
Transition Integrity Project's biased election "war games" exercise -- a man by the name of
Norm Eisen.
As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint for
suing the President into paralysis and his
allies into bankruptcy , who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted
10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever
called the Ukraine President in 2018 , who personally served as special counsel
litigating the Ukraine impeachment, who created a template for Internet censorship of world
leaders and a handbook for mass mobilizing racial justice protesters to overturn democratic
election results, there is perhaps no man alive with a more decorated resume for plots against
President Trump.
Indeed, the story of Norm Eisen – a key architect of nearly every attempt to
delegitimize, impeach, censor, sue and remove the democratically elected 45th President of the
United States – is a tale that winds through nearly every facet of the color revolution
playbook. There is no purer embodiment of Revolver's thesis that the very same regime
change professionals who run Color Revolutions on behalf of the US Government in order to
undermine or overthrow alleged "authoritarian" governments overseas, are running the very same
playbook to overturn Trump's 2016 victory and to pre-empt a repeat in 2020. To put it simply,
what you see is not just the same Color Revolution playbook run against Trump, but the same
people using it against Trump who have employed it in a professional capacity against targets
overseas -- same people same playbook.
In Norm Eisen's case, the "same people same playbook" refrain takes an arrestingly literal
turn when one realizes that Norm Eisen wrote a classic Color Revolution regime change manual,
and conveniently titled it "The Playbook."
Just what exactly is President Obama's former White House Ethics Czar ( yes, Norm Eisen
was Obama's ethics Czar ), his longtime friend since Harvard Law School, who recently
partook in war games to simulate overturning a Trump electoral victory, doing writing a
detailed playbook on how to use a Color Revolution to overthrow governments? The story of Norm
Eisen only gets more fascinating, outrageous, and indispensable to understanding the planned
chaos unfolding before our eyes, leading up to what will perhaps be the most chaotic election
in our nation's recent history.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
"I'd Rather Have This Book Than The Atomic Bomb"
Before we can fully appreciate the significance of Norm Eisen's Color Revolution manual "The
Playbook," we must contextualize this important book in relation to its place in Color
Revolution literature.
As a bit of a refresher to the reader, it is important to emphasize that when we use the
term "Color Revolution" we do not mean any general type of revolution -- indeed, one of the
chief advantages of the Color Revolution framework we advance is that it offers a specific and
concrete heuristic by which to understand the operations against Trump beyond the accurate but
more vague term "coup." Unlike the overt, blunt, method of full scale military invasion as was
the case in Iraq War, a Color Revolution employs the following strategies and tactics:
A "Color Revolution" in this context refers to a specific type of coordinated attack that
the United States government has been known to deploy against foreign regimes, particularly
in Eastern Europe deemed to be "authoritarian" and hostile to American interests. Rather than
using a direct military intervention to effect regime change as in Iraq, Color Revolutions
attack a foreign regime by contesting its electoral legitimacy, organizing mass protests and
acts of civil disobedience, and leveraging media contacts to ensure favorable coverage to
their agenda in the Western press.
[Revolver]
This combination of tactics used in so-called Color Revolutions did not come from nowhere.
Before Norm Eisen came Gene Sharp -- originator and Godfather of the Color Revolution model
that has been a staple of US Government operations externally (and now internally) for decades.
Before Norm Eisen's "Playbook" there was Gene Sharp's classic "From Dictatorship to Democracy,"
which might be justly described as the Bible of the Color Revolution. Such is the power of the
strategies laid out by Sharp that a Lithuanian defense minister once said of Sharp's preceding
book (upon which Dictatorship to Democracy builds) that "I would
rather have this book than the nuclear bomb."
Gene Sharp
It would be impossible to do full justice to Gene Sharp within the scope of this specific
article. Here are some choice excerpts about Sharp and his biography to give readers a taste of
his significance and relevance to this discussion.
Gene Sharp, the "Machiavelli of nonviolence," has been fairly described as "the most
influential American political figure you've never heard of."
1 Sharp, who passed away in January 2018, was a beloved yet "mysterious" intellectual
giant of nonviolent protest movements , the "father of the whole field of the study of
strategic nonviolent action."
2 Over his career, he wrote more than twenty books about nonviolent action and social
movements. His how-to pamphlet on nonviolent revolution, From Dictatorship to
Democracy , has been translated into over thirty languages and is cited by protest
movements around the world . In the U.S., his ideas are widely promoted through activist
training programs and by scholars of nonviolence, and have been used by nearly every major
protest movement in the last forty years .
3 For these contributions, Sharp has been praised by progressive heavyweights like Howard
Zinn and Noam Chomsky, nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times, compared to Gandhi,
and cast as a lonely prophet of peace, champion of the downtrodden, and friend of the left .
4
Gene Sharp's influence on the U.S. activist left and social movements abroad has been
significant. But he is better understood as one of the most important U.S. defense
intellectuals of the Cold War, an early neoliberal theorist concerned with the supposedly
inherent violence of the "centralized State," and a quiet but vital counselor to
anti-communist forces in the socialist world from the 1980s onward.
In the mid-1960s, Thomas Schelling, a Nobel Prize-winning nuclear theorist, recruited
29-year-old Sharp to join the Center for International Affairs at Harvard , bastion of the
high Cold War defense, intelligence, and security establishment. Leading the so-called "CIA
at Harvard" were Henry Kissinger, future National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, and future
CIA chief Robert Bowie. Sharp held this appointment for thirty years. There, with Department
of Defense funds, he developed his core theory of nonviolent action: a method of warfare
capable of collapsing states through theatrical social movements designed to dissolve the
common will that buttresses governments, all without firing any shots. From his post at the
CIA at Harvard, Sharp would urge U.S. and NATO defense leadership to use his methods against
the Soviet Union. [Nonsite]
We invite the reader to reflect on the passages in bold, particularly their potential
relevance to the current domestic situation in the United States. Sharp's book and strategy for
"non violent revolution" AKA "peaceful protests" has been used to undermine or overthrow target
governments all over the world, particularly in Eastern Europe.
Gene's color revolution playbook was of course especially effective in Eastern Bloc
countries in Eastern Europe:
Finally, there is no shortage of analysis as to the applicability of Sharp's methods
domestically within the USA in order to advance various left wing causes. This passage
specifically mentions the applicability of Sharp's methods to counter act Trump.
Ominous stuff indeed. For readers who wish to read further, please consult
the full Politico piece from which we have excerpted the above highlighted passages. There
is also a fascinating documentary on Sharp instructively titled "
How to Start a Revolution ."
This is all interesting and disturbing, to say the least. In its own right it would suggest
a compelling nexus point between the operations run against Trump and the Color Revolution
playbook. But what does this have to do with our subject Norm Eisen? It just so happens that
Eisen explicitly places himself in the tradition of Gene Sharp, acknowledging his book "The
Playbook" as a kind of update to Sharp's seminal "Dictatorship to Democracy."
And there we have it, folks -- Norm Eisen, former Obama Ethics Czar, Ambassador to
Czechoslovakia during the "Velvet Revolution," key counsel in impeachment effort against Trump,
and participant in the ostensibly bi-partisan election war games predicting a contested
election scenario unfavorable to Trump -- just happens to be a Color Revolution expert who
literally wrote the modern "Playbook" in the explicitly acknowledged tradition of Color
Revolution Godfather Gene Sharp's "From Dictatorship to Democracy."
Before we turn to the contents of Norm Eisen's Color Revolution manual, full title "The
Democracy Playbook: Preventing and Reversing Democratic Backsliding," it will be useful to make
a brief point regarding the term "democracy" itself, which happens to appear in the title of
Gene Sharp's book "From Dictatorship to Democracy" as well.
Just like the term "peaceful protestor," which, as we pointed out in our George Kent essay
is used as a term of craft in the Color Revolution context, so is the term "democracy" itself.
The US Government launches Color Revolutions against foreign targets irrespective of whether
they actually enjoy the support of the people or were elected democratically. In the case of
Trump, whatever one says about him, he is perhaps the most "democratically" elected President
in America's history. Indeed, in 2016 Trump ran against the coordinated opposition of the
establishments of both parties, the military industrial complex, the corporate media,
Hollywood, and really every single powerful institution in the country. He won, however,
because he was able to garner sufficient support of the people -- his true and decisive power
base as a "populist." Precisely because of the ultra democratic "populist" character of Trump's
victory, the operatives attempting to undermine him have focused specifically on attacking the
democratic legitimacy of his victory.
In this vein we ought to note that the term "democratic backsliding," as seen in the
subtitle of Norm Eisen's book, and its opposite "democratic breakthrough" are also terms of art
in the Color Revolution lexicon. We leave the full exploration of how the term "democratic" is
used deceptively in the Color Revolution context (and in names of decidedly
anti-democratic/populist institutions) as an exercise to the interested reader. Michael McFaul,
another Color Revolution expert and key anti-Trump operative somewhat gives the game away in
the following tweet in which the term "democratic breakthrough" makes an appearance as a better
sounding alternative to "Color Revolution:"
Most likely as a response to Revolver News' first Color Revolution article on State
Department official George Kent, former Ambassador McFaul issued the following tweet as a
matter of damage control:
Being a rather simple man from a simple background, McFaul perhaps gave too much of this
answer away in the following explanation (now deleted).
Trump has lost the Intelligence Community. He has lost the State Department. He has lost the military. How can he continue to
serve as our Commander in Chief ?
With this now-deleted tweet we get a clearer picture of the power bases that must be
satisfied for a "democratic breakthrough" to occur -- and conveniently enough, not one of them
is subject to direct democratic control. McFaul, Like Eisen, George Kent, and so many others,
perfectly embodies Revolver's thesis regarding the Color Revolution being the same
people running the same playbook. Indeed, like most of the star never-Trump impeachment
witnesses, McFaul has been an ambassador to an Eastern European country. He has supported
operations against Trump, including impeachment. And, like Norm Eisen, he has actually
written
a book on Color Revolutions (more on that later).
Norm Eisen's The Democracy Playbook: A Brief Overview:
A deep dive into Eisen's book would exceed the scope of this relatively brief exposé.
It is nonetheless important for us to draw attention to key passages of Eisen's book to
underscore how closely the "Playbook" corresponds to events unfolding right here at home.
Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that regime change professionals such as Eisen
simply decided to run the same playbook against Trump that they have done countless times when
foreign leaders are elected overseas that they don't like and want to remove via
extra-democratic means -- "peaceful protests," "democratic breakthroughs" and such.
First, consider the following passage from Eisen's Playbook:
If you study this passage closely, you will find direct confirmation of our earlier point
that "democracy" in the Color Revolution context is a term of art -- it refers to anything they
like that keeps the national security bureaucrats in power. Anything they don't like, even if
elected democratically, is considered "anti-democratic," or, put another way, "democratic
backsliding." Eisen even acknowledges that this scourge of populism he's so worried about
actually was ushered in with "popular support," under "relatively democratic and electoral
processes." The problem is precisely that the people have had enough of the corrupt ruling
class ignoring their needs. Accordingly, the people voted first for Brexit and then for Donald
Trump -- terrifying expressions of populism which the broader Western power structure did
everything in its capacity to prevent. Once they failed, they viewed these twin populist
victories as a kind of political 9/11 to be prevented by any means necessary from recurring.
Make no mistake, the Color Revolution has nothing to do with democracy in any meaningful sense
and everything to do with the ruling class ensuring that the people will never have the power
to meddle in their own elections again.
The passage above can be insightfully compared to the passage in Gene Sharp's book noting
ripe applications to the domestic situation.
It is instructive to compare the passage in Eisen's Color Revolution book to the passage in
Michael McFaul's Color Revolution book
First off, it is absolutely imperative to look at every single one of the conditions for a
Color Revolution that McFaul identifies. It is simply impossible not to be overcome with the
ominous parallels to our current situation. Specifically, however, note condition 1 which
refers to having a target leader who is not fully authoritarian, but semi-autocratic. This
coincides perfectly well with Eisen's concession that the populist leaders he's so concerned
about might be "illiberal" but enjoy "popular support" and have come to power via "relatively
democratic electoral processes."
Consulting the above passage from McFaul's book, we note that McFaul has been perhaps the
most explicit about the conditions which facilitate a Color Revolution. We invite the reader to
supply the contemporary analogue to each point as a kind of exercise.
A semi-autocratic regime rather than fully autocratic
An unpopular incumbent (note blanket negative coverage of Trump, fake polls)
A united and organized opposition (media, intel community, Hollywood, community groups,
etc)
Enough independent media to inform citizens of falsified vote (see full court press in
media pushing contested election narrative, social media censorship)
A political opposition capable of mobilizing tens of thousands or more demonstrators to
protest electoral fraud ( SEE BLACK LIVES MATTER AND ANTIFA )
On point number four, which is especially relevant to our present situation, Eisen has an
interesting thing to say about the role of a contested election scenario in the Orange
Revolution, arguably the most important Color Revolution of them all.
Finally, let's look at one last passage from Norm Eisen's Color Revolution "Democracy
Playbook" and cross-reference it with McFaul's conditions for a Color Revolution as well as the
situation playing out right now before our very eyes:
A few things immediately jump out at us. First, the ominous instruction: "prepare to use
electoral abuse evidence as the basis for reform advocacy." Secondly, we note the passage
suggesting that opposition to a target leader might avail itself of "extreme institutional
measures" including impeachment processes, votes of no confidence, and, of course, the good
old-fashioned "protests, strikes, and boycotts" (all more or less peaceful no doubt).
By now the Color Revolution agenda against Trump should be as plain as day. Regime change
professionals like McFaul, Eisen, George Kent, and others, who have refined their craft
conducting color revolutions overseas, have taken it upon themselves to use the same tools, the
same tactics -- quite literally, the same playbook -- to overthrow President Trump. Yet again,
same people, same playbook.
We conclude this study of key Color Revolution figure Norm Eisen by exploring his
particularly proactive -- indeed central role -- in effecting one of the Color Revolution's
components mentioned in the Eisen Playbook -- impeachment.
-- -- -- –
The Ghost of Democracy's Future
We mentioned at the outset of this piece that Norm Eisen is many things -- a former Obama
Ethics Czar (but of course), Ambassador to Czechoslovakia, participant in the now notorious
Transition Integrity Project, et cetera. But he earned his title as "legal hatchet man" of the
Color Revolution for his tireless efforts in promoting the impeachment of President Trump.
The litany of Norm Eisen's legal activity cited at the beginning of this piece bears
repeating.
As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint
for suing the President into paralysis and his
allies into bankruptcy , who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted
10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever
called the Ukraine President in 2018 , who personally served as DNC co-counsel for
litigating the Ukraine impeachment
If that resume doesn't warrant the title "legal hatchet man" we wonder what does? We
encourage interested readers or journalists to explore those links for themselves. By way of
conclusion, it simply suffices to note that much of Eisen's impeachment activity he conducted
before there was any discussion or knowledge of President Trump's call to the Ukrainian
President in 2018 -- indeed before the call even happened. Impeachment was very clearly a
foregone conclusion -- a quite literal part of Norm Eisen's Color Revolution playbook -- and it
was up to people like Eisen to find the pretext, any pretext.
Despite their constant invocation of "democracy" we ought to note that transferring the
question of electoral outcomes to adversarial legal processes is in fact anti-Democratic -- in
keeping with our observation that the Color Revolution playbook uses "democracy" as a term of
art, often meaning the precise opposite of the usual meaning suggesting popular support.
Perhaps the most important entry in Eisen's entry is the first, that is, Eisen's
participation in the infamous David Brock blueprint on how to undermine and overthrow the Trump
presidency.
The Washington Free Beacon attended the retreat and obtained David Brock's
private and confidential memorandum from the meeting. The memo, "
Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action ," outlines Brock's four-year agenda to
attack Trump and Republicans using Media Matters, American Bridge, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) , and Shareblue.
This leaked memo was written before President Trump took office, further suggesting that all
of the efforts to undermine Trump have not been good faith responses to his behavior, but a
pre-ordained attack strategy designed to overturn the 2016 election by any means necessary. The
Color Revolution expert who suggests impeachment as a tactic in his Color Revolution "playbook"
was already in charge of impeachment before Trump even took office -- -Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is run by none other than Norm Eisen.
But the attempt to overturn the 2016 election using Color Revolution tactics failed. And so
now the plan is to overthrow Trump in 2020, hence Norm Eisen's noted participation in the
Transition Integrity Project. Looking around us, one is forced to ask the deeply uncomfortable
question, "transition into what?"
To conclude, we would like to call back to a point we raised in the first piece in our color
revolution series. In this piece, we noted that star Never Trump impeachment witness George
Kent just happens to be running the Belarus desk at the State Department. Belarus, we argued,
with its mass demonstrations egged on by US Government backed NGOS, its supposed "peaceful
protests" and of course its contested election results all fit the Color Revolution mold
curiously enough.
One NGO called the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group (TDWG) was bold or reckless enough
to draw the parallels between the Color Revolution in Belarus and the events playing out
against Trump explicitly. In response to a remark by a twitter user that the TDWG's remarks
about Belarus suggested parallels to the United States, the TDWG ominously replied:
Now, would the reader care to take a guess as to who runs the Transatlantic Democracy
Working Group? If you guessed Norm Eisen, you would be correct.
Stay tuned for more in Revolver.news' groundbreaking coverage of the Color
Revolution against Trump. Be sure to check out the previous installments in this series.
Starting Sunday, downloads of the massively popular video app TikTok and the messaging app
WeChat will be banned in the United States, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced Friday
morning.
The department said in a statement that the move was necessary to "safeguard the national
security of the United States."
President Donald Trump issued twin executive orders in August, saying the apps would shut
down by Sept. 20 if they were not sold to U.S. owners. The admin claimed the Chinese Communist
Party was using data collected through these apps to "threaten the national security, foreign
policy and the economy of the U.S."
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in an interview on Fox Business News Friday morning that
these new rules announced this morning were in connection with the executive orders issued in
August and are "separate" from the ongoing negotiations between TikTok and tentative U.S.
buyers including Oracle and Walmart.
Ross said that "for all practical purposes" WeChat will be shut down in the U.S. as of
midnight Monday with the new Commerce Department ruling.
MORE: For Chinese Americans, WeChat ban threatens to upend business and community "TikTok is
more complicated," Ross added, saying that essentially a deadline for a deal with a U.S. buyer
has been extended until Nov. 12. In the meantime, updates will be barred in the app.
"Basic TikTok will stay intact until November 12," he said. "If there is not a deal by
November 12 under the provisions of the old order then TikTok also will be, for all practical
purposes, shut down."
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo separately weighed in on the news while traveling in Guyana
on Friday.
I will go back to an approach that served me well with regard to the Iraq WMD story. I have
no way of evaluating Yan's claims, but there are a fair number of people and organizations that
do have the resources to evaluate. I rejected WMD claims in 2003 simply because none of the
other players with relevant competence acted in ways that indicated serious concern. What is
Yan Li-meng's evidence that others do not have? This issue of origin has to have been pursued
by at least a couple dozen organizations with the necessary competence. None of those has made
any such claims. That doesn't mean that the claims are false. But if the claims are true, then
there must be very strong motives for keeping silent. So what would be the common interest
between, say, the intelligence agencies of Germany and those of India?
Without such evidence this turns into a she-said-he-said story. Now that does not mean that
it is wrong. Suppression and intimidation would not be out of character for the Chinese
government. But again the world is loaded with very paranoid people who are capable of
evaluating that. And who are pretty much immune to Chinese intimidation. They don't have to
face off against the Chinese state. There are plenty of more roundabout ways to get the word
out if you want to do so and have government-level resources to put into the effort.
The obvious alternative to publication of the logic for detecting human agency is to engage
in simple human retaliation. Are the Chinese the only ones capable of such producing such a
catastrophe? Pretty unlikely. Would such a counterstroke catch the Chinese by surprise? Again
unlikely if they are aware of having stepped over the line. The measures they are taking
against virus outbreaks are more extreme than what western countries have imposed, but not
(yet) indicating panic. If somebody let some 1918 swine flu loose in Shanghai, would their
measures be able to counter it? (Five times as contagious as what we seeing in covid-19.)
Red State raises additional skepticism about this "scientist's interview", as well as the
oddities of the very original days of reporting about the Chinese t "flu" coming out of
China. Remembering also one of the very first ways we even started hearing about this "new
Chinese virus" in the US were reports about the Great Toilet Paper panic, even though people
here did not know why they were supposed to be hoarding it. https://www.redstate.com/michael_thau/2020/09/17/920958/
Best I could trace was to an earlier Australian toilet paper panic they claimed was hawked
by Yahoo News in Australia, and then spread via social media to the US. And our Great Toilet
Paper Hoax began in earnest here too. China was allegedly the source for all Australian TP,
so it was claimed with so many people sick in China with this "flu" there would be no more
toilet paper Down Under for their down unders.
But the US did not rely on China for TP, so the TP panic was not warrented to be set in
motion here. But it did capture attention and did trigger panic before we even knew what to
be afraid of. Greasing the skids in some manipulative way could be one jaundiced
conclusion.
Hope someone with better skills can really trace the origins of the Great Toilet Paper
Hoax, because it did wipe us out in the US. No sheet. Was that the covid panic transmission
route; and not really on a flight from Wuhan to Seattle?
No - but she may be another in a long line of useful idiots.
"Independent fact checkers?" 25 year old Humanities and Social Sciences grads working
for Facebook? Independent of what? Independent of their mommies and daddies at long
last?
Countervailing research goes light-years beyond "Independent fact checkers?".
Italicized/bold text was excerpted from nature.com a report titled:
The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2
SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans; SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and
SARS-CoV-2 can cause severe disease, whereas HKU1, NL63, OC43 and 229E are associated with
mild symptoms6. Here we review what can be deduced about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 from
comparative analysis of genomic data. We offer a perspective on the notable features of the
SARS-CoV-2 genome and discuss scenarios by which they could have arisen. Our analyses clearly
show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated
virus.
The genomic features described here may explain in part the infectiousness and
transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in humans. Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not
a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other
theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2
features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses
in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is
plausible.
Italicized/bold text was excerpted from The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene a report titled:
The Origin of COVID-19 and Why It Matters
In 2007, scientists studying coronaviruses warned: "The presence of a large
reservoir of SARS-CoV–like viruses in horseshoe bats is a time bomb. The possibility of
the re-emergence of SARS and other novel viruses should not be ignored."1
Studying animal viruses that have previously spilled over into humans provides clues
about host-switching determinants. A well-understood example is influenza virus emergence
into humans and other mammals.2 Human pandemic and seasonal influenza viruses arise from
enzootic viruses of wild waterfowl and shore birds. From within this natural reservoir, the
1918 pandemic "founder" virus somehow host-switched into humans. We know this from genetic
studies comparing avian viruses, the 1918 virus, and its descendants, which have caused three
subsequent pandemics, as well as annual seasonal influenza in each of the 102 years since
1918. Similarly, other avian influenza viruses have host-switched into horses, dogs, pigs,
seals, and other vertebrates, with as yet unknown pandemic potential.2,10,11 Although some
molecular host-switching events remain unobserved, phylogenetic analyses of influenza viruses
allow us to readily characterize evolution and host-switching as it occurs in
nature.2
It should be clarified that theories about a hypothetical man-made origin of
SARS-CoV-2 have been thoroughly discredited by multiple coronavirus experts.21,28,29
SARS-CoV-2 contains neither the genetic fingerprints of any of the reverse genetics systems
that have been used to engineer coronaviruses nor does it contain genetic sequences that
would have been "forward engineered" from preexisting viruses, including the genetically
closest sarbecoviruses. That is, SARS-CoV-2 is unlike any previously identified coronavirus
from which it could have been engineered. Moreover, the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain,
which has affinity for cells of various mammals, binds to human ACE2 receptors via a novel
mechanism.
Engineering such a virus would have required 1) published or otherwise available
scientific knowledge that did not exist until after COVID-19 recognition; 2) a failure to
follow obvious engineering pathways, resulting in an imperfectly constructed virus; and 3) an
ability to genetically engineer a new virus without leaving fingerprints of the engineering.
Furthermore, the 12 amino acid furin-cleavage site insertion between the SARS-CoV-2 spike
protein's S1 and S2 domains, which some have alleged to be a sign of genetic engineering, is
found in other bat and human coronaviruses in nature, probably arising via naturally
occurring recombination.24
It is also highly unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 was released from a laboratory by
accident because no laboratory had the virus nor did its genetic sequence exist in any
sequence database before its initial GenBank deposition (early January 2020). China's
laboratory safety practices, policies, training, and engineering are equivalent to those of
the United States and other developed countries,32 making viral "escape" extremely unlikely,
and of course impossible without a viral isolate present. SARS-CoV-2 shares genetic
properties with many other sarbecoviruses, lies fully within their genetic cluster, and is
thus a virus that emerged naturally.
Italicized/bold text was excerpted from nature.com a report titled:
Evolutionary origins of the SARS-CoV-2 sarbecovirus lineage responsible for the
COVID-19 pandemic
There are outstanding evolutionary questions on the recent emergence of human
coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 including the role of reservoir species, the role of recombination and
its time of divergence from animal viruses. We find that the sarbecoviruses -- the viral
subgenus containing SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 -- undergo frequent recombination and exhibit
spatially structured genetic diversity on a regional scale in China. SARS-CoV-2 itself is not
a recombinant of any sarbecoviruses detected to date, and its receptor-binding motif,
important for specificity to human ACE2 receptors, appears to be an ancestral trait shared
with bat viruses and not one acquired recently via recombination. To employ phylogenetic
dating methods, recombinant regions of a 68-genome sarbecovirus alignment were removed with
three independent methods. Bayesian evolutionary rate and divergence date estimates were
shown to be consistent for these three approaches and for two different prior specifications
of evolutionary rates based on HCoV-OC43 and MERS-CoV. Divergence dates between SARS-CoV-2
and the bat sarbecovirus reservoir were estimated as 1948 (95% highest posterior density
(HPD): 1879–1999), 1969 (95% HPD: 1930–2000) and 1982 (95% HPD: 1948–2009),
indicating that the lineage giving rise to SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating unnoticed in bats
for decades.
With horseshoe bats currently the most plausible origin of SARS-CoV-2, it is
important to consider that sarbecoviruses circulate in a variety of horseshoe bat species
with widely overlapping species ranges57. Nevertheless, the viral population is largely
spatially structured according to provinces in the south and southeast on one lineage, and
provinces in the centre, east and northeast on another (Fig. 3). This boundary appears to be
rarely crossed. Two exceptions can be seen in the relatively close relationship of Hong Kong
viruses to those from Zhejiang Province (with two of the latter, CoVZC45 and CoVZXC21,
identified as recombinants) and a recombinant virus from Sichuan for which part of the genome
(region B of SC2018 in Fig. 3) clusters with viruses from provinces in the centre,
east and northeast of China. SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 are also exceptions because they were
sampled from Hubei and Yunnan, respectively.
It is clear from our analysis that viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 have been
circulating in horseshoe bats for many decades. The unsampled diversity descended from the
SARS-CoV-2/RaTG13 common ancestor forms a clade of bat sarbecoviruses with generalist
properties -- with respect to their ability to infect a range of mammalian cells -- that
facilitated its jump to humans and may do so again. Although the human ACE2-compatible RBD
was very likely to have been present in a bat sarbecovirus lineage that ultimately led to
SARS-CoV-2, this RBD sequence has hitherto been found in only a few pangolin viruses.
Furthermore, the other key feature thought to be instrumental in the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to
infect humans -- a polybasic cleavage site insertion in the S protein -- has not yet
been seen in another close bat relative of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
As if on cue Li-Meng Yan appears like manna from heaven aiding/abetting in foisting
forth the current dominant Western government/media narrative that China is bad.
Israel raises an important question about the role on neoliberal MSM is spreading COVID-19
panic.
Notable quotes:
"... Sinaisky claims that they brought the pandemics upon us because of the high debt problem, or by their inability to continue colonial plunder. Alternatively, a notable commenter to his text suggests that it was done because of overproduction of capital. In other words, the bank-lending rate is so close to zero, or even negative, that the whole machinery of capitalism was deluged in a flood of capital, and needed a major war, or indeed a global pandemic, to use it up. ..."
"... Because of this freak combination of forces, Sweden left its health policy in the hands of local professionals and remained free, while its neighbouring countries transferred the responsibility to globalist politicians and embraced quarantine. ..."
"... Thus the liberal Blairite media (beginning with the NY Times and the Guardian) played a key part in the Corona crisis. They were the piper; but who ordered the piper? ..."
...Do the US plutocrats (that is, the American über-wealthy) control all that? I think
they would be amazed to learn that, especially "for generations", bearing in mind that the US
was not a very significant factor before the WWI. In my view, the rich are not that smart. But
the network exists; I have called its obscure controllers The Masters of Discourse .
Sinaisky claims that they brought the pandemics upon us because of the high debt
problem, or by their inability to continue colonial plunder. Alternatively, a notable commenter
to his text suggests that it was done because of overproduction of capital. In other words, the
bank-lending rate is so close to zero, or even negative, that the whole machinery of capitalism
was deluged in a flood of capital, and needed a major war, or indeed a global pandemic, to use
it up.
Finally, Sinaisky claims that "atomization of society, breaking up community solidarity,
eroding all non-monetary connections between people, destroying family relations and weakening
blood ties, is a long-standing plutocratic project. Now, using this fake pandemic, the
plutocrats have gone even further, now they train us to see each other not as friend, not as
brother, not even as a source of profit, but mainly as a source of mortal infection." I wonder
what makes him think that is an object of plutocratic desire? Certainly rich people want to
make money and have more power, agreed. Is it necessary for them to atomise society? Who will
they and their kids socialize with in such a ruined world?
I am not sure that there is a human agency with such goals. A non-human factor is a much
more suitable culprit. In the old days, such a culprit was called Satan, and there were mighty
organisations aka churches that fought Satan. In a charming movie, Luc Besson's Fifth Element,
'Love' defeats 'the Shadow', the personified evil that was about to obliterate Earth. Call it
Satan, call it Shadow, the thing surely has human collaborationists in the mainstream media. I
wrote about it in a piece called The Shadow of Zog . Indeed media
should be sorted out in order to deal with it.
Sweden, this lucky country that avoided lockdown and its consequences, was saved by a rare
media misstep. (This story has never been published though it is known to many Swedes.) Corona
propaganda was carried out by the same liberal Bonnier-owned newspaper, DN (Dagens Nyheter),
that played up Greta Thunberg. (Sinaisky's senses served him right: indeed Covid is a new Greta
multiplied by a factor of 50). The Greta campaign had as its favourite high horse
flygskam , or flight-shaming. Stop taking flights to lower carbon emissions ,
was the idea. Now we have no flights at all, so this movement disappeared after achieving its
goals.
In February 2020, the DN organised a week-long sleeper train culture trip to North Italy for
the Greta-following liberal elite. A berth on this train was priced starting at ten thousand
Euros. The group went up to the Italian Alps and down to the Carnival in Venice and finally
returned home, full to the brim with interesting experiences and coronavirus infections. A few
days after the train returned to Stockholm, the disease broke out at large. Many of the liberal
journalists that travelled on the Corona Express (as the train became known) fell sick, and
their close relatives suffered, too. This incident caused the death of many elderly Jews,
parents or uncles of those liberal journalists. It was a media phenomenon, and the
Jewish media reported that the death rate among Swedish Jews was 14 times higher than
their share of the population (well, it is not as bad as it sounds; only nine very old Jews
died, all over 80).
As the people in authority knew all about the Corona Express, the liberal lobby was too
ashamed to call for quarantine against the disease they has carried to Sweden. (Or they did
call, but in sotto voce.) Furthermore, the DN was their only significant liberal media outlet,
as Bonnier had sold his TV channel to a state-owned company in December 2019, making heaps of
money but losing his ability to influence people.
Because of this freak combination of forces, Sweden left its health policy in the hands
of local professionals and remained free, while its neighbouring countries transferred the
responsibility to globalist politicians and embraced quarantine.
Thus the liberal Blairite media (beginning with the NY Times and the Guardian) played a
key part in the Corona crisis. They were the piper; but who ordered the piper?
The only other broad avenue for the people to get unbiased information is from a few news
shows that don't toe the liberal line -- most notably "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on Fox News.
Since the riots began at the end of May, Carlson has taken it upon himself to expose the
corruption of not just the media but the liberal elected establishment that has implicitly
endorsed violence, racism, and disorder in the name of what is perversely called social
justice. I've called Carlson a
modern-day Cassandra because his clear-eyed assessment of the danger America faces has been
met with scorn, denial and derision. But name-calling, advertising boycotts, and continued
threats of violence against him and his family have not deterred Carlson from his declared
mission to be "the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink."
In that regard, Carlson has long used his show to ferret out information hidden in the
bowels of government and get it to the people -- bypassing the media guards who increasingly
see it as their sworn role to restrict the free exchange of ideas. On Carlson's Sept. 1 show,
author Chris Rufo discussed his research into how critical race theory has infiltrated the
federal government. I was shocked by just how bad the situation is, something we would never
learn from CNN or MSNBC.
"It's absolutely astonishing how critical race theory has pervaded every institution in
the federal government," Rufo told Carlson.
"What I have discovered is that critical race theory has become, in essence, the default
ideology of the federal bureaucracy and is now being weaponized against the American
people."
He gave three examples of what he called "cult indoctrination." For instance, he told of a
trainer who "told Treasury [Department] employees essentially that America was a fundamentally
white supremacist country and 'virtually all white people uphold the system of racism and white
superiority.'"
When Rufo explicitly urged Trump "to immediately issue an executive order abolishing
critical-race-theory training from the federal government," I thought to myself how that was a
smart move. It just might work. It's no secret that Trump watches Fox News. So why not make a
direct appeal to the president while you are on one of those shows? It's the only way most
guests would ever have a chance to get the president's attention. And in this case it
worked.
Just three quick days later, Trump did exactly what Rufo proposed -- he
issued an executive order through the director of the Office of Management and Budget to
"cease and desist from using taxpayer dollars to fund [the] divisive, un-American propaganda
training sessions" where federal employees are told that "virtually all White people contribute
to racism."
When Trump reacted to Rufo's revelations the same way that I and millions of people watching
Tucker Carlson's show reacted - with outrage - I realized just how dangerous Carlson is to the
hegemony of the far left. His show is metaphorically the tunnel under the Berlin Wall that
allows direct communication between the pro-liberty, pro-American middle class and the freedom
fighters in the White House , bypassing both the bureaucracy and the stunningly dishonest media
that control the flow of information in and out of the Trump administration.
In order to keep our metaphor geographically, if not politically, correct, we should think
of the mainstream media as the Stasi, the East German secret police who were notoriously brutal
-- and effective -- in suppressing free thought and dissent from the party line. They were not
just the "enemy of the people," as Trump has labeled the worst of the modern media; they were
the "enemy of the truth."
That role has never been clearer than it was last week when Bob Woodward, the legacy
commander of the media's Main Directorate for Reconnaissance, issued his report on what he
found when he infiltrated the White House. Or at least what he purported to find.
According to Woodward, Trump perfidiously misled the American public about the scope and
danger of the China virus because he called the virus "deadly stuff" in February before any
Americans had died. Also because Trump knew "it goes through the air." I mean you have to be
notoriously stupid, or just plain incurious, not to have figured out by February that COVID-19
was a deadly peril. Does Woodward think that Trump shut down air travel from China at the end
of January just because he wanted to hurt the tourist industry?
Of course the new virus was deadly, but as Trump patiently explained to the thick-headed
Woodward then, and still has to explain to the rest of the White House press corps virtually
every day, there is no purpose served by terrifying the public. The president told Woodward
that the virus was "more deadly than even your strenuous flus." That turned out to be true, but
flus are also kept under control by widespread vaccination and therapeutics. Does Woodward need
to be reminded that the much more deadly pandemic of 1918 was caused by the Spanish flu ?
Of course he does, because it's not helpful to the media's narrative that Donald Trump is a
dangerous buffoon who must not be reelected. How could the country survive another four years
with a president who insists on doing things his own way, who won't be cowed by the Stasi
media, who considers it his duty to improve on conventional wisdom instead of surrendering to
it.
Which brings us back to Chris Rufo and his pipeline -- or should I say tunnel access -- to
the president. The obstinacy of Tucker Carlson, his unwillingness to take a knee to orthodoxy,
has made him the most dangerous person in America (after Trump) to the far-left overlords. And
when Trump acted on Rufo's entreaty regarding critical race theory, it led to near hysteria as
the Stasi media realized that its Berlin Wall had been breached.
As Carlson himself reported on Tuesday, Sept. 8, "To the news media, all of this was a
disaster. They claim to be journalists, but they despise actual reporting like Chris Rufo's.
His coverage showed that they are complicit in an anti-American lie that is deeply unpopular
with actual Americans, and they didn't take it well."
Among the many critics of Carlson for providing the president with accurate information
about what is being done in his name in the federal bureaucracy, perhaps the loudest was CNN's
Brian Stelter, the virtual communications director for the Stasi media.
Just when the fear starts to subside, and growing public skepticism seems to push governors
into opening, something predictable happens . The entire apparatus of mass media hops on some
new, super-scary headline designed to instill more Coronaphobia and extend the lockdowns yet
again.
It's a cycle that never stops. It comes back again and again.
A great example occurred this weekend. A poll appeared on Friday from the Kaiser Family
Foundation. It showed
that confidence in Anthony Fauci is evaporating along with support for lockdowns and mandatory
Covid vaccines.
The news barely made the headlines, and very quickly this was overshadowed by a scary new
claim: restaurants will give you Covid!
It's tailor-made for the mainstream press. The study is from the
CDC, which means: credible. And the thesis is easily digestible: those who test positive
for Covid are twice as likely as those who tested negative to have eaten at a restaurant.
"Eating and drinking on-site at locations that offer such options might be important risk
factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection," the study says.
Very scary!
Thus the implied conclusion: don't allow indoor dining! Otherwise Covid will spread like
wildfire!
After six months of this Corona Kabuki dance, driven by alarmist media and imposed by wacko,
power-abusing governors and mayors, I've become rather cynical about the whole enterprise, so I
mostly ignore the latest nonsense.
In this case, however, I decided to take a closer look simply because so many millions of
owners, workers, and customers have been treated so brutally in the "War on Restaurants."
It turns out, of course, that this is not what the study said. What's more interesting is to
consider exactly what's going on here. The study was based on interviews with 314 people who
had been tested of their own volition. It included 154 patients with positive test results and
160 control participants with negative test results.
The interviews took place two weeks following the tests, and they concerned life activities
two weeks prior to getting the test.
Before we go on here, remember that what alarmed people about Covid was the prospect of
dying. The study says nothing about this subject, nor about hospitalization. It's a fair
assumption that the positive cases being interviewed here got it (presumably, if the tests are
accurate, which they are not )
and got over it.
This alone is interesting simply because it reveals how much the whole subject has been
changed: the pandemic has become a casedemic.
Now, to the question of life activities. In the study, based on answers to a survey, the
following were not correlated in any significant degree with positive cases of Covid:
Wearing a mask or not wearing a mask
Going to church
Riding on public transportation
Attending large house parties
Going to the gym
Going to the office
Going to the hair salon
Going shopping
Now one might suppose, if you think the study has any merit, that this would be the
headline.
The massive power of the state has been deployed all over the United States and the world to
force the closure of churches, gyms, offices, salons, and malls. This all happened and is still
happening. Also mask mandates became the new normal. The public has been invited by health
authorities to jeer at, denounce, and turn in anyone who doesn't have a cloth strapped to his
or her face.
All of this happened in complete contradiction to every commercial right, property right, or
normal human freedoms. We threw it all away in the name of virus control. Our lives have been
completely upended and our assumptions about our rights and liberties have been overturned.
And yet here is a study that is unable to document any correlation between these life
activities and catching the disease.
That's an amazing conclusion that could have generated headlines like:
Salons Won't Get You Sick, CDC Reports
You Won't Catch Covid at the Gym, CDC Shows
No, Your Hairstylist Doesn't Spread the Coronavirus
Scared to Go Shopping? Don't Be, Says the CDC
Your Mask Is Pointless, New Study Says
Church Goers Shouldn't Fear Sickness, Scientists Reveal
Study: Your House Party Didn't Spread the Virus
And so on. But none of this was to be. Not one single story in the mainstream press said
anything like this, even though this was all implied by the CDC study.
The one place that the study revealed a positive correlation between positive cases and life
activities was going to restaurants.
So that's what got the alarmist headlines. Yes, these are all real.
And so on for thousands of times in every mainstream venue. They are all competing for
clicks in the great agenda of extending lockdowns and feeding public fear as much as possible.
So the worst-possible spin on this slightly sketchy study gets all the headlines.
Thus is it burned into many people's minds that restaurants are really disease-spreading
venues. Go out to eat and you might die!
And here is what makes this even stranger. The interviewers never asked the people in the
survey whether they were eating indoors or outdoors, as incredible as that seems. The authors
admit this:
"Of note, the question assessing dining at a restaurant did not distinguish between indoor
and outdoor options."
Why not? Did they just forget to ask? What's going on here?
Which is to say that even if the results are meaningful – and there's so much about
this study that is murky and error prone – they are practically useless for knowing what
to do about it. If there is no distinction between indoor and outdoor, all speculation about
ventilation or crowds or the presence of food and so on, is utterly pointless.
Without knowing that, we are at a loss to figure out any answer to the question of why and
what to do. Instead, the message comes down to: don't go out to eat.
Here is how bad the science has become. In the discussion, the authors write the
following:
"Direction, ventilation, and intensity of airflow might affect virus transmission, even if
social distancing measures and mask use are implemented according to current guidance. Masks
cannot be effectively worn while eating and drinking, whereas shopping and numerous other
indoor activities do not preclude mask use."
Here is what is weird: the study itself supports none of that paragraph.
The survey never asked about ventilation because the people who made the survey somehow
forgot to make a query concerning indoor vs. outdoor dining . As for masks, the study did in
fact ask respondents about mask wearing and the results showed no correlation between the
sickness and whether and to what extent people were wearing masks!
In other words, that paragraph in the discussion is contradicted in two places by the
authors' own study.
In addition, the authors themselves point to an intriguing issue: the people in the survey
might have biased their answers based on their personal knowledge of the test results.
Think about it this way. The people who had a positive Covid test are more likely to ask
themselves the great question: how did I get this? Going to restaurants is such a rare activity
these days that it stands out in one's mind. When the survey asked people if they had gone out
to eat, it is possible that the memory of the Covid positive person might be more likely to
blame the restaurant, whereas the Covid negative person might be more likely to have forgotten
the locale of every meal in the last 30 days.
In other words, the real result of the study might be: Covid patients are more likely to
scapegoat restaurants than gyms, churches, and salons.
Alas, none of these interesting considerations appear in the media-rendered version of this
study: panic and keep the lockdowns in place!
Lockdowns have become a conclusion in a desperate search for evidence. Imagine if you
undertook a study of C-positive vs. C-negative cases and asked the people if they mostly wear
lace-up or slip-on shoes. If you come up with some positive correlation, the CDC will publish
you and a media panic will ensue.
This is precisely where we've been for six solid months now. The media has become the
handmaiden of lockdown tyranny, blasting out simplistic versions of sketchy studies to keep the
panic going as long as possible. And the public, which is far too trusting of the media and its
capacity for rational and accurate reporting, eats it up.
For now. Once the dust settles on all of this, it seems highly likely that media science
reporting will lose credibility for a generation. It certainly deserves that fate.
"Cloth masks that are used to slow the spread of COVID-19 offer little protection
against wildfire smoke. They do not catch small particles found in wildfire smoke that
can harm your health."
Just checking if that's the same CDC.
LA_Goldbug , 3 hours ago
Wow !!!!!
Nice find :-)
honest injun , 3 hours ago
At what point does the man on the street realize that he has been had? It took me about
2 weeks, 6 months ago to realize what Fauci and his cronies were saying was nonsense. Smart
people that I know, took months to reach the same conclusion but many people are still
buying the disinfo.
I was mildly amused by Paul Sperry's recent tweet announcing as "breaking news" that Obama's
CIA Director, John Brennan, set up a Task Force to target Donald Trump. This should not be
considered something "new." I reported on this almost one year ago (October 2019 to be
precise). You can check out the original pieces here
and here
. The following provides an updated, consolidated piece.
While chatting in late October 2019 with a retired CIA colleague, he dropped a
bombshell–he had learned that John Brennan set up a Trump Task Force at CIA in early
2016. One of my retired buddy's friends, who was still on duty with the CIA in 2016, recounted
how he was approached discreetly and invited to work on a Task Force focused on then
Presidential candidate Donald Trump. The Task Force members were handpicked instead of
following the normal procedure of posting the job. Instead of opening the job to all eligible
CIA personnel, only a select group of people were invited specifically to join up. Not everyone
accepted the invitation, and that could be a problem for John Brennan
A "Task Force" normally is a short term creation comprised of operations officers (i.e.,
guys and gals who carry out espionage activities overseas) and intelligence analysts. The
purpose of such a group is to ensure all relevant intelligence capabilities are brought to bear
on the problem at hand. I am not talking about an informal group of disgruntled Democrats
working at the CIA who got together like a book club to grouse and complain about the brash
real estate guy from New York. It was a specially designed covert action to try to destroy
Donald Trump.
A "Task Force" is a special bureaucratic creation that provides a vehicle for bring case
officers and analysts together, along with admin support, for a limited term project. But it
also can be expanded to include personnel from other agencies, such as the FBI, DIA and NSA.
Task Forces have been used since the inception of the CIA in 1947. Here's a recently
declassified memo outlining the considerations in the creation of a task force in 1958. The
author, L.K. White, talks about the need for a coordinating Headquarters element and an
Operational unit "in the field", i.e. deployed around the world.
While a "Task Force" can be a useful tool for tackling issues of terrorism or drug
trafficking, it is not appropriate or lawful for collecting on a U.S. candidate for the
Presidency. But Brennan did it with the blessing of the Director of National Intelligence, Jim
Clapper.
A Task Force operates independent of the CIA " Mission Centers
" (that's the jargon for the current CIA organization chart).
So what did John Brennan do? My friends said that a Trump Task Force was running in early
2016 and may have started as early as the summer of 2015. Recruitment to Task Force included
case officers (i.e., men and women who recruit and handle spies overseas), analysts and admin
personnel were recruited. Not everyone invited accepted the offer. But many did.
But this was not a CIA only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the Task
Force. We have some clues that Christopher Steele's FBi handler, Michael Gaeta, may have been
detailed to the Trump Task Force ( see here
).
So what kind of things would this Task Force do? The case officers would work with foreign
intelligence services such as MI-6, the Italians, the Ukrainians and the Australians on
identifying intelligence collection priorities. Task Force members could task NSA to do
targeted collection. They also would have the ability to engage in covert action, such as
targeting George Papadopoulos. Joseph Mifsud may be able to shed light on the CIA officers who
met with him, briefed on operational objectives regarding Papadopoulos and helped arrange
monitored meetings. Was the honey pot (i.e., the attractive woman) named Azra Turk, who met
with George Papadopoulos, part of the CIA Trump Task Force?
The Task Force also could carry out other covert actions, such as information operations. A
nice sounding euphemism for propaganda, and computer network operations. There has been some
informed speculation that Guccifer 2.0 was a creation of this Task Force.
In light of what we have learned about the alleged CIA whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, there
should be a serious investigation to determine if he was a part of this Task Force or, at
minimum, reporting to them.
When I described this development last November to one friend, a retired CIA Chief of
Station, his first response was, "My God, that's illegal." We then reminisced about another
illegal operation carried out under the auspices of the CIA Central American Task Force back in
the 1980s. That became known to Americans as the Iran Contra scandal.
We know one thing for certain about he work of this Task Force–it failed to produce
any intelligence to corroborate the specious claim that Donald Trump was colluding with the
Russians. Even though the despicable Brennan has continued to insist that Trump was/is under
the thumb of Putin, he failed to provide any substantive information in the January 2017
Intelligence Community Assessment that supported the claim.
The curious "leaks" of Michael Cohen tapes on both Cuomo and Zucker, broadcast by Tucker
Carlson, makes me think Cohen also has some Trump tapes.
Cohen of course would be be more than willing to drop any Trump tapes into Tucker
Carlson's lap too - or at least work a tease dropping these bit player tapes on others first
to weasel a Trump pardon for Cohen at the 11th hour, in return for not dumping his Trump tapes
pre-election on Carlson's lap too.
Do you think these "leaked" Cohen tapes are just coincidentally coming out now - or was
Micheal Cohen a fifth column all along, and even in direct cahoots with Brennan too? Other
Trump business partners were IC assets, why not Cohen who would do anything for a buck and
publicity.
The night before the Mueller report came out pundit Brennan on prime time TV (whomever he
was working for CNN, MSNBC?) claimed Trump would be facing multiple indictments.
The next day when his distinguished punditry proved 100% false, Brennan then claimed on
prime time TV his source (sources?) were obviously wrong. And they moved quickly on to the
next topic.
Brennan was obviously operating off of some form of inside intelligence (or just making
things up for effect and a paycheck?) .
Just a few lines were uttered on both nights, but now in retrospect, Brennan did admit
some sort of intelligence gathering group was passing on this critical information to him -
bogus or not. He claimed was in some sort of insider loop.
It would be good to review both those pre-and post Mueller report statements now. Who was
he hoodwinking and should he have been paid for his "insights"?
Cohen is a know nothing "would be if they could be". I have described this type before. He
had no access to Trump, the person, as opposed to a tenuous business relationship with Trump
the company.
"But Brennan did it with the blessing of the Director of National Intelligence, Jim
Clapper. " Obama isn't mentioned at all? I wonder who was actually running the show.
I'm sure he was. He's being very careful about all the current actions on the left too.
He'll be running what's left of the democratic party, if they don't succeed in bringing down
the constitutional republic this election.
For a community organizer Obama is pretty crafty. He found favor with the Chicago big
money who backed him for the Illinois legislature and then the Senate. And then directly to
the presidency. Now he's best friends with David Geffen and Richard Branson and hangs out
with the billionaire class.
He is the "puppeteer" of the Democratic Party, IMO. I'm convinced that if Biden fails,
Michelle will run and likely beat an establishment Republican in 2024.
Who do you think was the ringleader in this operation: Brennan, Comey or Clapper?
To me, it seems most likely that it was Brennan (with Obama's reluctant approval). Comey and
Clapper don't strike me as the kind of guys who would risk everything on an operation that
could backfire.
What I'd really like to know is whether Director Brennan communicated with elites outside
the agency who might have encouraged the spying to begin with. Can you clarify this point?
Does the CIA take orders or instructions from powerful-connected elites outside of the
agency??
It seems we know that NSA identified unreasonable queries of their comms database in 2016,
leading Adm Rodgers to shut off access. Immediately after, we see FBI getting involved and
setting up Crossfire Hurricane. After the election, we see FBI working with DoJ NSD to move
the op into a special counsel organization which then runs the op. It appears the Senate
Select Committee (Burr/Warner) was complicit in the op, not to mention Schiff.
I'm not sure Obama wants to run the Democratic party. It's likelier he wants to secure his
legacy and play a supportive role within the party rather than lead it.
Obama's community organizing skills are null. It was only a title; never an actual
product. He will remain the token figure head of the party; but hot heads under the radar are
now its life and blood of the Democrat party today. With no small dose of our tax
dollars.
Democrats produce nothing; they only consume. There is a brewing turf war within the
Democrat party between their historic connection to the government unions and the new
socialists - two very different forces with two very different goals. Ironically, the
Democrat government unions created the new wave of Democrat socialists.
Watch how this play out - Biden is clueless about what is now seething under his titular
party head. Didn't Biden promise he would put Alexandra Cortez in a key administrative
position?
I remember the eye-opening essay about the CIA Trump task force, especially in light of
Brennan's self-assured posture that only briefly slumped (along with all of his brethren on
the Left) when the Mueller report finally came out and dashed such great expectations. We can
only hope that the Durham probe will expose and at the very least somehow strongly
condemn and spell out WITH EVIDENCE in no uncertain terms any seditious activity. After
hearing that Trey Gowdy doubts any more prosecutions will come of the probe, I'm not going to
hold my breath for perp walks.
Laughably, the Left's still beating that same old Russian Dead Horse though. Just as with
the DNC's lackluster national convention, I'm surprised, almost shocked actually, that in
spite of the overwhelming support of the "creative class", Democrats can't come up with a
better hoax. On the other hand I can't remember the last time I was dying to see a new film,
buy a new book or recording, or tune into a new TV drama, so while it could just be me, I
suspect the "creative class" ain't quite what it used to be...
Re: Michael Cohen comments: I have to agree with walrus and take exception to the MSM
characterization of Cohen as "Trump's personal attorney". My husband and I have a
small real estate company but even so, we've simultaneously employed several attorneys for
various personal and business needs and our holdings are minuscule compared to Trump's. SO I
seriously doubt that the MSM's inference about Cohen's role and insight into Trump's private
and business dealings - that he knows all - is greatly exaggerated.
Cohen does not need to "know all", if he was recording Trump. He just has to dole out a
few juicy sound bites prior to Nov, with our without context when they did contact each other
pre-2016.
Cohen's chance to make Trump squirm since Cohen just demonstrated he was willing to do
this to Cuomo and Zucker - so will he or won't he IF he has Trump tapes too - just crude talk
at this point would not be welcome as Trump tries to take the edge off his usual "gruff"
personality.
No magic carpet to the White House for anyone. I also think people don't like giving any
race like this away too early in the game - all the prior elections have swung back and forth
almost daily, until they finally broke on election day.
Even John McCain and Romney were still nip and tuck until the final hours if one watched
certain indicators. Ironically, the only race called conclusively before election day was
Clinton-Trump 2016, and we know how that finally worked out. So more cat (Trump) and mouse
(Biden) on a seesaw for a few more months.
All of which begs to say, where the heck is the Durham Report and when will we start
seeing accountability for Democrat/Obama high crimes and misdemeanors?
There is a deep cynicism even in California that "no one gets punished" for anything any
more, unless you are unlucky enough to be a law abiding, responsible person. Everyone else
gets a free ride and a double standard of justice - and it is causing a lot of anger out
here. "Law and order" is a building hunger our west.
Where is the Durham Report? Hahaha. We've had the Durham Report. One small fish indicted.
That's it. Were you really expecting more?
I said when the "investigation" was first made public that it was a red herring, a tool to
keep us from making noise because we would be pinning our hopes on this "report" that would
make everything wonderful. I said then that it would never be anything but a pacifier
dangling in front of our noses, like a carrot keeping a donkey dragging the cart along.
This article came out in May 2020 - essentially why did Obama want to frame Flynn?
It was Iran-gate; not Russia-Gate that drove the Obama spying and the Russia-gate
cover-up, according to this author.. Was this the motivation for the Trump Task Force in your
post- to spy on Team Trump to learn if they were going to undo Obama's Iran "legacy",
particularly since Flynn was advising them? https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/russiagate-obama-iran
The Flynn Spygate unraveling is far more credible as Iran-gate, and ties up many of the
very loose ends, much better than the Russia-gate nonsense. If this is the more credible
explanation of Obama's Spygate, what happened after this article was published several months
ago in May, during the height of the "pandemic". Has this theory been debunked?
And is its current article re-circulation right now tying Obama to Iran-gate spying the
reason Adam Schiff, out of no where, is back to screaming Russia-gate yet again?
And everyone else on the left is back to screaming high crimes, misdemeanors and
impeachment ......yet again. Gheesh - long and complicates article but it did gel for me.
Including explaining the always mysterious role played by Samatha Powers, the Queen of US
Unmaskers.
Still waiting to hear more about Obama's Ambassador to that tiny Italian enclave San
Marino, that got in his licks unmasking Flynn too. Who was he fronting at the time. And why
San Marino?
Connecting the dots - Obama's San Marino Ambassador unmasks Micheal Flynn
The Atlantic Media Company, parent company of the Atlantic Magazine the wife of Obama's
former US Ambassador to Italy - Linda Douglass -, who himself had been curiously caught up
among the many 11th hour unmaskings of Gen Flynn. For as yet undisclosed reasons.
Atlantic Magazine, part of the Atlantic Media Group, now partly owned by Steve Job's very
wealthy widow Laurane Jobs and rabid anti-Trumper, is taking great delight dropping bogus
bombs against Trump, that can't even last for a 24 hour credibility cycle. With the promise
of many more to come.
Will Linda Douglass be delving into her husband and San Marino Ambassador's great treasure
trove of Obama era unmaskings to provide these daily TDS hit pieces? A classified no-no. Or
just continue to make stuff up.
Or does this recent leftist media hit piece frenzy mean Russia-gate, Iran-gate and/or
Obama Spy-gate is finally going to be broken open?
Such a small, small world. Why was Obama's Ambassador to San Marino unmasking Micheal
Flynn? And his wife just happens to now work for the Atlantic Magazine.
Deap,
Iran-Gate might be the motivating, proximate cause for Obama to approve the overall
"counterintelligence" mission. With Russia-Gate the legal cover / excuse. For Brennan / Comey
/ et al, however, it does not seem like the personal reason for their involvement. The Trump
anti-Borg inclinations is probably what motivated the Borg to go after him.
Deap, my initial reaction to your mention of an Italian connection was to point to Michael
Ledeen, Flynn's co-author and, apparently, consultant - colleague.
Ledeen is known for his Italian connections -- he is thought to have been responsible for
the yellow-cake fabrication that pushed along Iraq war.
But the SanMarino connection appears to be on the other side of the ledger that Ledeen
inhabits -- tho one should put nothing past that crafty warmonger.
"Iran has long been Ledeen's bête noir, arguing that .the country has been heavily
involved in supporting attacks against U.S. forces in hotspots across the globe.[9] "No
matter how well we do, no matter how many high-level targets we eliminate, no matter how
many cities, towns, and villages we secure, unless we defeat Iran we will always be
designing yet another counterinsurgency strategy in yet another place. We are in a big war,
and Iran is at the heart of the enemy army." '
If Flynn's anti-Iran sentiments are as unhinged as Ledeen's, then I have little sympathy
for his troubles, even though it appears that Ledeen's view prevailed in the Trump
administration. Flynn: twice back-stabbed.
I followed John Kerry's and Wendy Sherman's negotiations carefully; I listened to hours
and hours of the Congressional debates over the deal -- not a treaty, the debates seemed a
sop to Congress; I listened as Iranian representatives (Mousavian, iirc) explained that the
Deal was not good for Iran and most Iranians understood that, but that Iranians would go
along to show good faith; because they were backed into a corner; and because of the belief
that an Iran that was engaged in robust trade with Europeans & others would "come in from
the terror cold." I was at American University when Obama announced that the JCPOA was
affirmed.
From an "America First" perspective I endorse(d) Obama's vision, as the Forward article
explained it:
"[JCPOA} was his instrument to secure an even more ambitious objective -- to reorder the
strategic architecture of the Middle East.
Obama did not hide his larger goal. He told a biographer, New Yorker editor David
Remnick, that he was establishing a geopolitical equilibrium "between Sunni, or
predominantly Sunni, Gulf states and Iran." According to The Washington Post's David
Ignatius, another writer Obama used as a public messaging instrument, realignment was a
"great strategic opportunity" for a "a new regional framework that accommodates the
security needs of Iranians, Saudis, Israelis, Russians and Americans."
The catch to Obama's newly inclusive "balancing" framework was that upgrading relations
with Iran would necessarily come at the expense of traditional partners targeted by Iran --
like Saudi Arabia and, most importantly, Israel. Obama never said that part out loud, but
the logic isn't hard to follow: Elevating your enemy to the same level as your ally means
that your enemy is no longer your enemy, and your ally is no longer your ally."
From my America First pov, "rebalancing" USA relations such that Israel -- not a formal
ally and never a trustworthy informal ally (ask survivors of USS Liberty), and other
states in MidEast all held positions on a more level playing field in the eyes of American
foreign policy, is appealing.
The Forward article failed to mention Ledeen, but it was, unsurprisingly, unapologetically
pro-Israel and from a decidedly Jewish perspective.
The Forward's tone and underlying assumptions were and are offensive to me.
Regarding the statement
"The Task Force members were handpicked instead of following the normal procedure of posting
the job.
Instead of opening the job to all eligible CIA personnel, only a select group of people were
invited specifically to join up."
Two questions naturally arise:
Who was doing the selection, and
was the politics of the candidates a factor, perhaps a very big factor, in the selection
process?
"Right" to whom, and by what criteria?
Did the FBI director not know this was an important matter, which required the best
investigators?
In any case, we can see who was put on it, such Trump-haters as Strzok, Page, and
Clinesmith.
Just Trump's bad luck, or something more deliberate?
There was not really an "Italian" connection in the Iran-gate piece bur rather the
curiosity why Obama's Italian ambassdor had interests in unmasking Michael Flynn, since his
name showed up on the odd list of Obama persons who did unmask Flynn.
His name being there - Ambassador Phillips - may have been there due to his other Obama
connections, or his wife Linda Douglass' Obama connections. Or his wife's current connection
to the tabloid Atlantic Magazine.
Not really anything Italian per se, or even wee San Marino. Other than perhaps a mutual
veneration for things Machiavellian-as this unfolding story twists and turns..
Funny how "new normals" are rushing at us .9-11 was the new normal only 19 years ago, and
19 years later going on 20, a new "new normal" is upon us. The next "new normal" will only be
a few years away, 9 at the most Agenda 2030 and all that. By then, AI-enhanced RNA/DNA
altered "new humanity" will be upon us, and anyone not in this new "new normal" will be
outcast, shunned, shamed, and unemployed and if retired will not be able to get their SS and
MC.
"As it stands, there's only one thing we do know: the establishment at the core of the
Hegemon and the drooling orcs of Empire will only adopt a Great Reset if that helps to
postpone a decline accelerated on a fateful morning 19 years ago."
What?
I thought Covid 19 was a tool that the establishment is using to spark a Reset. And that
Agenda 21 is part of a Reset.
So why would the establishment object to a "decline"?
9/11 was just the first operation of the 21st century designed to accelerate the
disintegration of society and economy to achieve Agenda 21 . It was actually a continuation
of the 1975 TLC Project Democracy (sardonically named) that was kicked off by the Carter
administration in 1977 and went into warp speed under Reagan/Bush. Its continued ever since
but is picking up speed with the agreement of Agenda 21 in the 90's and its update Agenda
2030 in 2015. 2020 is the start of the final phase which will accomplish all of the
Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030, which is basically means total control over
every individual and all resources.
Its pretty much been an Open Conspiracy. Those who refused to question 9/11 will double up
on their blue pills to deny the Plandemic and expect a return to normal, dooming their
descendants to a life of serfdom should they be lucky enough to avoid the culling.
The new Normal will make some dystopian films seem like utopia. Watch some old movies and
TV series to remind you of old normal. They wont be available much longer unless you have the
DVD or VHS and a machines to play it. The tapes and discs age so don't last forever. Books
will last longer but those with digital collections will one day fund them disappeared
The beating heart of this matrix is – what else – the Strategic Intelligence
Platform, encompassing, literally, everything: "sustainable development", "global
governance", capital markets, climate change, biodiversity, human rights, gender parity,
LGBTI, systemic racism, international trade and investment, the – wobbly –
future of the travel and tourism industries, food, air pollution, digital identity,
blockchain, 5G, robotics, artificial intelligence (AI).
Since the US is a global has-been with most of its industry gone and living on debt
– it's probably useful for it to claim leadership of a "Strategic Intelligence
Platform". It can bury US problems internationally (same as it did with the dollar reserve)
but in a more comprehensive way than simple Globalization (only economic). If the USA NWO
claims international leadership of everything on all fronts, then they become the arbiters
(in their opinion) of everything everywhere on the grounds of a higher morality.
It actually looks more like the folie de grandeur of a old alcoholic than the
foundation of a new religion – and not something to pay attention to – apart from
the fact that he tends to get violent with anyone who disagrees.
Regarding your 50 questions, the fact that German and Russian intelligent warned the FBI
about an imminent Muslim terrorist attack is not compatible with the idea that there was a
controlled demolition.
Ah yes, the Beast reveals itself as a sensurround global hamster cage with a plethora of
control mechanisms hardwired through emergent software memes in celebration of the planned
future of total abstraction. Abstract reality. The hubris of the plutocratic, oligarchic and
technocratic elites is of a Promethean orgasm of trans humanistic values systematically
gorging itself on their perceived future of an enserfed humanity comprised of those who will
compromise truth, honor, justice, beauty and love–all in the service of mammon.
Not only is human nature to be subsumed to a mechanistic mindset gone ballistic in the
visions of absolute domination, but the ongoing assault on the natural world will be a
by-product of this Re-set. Stated simply, these schemers are playing God and have assembled
the tool-kit, which in their minds, will allow for no compromise, no mistakes. These people
are either spiritually vacuous or are imbued with an evil that totally negates a natural
order which is cosmic and universal in scope. Ultimately their dreams and schemes will
implode like the legendary Tower of Babel. Creation is not about to be undone by those who
have convinced themselves that they can control everything.
Mother Nature is not a mere lump of matter. She is a sentient being who is cosmically
connected and connective. Consider the storms, the blizzards, the fires and the systematic
destruction of our very atmospheres, to say nothing of oceanic life in all its magnificent
manifestations. Mama is not in a good mood and when she has had all she can take ..
" the fact that German and Russian intelligent (sic) warned the FBI about an imminent
Muslim terrorist attack is not compatible with the idea that there was a controlled
demolition."
How so? The US architects of a controlled demolition could have quite easily created fake
"chatter" and fake "intelligence" about an imminent Muslim terrorist attack.
@Intelligent
Dasein be found on Youtube titled "Former NIST Employee Speaks Out On World Trade Centre
Towers Collapse Investigation". It's 31 minutes long, but he says the following at
approximately 18 minutes in:
"Look at the symmetry. These buildings come straight down, or almost straight down.
Asymmetric damage does not lead to symmetric collapse. It's very difficult to get
something to collapse symmetrically because it is the Law of Physics that things tend towards
chaos. Collapsing symmetrically represents order, very strict order.
It is not the nature of physics to gravitate towards order for no reason. It will
gravitate towards chaos. It is very difficult to get a building to collapse
symmetrically."
@PetrOldSack
actor/author, how could he be, our cherished "thinkers" are as few and making up as they go,
seconded by the crude second tier public domain politicians, the corporate mongers, them
being even less prone to visionary skill. This "thing" can go wrong in all kinds of ways, but
real it is, and some derivative globally altered reality is there to stay. Brusquely,
genuinely."
The Atlantic tells us that "Overall, bots are responsible for 52 percent of web traffic"
and I think we're looking at Exhibit A.
an imminent Muslim terrorist attack is not compatible with the idea that there was a
controlled demolition
Q: Why not? In fact, just as the 3 WTC towers were pre-loaded with explosives, so the
alleged hijacker-piloted a/cs and resulting photogenic explosions were pre-planned 'Hollywood
special effects' as critical components. How else to convince the insouciant punters, except
with a well-scripted and executed 'whiz-bang?' Then, see the reports of putative Muslim
hijackers doing dope and/or booze with lap-dancing bar-girls beforehand. You do yourself a
disservice by denying *humongously obvious* controlled demolition. Tip: Try not to be
silly.
To unravel the enigma i wonder if one does not need to go completely eurocentric.
1848 unraveling the empires or at last a planting of the seeds.
1948 the new_world order is established. With its counterpart in the east. Essentially a
ynraveling of 1848 which was a crystallisation of the 30 year was and the peace of westphalia.
Neither established empire being a nation while a very different nationbuiling started in
europe compared to the pre-great war.
2048, no doubt some kind of replacing the new_world order with a new world_order.
One way or anothr to serve europes plutocrats. And with an eye on unraveling the previous 1948
situation. Soviets are gone, so now the disunited states of america has to go and be reduced to
a new balkans.
Perhaps sweeping away europe too this time. Arabobantustan unable to sustain a developed
economy certainly is on the timeline for europe.
Now. Regardless of whether the ghost of Herr Weishaupt is hanging around, the timeline is
awfully useful for anyone like the anglozionist cabal of assorted late 1800s multimillionaires
and their respective business empires cross inheritances into socalled NGOs. The names being
quite well known like rockefeller, carnegie, rhodes etc.
Then again maybe no one really knows what they are doing anymore and there is no plan at
all, just many very confused very badly planned plans. And all that will ensue is chaos and
destruction and no order afterwards worthy of the name. 150 years of pisspoor mismanagement
tends to have such consequences.
@Robert White
billion from its Term Securities Lending Facility. It wasn't until May 31, 2008, when JPMorgan
Chase closed its deal with Bear Stearns. However, the GAO reported that Bear Stearns "was
consistently the largest PDCF borrower until June 2008." The Fed shows that Bear Stearns
continued to receive funds until June 23, 2008.
This article pretty much sums it up as best as I can understand. I had often stated to
people of similar mind to watch for the next major 'move' after 9/11, it will be a dandy
because with possibly a few white knuckle moments, the Masters will have concluded that they
can get away with ANYTHING, internet or no. Truth simply fails to get traction in the minds of
the majority of 'screen zombies' and the majority is all they ever needed.
Now where things might get really scary is if/when they decide to implement the great cull.
From a dispassionate perspective, it is something they simply have to do. In 1950 the world
population was about 2 billion. Now it is about 8 billion. If a population graph was drawn from
say, 50,000 years ago it would be long and flat and then it would shoot up near vertically at
the end.
The problem now of course is that with technology and agricultural machinery of all sorts
the system doesn't even require the population of 1950. I recall one Master being on record as
mentioning 500 million as being ideal. That is somewhat more than a cull.
Some fools say that a war is imminent for that express purpose. Sorry wars (even nuclear,
which would affect the Masters too), won't result in the butcher's bill required. Only a global
pandemic could conceivably attain the goal and like a neutron bomb, leave the infrastructure
intact.
But this Covid is a hoax you say. Probably so, but what about this proverbial 'second wave'
that is repeated like a Hare Krishna mantra everywhere. What if they released a REAL nasty
virus (which we know they have somewhere) that has a proven vaccine for the 1% and then let the
fun begin knowing full well that they would not be fingered for it because a pandemic is
already on the move?
If it doesn't happen this fall then I may be wrong in my speculation. I always hope to be
wrong when dealing with topics of unfathomable evil.
Mama is not in a good mood and when she has had all she can take ..
Or, as some folks like to say, "God is mad". But it's all the same thing. Maybe the schemers
should be forced to read The Fisherman's Wife. However, they probably won't have any little
hovel to go back to.
@skrik neither
eyewitness testimony nor a visual documentation of the boarding process.
19 hijackers myth taken as " fact" by the 9/11 Commission. Any contradictions of this myth
were ignored by this Commission.
•By ignoring the numerous and glaring contradictions regarding the identities of the
alleged hijackers, the 9/11 Commission manifested its intent to maintain the official myth of
19 Muslim terrorists.
•By refusing to allow interviews with personnel who were responsible for passengers
boarding the four aircraft of 9/11, the airlines manifested their intent to conceal evidence
about the circumstances of the aircraft boarding.
When 9/11 occurred my immediate thoughts went back to an January 2001 when Lyndon LaRouche
warned that if John Ashcroft were to become Attorney General that then one could look forward
to a new Reichstag fire type situation occurring within the context of the fact that the world
financial system was finished and that the financial oligarchy was prepared to throw over the
chess board so to speak.
LaRouche was right and because his understanding of history was correct as it is based upon
a method of hypothesis that had already demonstrated the trajectories of economic collapse and
attendant political operations long before, with an understanding of how to get out of the mess
as demonstrated in history, particularly the Renaissance.
Of note here is a recent article of interest, which helps tell why LaRouche is hated!
This is a very interesting, all encompassing article, well done indeed. For a simpler and
perhaps more digestible and more narrowly focused look at the SARS-Cov2 issue specifically,
this is a worthwhile video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQE7S6c-SCk&t=50s
@PetrOldSack
ght in wars or participated in other combat operations in at least 24 countries. The
destruction inflicted by warfare in these countries has been incalculable for civilians and
combatants Between 2010 and 2019, the total number of refugees and IDPs globally has nearly
doubled from 41 million to 79.5 million .
These babies-loving American X-tians and other Samantha Powers and Obamas, have arranged quite
a spectacular mass slaughter of children of all ages to please the "deciders" (Masters of the
Universe).
None of the murderous idiots has been punished, yet Assange the truthteller is in a high-security
prison Belmarsh, handled by the same murderous scum. Kali , says: Next New
Comment September 11, 2020
at 12:24 pm GMT
@Majority of
One eation is not about to be undone by those who have convinced themselves that they can
control everything.
I couldn't agree more with this.
The intelligence of Existance Itself, the very Nature of Being is anathema to to those specs
of dirt who would attempt to determine the will of God.
The same sentience which is manifest in Man is repeated and applified throughout all of
existance. How could it be any other way when everything we experience is fractal? Just as God
may be experience at the centre of our very Being, so the same God is observed within the All of
Everything.
A great look into what is going on, and what is still to come. Yet the sleeping, brain dead,
face diapered, mind controlled masses of the global corporation formerly known as he United
States spend every waking hour saying "hooray for our guy". Never once does it occur to the
sheeple both are puppets, controlled by the international banksters and their minions.
One of these morons has undeniable ties to the Russian mob, while the other has deep ties to
the Chinese Communist Party. If that weren't bad enough, they both swear undying loyalty to
that little shit stain in the Middle East which seems to project more influence on world
politics than the two formerly mentioned giants.
I know it is no accident the printing of this article occurred on the anniversary date of
the last, greatest mind fuck to hit America since Dec. 7th, 1941. I guess the infidels have
been shown a lesson and the world is now safe for a one world government technocratic
Corporatocracy.
So here's to 3/11/2020(my official date for the roll out of the CV hoax), the ushering in of
a new slave system, and the idiocy and gullibility of the global citizenry.
So enjoy your new bosses, as they are going to be far more tyrannical than your old.
@Robjil
ry:'
[I see that the 1st image is not visible, kindly try this link: alleged 'recovered' flight
recorder ]
Q: How soft was that ground, anyway? Does anyone 'believe' that part of the official 9/11
narrative? Haw. Only the 'insouciant punters' were ever hoodwinked by such offensive, lying
rubbish, all faithfully echoed by the 'lame-stream media.' rgds
Condoleeza Rice resisting at Congressional enquiry "N-o-o-o" and then admitting in a faint
there was an "intelligence report" that said said "Ben Laden planning to use airplanes in
terrorist attack" was play acting to confirm what they wanted people to believe. You will
remember that you were taught to prepare in advance "red herrings" and leave deliberate
confusions behind you to cover your trail.
@Robert White
traitors and infiltrated enemies not by any brilliance of the vicious Chinese Communist mass
murderers -- if you like the idea of taking a van ride for expressing your anti-Government
thoughts you'll love the ChiCom "Model" being installed here now on all of us -- Ron Unz would
be one of the first for the van ride if he tried to run a site like this in China by the way --
there is zero disputing this fact. David Rockefeller gave us the CFR, Trilateral Commission
etc. and of course the WHO and:
https://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-true-agenda-of-the-who-a-new-world-order-modeled-after-china/
@Alfred Haw.
Or was that suppressed as well, along with the bulk-wreckage [=crime-scene evidence] which was
destroyed by being exported as scrap? Haw again.
Nitty-gritty: There is no need to posit any 'exotics,' from nukes to DEW; standard
explosives [both with OR without thermite/mate; only the 'best' tools = most suitable would
have been deployed]; standard explosives could quite easily do the job, for example det-cord
threaded into the floor-slab conduits can fully explain both the absence of floor in the rubble
plus the billowing pyroclastic white dust-clouds [incidentally, explaining scorched vehicles].
And so it goes. A term for such reasoning = Occam's razor.
In short black people are used as pawns in the political struggle between two neoliberal
clans fighting for power, using students without perspectives of gaining meaningful employment as
a ram. We saw this picture before in a different country. And riots do reverse gains achieved in
civil right struggle since 1960th, so they are also net losers. Racial tensions in the USA
definitely increased dramatically.
Notable quotes:
"... Bottom line: "Critical Race Theory", "The 1619 Project", and Homeland Security's "White Supremacist" warning represent the ideological foundation upon which the war on America is based. The "anti-white" dogma is the counterpart to the massive riots that have rocked the country. These phenomena are two spokes on the same wheel. They are designed to work together to achieve the same purpose. The goal is create a "racial" smokescreen that conceals the vast and willful destruction of the US economy, the $5 trillion dollar wealth-transfer that was provided to Wall Street, and the ferocious attack on the emerging, mainly-white working class "populist" movement that elected Trump and which rejects the globalist plan to transform the world into a borderless free trade zone ruled by cutthroat monopolists and their NWO allies. ..."
"... This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look beyond the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows. There lies the cancer that must be eradicated. ..."
"... The current situation cannot exist without the complicity of the secret services and the police. The heads of the secret services are either part of the cabal or close their eyes in fear ..."
"... There can be no single oligarch. It must be a larger group but very united by fear and a common goal. This can only be achieved if they are all Jews or Masons. Or both under a larger umbrella like some kind of pedo-ritual killing-satan worshiper. Soros can't do it alone. ..."
"... Of course politicians are corrupt and complicit but usually they are not the leaders ..."
Here's your BLM Pop Quiz for the day: What do "Critical Race Theory", "The 1619 Project",
and Homeland Security's "White Supremacist" warning tell us about what's going on in America
today?
They point to deeply-embedded racism that shapes the behavior of white people They
suggest that systemic racism cannot be overcome by merely changing attitudes and laws They
alert us to the fact that unresolved issues are pushing the country towards a destructive race
war They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are inciting
racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to office in 2016
and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to transform America into
a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
Which of these four statements best explains what's going on in America today?
If you chose Number 4, you are right. We are not experiencing a sudden and explosive
outbreak of racial violence and mayhem. We are experiencing a thoroughly-planned,
insurgency-type operation that involves myriad logistical components including vast, nationwide
riots, looting and arson, as well as an extremely impressive ideological campaign. "Critical
Race Theory", "The 1619 Project", and Homeland Security's "White Supremacist" warning are as
much a part of the Oligarchic war on America as are the burning of our cities and the toppling
of our statues. All three, fall under the heading of "ideology", and all three are being used
to shape public attitudes on matters related to our collective identity as "Americans".
The plan is to overwhelm the population with a deluge of disinformation about their history,
their founders, and the threats they face, so they will submissively accept a New Order imposed
by technocrats and their political lackeys. This psychological war is perhaps more important
than Operation BLM which merely provides the muscle for implementing the transformative "Reset"
that elites want to impose on the country. The real challenge is to change the hearts and minds
of a population that is unwaveringly patriotic and violently resistant to any subversive
element that threatens to do harm to their country. So, while we can expect this propaganda
saturation campaign to continue for the foreseeable future, we don't expect the strategy will
ultimately succeed. At the end of the day, America will still be America, unbroken, unflagging
and unapologetic.
Let's look more carefully at what is going on.
On September 4, the Department of Homeland Security issued a draft report stating that
"White supremacists present the gravest terror threat to the United States". According to an
article in Politico:
" all three draft (versions of the document) describe the threat from white
supremacists as the deadliest domestic terror threat facing the U.S. , listed above the
immediate danger from foreign terrorist groups . John Cohen, who oversaw DHS's
counterterrorism portfolio from 2011 to 2014, said the drafts' conclusion isn't
surprising.
"This draft document seems to be consistent with earlier intelligence reports from DHS,
the FBI, and other law enforcement sources: that the most significant terror-related
threat facing the US today comes from violent extremists who are motivated by white
supremac y and other far-right ideological causes," he said .
"Lone offenders and small cells of individuals motivated by a diverse array of social,
ideological, and personal factors will pose the primary terrorist threat to the United
States," the draft reads. "Among these groups, we assess that white supremacist extremists
will pose the most persistent and lethal threat."..(" DHS
draft document: White supremacists are greatest terror threat " Politico)
This is nonsense. White supremacists do not pose the greatest danger to the country, that
designation goes to the left-wing groups that have rampaged through more than 2,000 US cities
for the last 100 days. Black Lives Matter and Antifa-generated riots have decimated hundreds of
small businesses, destroyed the lives and livelihoods of thousands of merchants and their
employees, and left entire cities in a shambles. The destruction in Kenosha alone far exceeds
the damage attributable to the activities of all the white supremacist groups combined.
So why has Homeland Security made this ridiculous and unsupportable claim? Why have they
chosen to prioritize white supremacists as "the most persistent and lethal threat" when it is
clearly not true?
There's only one answer: Politics.
The officials who concocted this scam are advancing the agenda of their real bosses, the
oligarch puppet-masters who have their tentacles extended throughout the deep-state and use
them to coerce their lackey bureaucrats to do their bidding. In this case, the honchos are
invoking the race card ("white supremacists") to divert attention from their sinister
destabilization program, their looting of the US Treasury (for their crooked Wall Street
friends), their demonizing of the mostly-white working class "America First" nationalists who
handed Trump the 2016 election, and their scurrilous scheme to establish one-party rule by
installing their addlepated meat-puppet candidate (Biden) as president so he can carry out
their directives from the comfort of the Oval Office. That's what's really going on.
DHS's announcement makes it possible for state agents to target legally-armed Americans who
gather with other gun owners in groups that are protected under the second amendment. Now the
white supremacist label will be applied more haphazardly to these same conservatives who pose
no danger to public safety. The draft document should be seen as a warning to anyone whose
beliefs do not jibe with the New Liberal Orthodoxy that white people are inherently racists who
must ask forgiveness for a system they had no hand in creating (slavery) and which was
abolished more than 150 years ago.
The 1619 Project" is another part of the ideological war that is being waged against the
American people. The objective of the "Project" is to convince readers that America was founded
by heinous white men who subjugated blacks to increase their wealth and power. According to the
World Socialist Web Site:
"The essays featured in the magazine are organized around the central premise that all of
American history is rooted in race hatred -- specifically, the uncontrollable hatred of
"black people" by "white people." Hannah-Jones writes in the series' introduction:
"Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country. "
This is a false and dangerous conception. DNA is a chemical molecule that contains the
genetic code of living organisms and determines their physical characteristics and
development . Hannah-Jones's reference to DNA is part of a growing tendency to derive
racial antagonisms from innate biological processes .where does this racism come from? It
is embedded, claims Hannah-Jones, in the historical DNA of American "white people." Thus, it
must persist independently of any change in political or economic conditions .
. No doubt, the authors of The Project 1619 essays would deny that they are predicting
race war, let alone justifying fascism. But ideas have a logic; and authors bear
responsibility for the political conclusions and consequences of their false and misguided
arguments." ("The New York Times's 1619
Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history", World Socialist Web
Site)
Clearly, Hannah-Jones was enlisted by big money patrons who needed an ideological foundation
to justify the massive BLM riots they had already planned as part of their US color revolution.
The author –perhaps unwittingly– provided the required text for vindicating
widespread destruction and chaos carried out in the name of "social justice."
As Hannah-Jones says, "Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country", which is to
say that it cannot be mitigated or reformed, only eradicated by destroying the symbols of white
patriarchy (Our icons, our customs, our traditions and our history.), toppling the existing
government, and imposing a new system that better reflects the values of the burgeoning
non-Caucasian majority. Simply put, The Project 1619 creates the rationale for sustained civil
unrest, deepening political polarization and violent revolution.
All of these goals conveniently coincide with the aims of the NWO Oligarchs who seek to
replace America's Constitutional government with a corporate Superstate ruled by voracious
Monopolists and their globalist allies. So, while Hannah-Jones treatise does nothing to improve
conditions for black people in America, it does move the country closer to the dystopian dream
of the parasite class; Corporate Valhalla.
Then there is "Critical Race Theory" which provides the ideological icing on the cake. The
theory is part of the broader canon of anti-white dogma which is being used to indoctrinate
workers. White employees are being subjected to "reeducation" programs that require their
participation as a precondition for further employment . The first rebellion against critical
race theory, took place at Sandia Labs which is a federally-funded research agency that designs
America's nuclear weapons. According to journalist Christopher F. Rufo:
"Senator @HawleyMO and
@SecBrouillette have
launched an inspector general investigation, but Sandia executives have only accelerated
their purge against conservatives."
Sandia executives have made it clear: they want to force critical race theory,
race-segregated trainings, and white male reeducation camps on their employees -- and all
dissent will be severely punished. Progressive employees will be rewarded; conservative
employees will be purged." (" There is a civil war erupting
at @SandiaLabs ." Christopher F Rufo)
It all sounds so Bolshevik. Here's more info on how this toxic indoctrination program
works:
"Treasury Department
The Treasury Department held a training session telling employees that "virtually all
White people contribute to racism" and demanding that white staff members "struggle to own
their racism" and accept their "unconscious bias, White privilege, and White
fragility."
The National Credit Union Administration
The NCUA held a session for 8,900 employees arguing that America was "founded on
racism" and "built on the blacks of people who were enslaved. " Twitter thread here and
original source documents
here .
Sandia National Laboratories
Last year, Sandia National Labs -- which produces our nuclear arsenal -- held a
three-day reeducation camp for white males, teaching them how to deconstruct their
"white male culture" and forcing them to write letters of apology to women and people of
color . Whistleblowers from inside the labs tell me that critical race theory is now
endangering our national security. Twitter thread here and original source
documents
here .
Argonne National Laboratories
Argonne National Labs hosts trainings calling on white lab employees to admit that they
"benefit from racism" and atone for the "pain and anguish inflicted upon Black people. "
Twitter thread here .
Department of Homeland Security
The Department of Homeland Security hosted a Training on "microaggressions,
microinequities, and microassaults" where white employees were told that they had been
"socialized into oppressor roles. " Twitter thread here and original source
documents here
." (" Summary of
Critical Race Theory Investigations" , Christopher F Rufo)
On September 4, Donald Trump announced his administration "would prohibit federal
agencies from subjecting government employees to "critical race theory" or "white privilege"
seminar. ..
"It has come to the President's attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent
millions of taxpayer dollars to date 'training' government workers to believe divisive,
anti-American propaganda ," read a Friday memo
from the Office of Budget and Management Director Russ Vought. "These types of 'trainings'
not only run counter to the fundamental beliefs for which our Nation has stood since its
inception, but they also engender division and resentment within the Federal workforce The
President has directed me to ensure that Federal agencies cease and desist from using
taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions."
The next day, September 5, Trump announced that the Department of Education was going to see
whether the New York Times Magazine's 1619 Project was being used in school curricula
and– if it was– then those schools would be ineligible for federal funding.
Conservative pundits applauded Trump's action as a step forward in the "culture wars", but it's
really much more than that. Trump is actually foiling an effort by the domestic saboteurs who
continue look for ways to undermine democracy, reduce the masses of working-class people to
grinding poverty and hopelessness, and turn the country into a despotic military outpost ruled
by bloodsucking tycoons, mercenary autocrats and duplicitous elites. Alot of thought and effort
went into this malign ideological project. Trump derailed it with a wave of the hand. That's no
small achievement.
Bottom line: "Critical Race Theory", "The 1619 Project", and Homeland Security's "White
Supremacist" warning represent the ideological foundation upon which the war on America is
based. The "anti-white" dogma is the counterpart to the massive riots that have rocked the
country. These phenomena are two spokes on the same wheel. They are designed to work
together to achieve the same purpose. The goal is create a "racial" smokescreen that conceals
the vast and willful destruction of the US economy, the $5 trillion dollar wealth-transfer that
was provided to Wall Street, and the ferocious attack on the emerging, mainly-white working
class "populist" movement that elected Trump and which rejects the globalist plan to transform
the world into a borderless free trade zone ruled by cutthroat monopolists and their NWO
allies.
This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look
beyond the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows. There lies the cancer
that must be eradicated.
A good article, but no mention of who exactly these oligarchs are. Or why so many of them
are Jewish.
Or why so many Zionist organisations support BLM and other such groups.
Mike, not mentioning these things will not save you. You will still be cancelled by
Progressive Inc.
This seems like a good explanation of what is happening. I wonder whether too many people
will fall for the propaganda, though. It is the classic effort to get the turkeys to support
thanksgiving.
The deserved progress and concessions achieved by the civil rights struggles for the Black
community is in danger of deteriorating because Black leadership will not stand up and
vehemently condemn the rioting and destruction and killing, and declare that the BLM movement
does not represent the majority of the Black American culture and that the overexaggerated
accusations of "racism" do not necessitate the eradication and revision of history, nor does
it require European Americans to feel guilt or shame. There is no need for a cultural
revolution. The ideology and actions of BLM are offensive and inconsistent with American
values, and Black leaders should be saying this every day, and should be admonishing about
the consequences. They should also use foresight to see how this is going to end, because the
BLM and their supporters are being used to fight a war that they can never win. And when it's
over, what perception will the rest of America have of Black people?
@sonofman g to TPTB. Better to have an amorphous slogan to donate money to than an actual
organization with humans, goals and ideas which can be held up to the light and critically
examined.
The whole sudden race thing is a fraud to eliminate the electoral support Trump had
amassed among blacks before Corona and Fentanyl Floyd. In line with what Whitney says, the
globalists need to take down Trump. And the race card has always been the first tool in the
DNC's toolkit. When all else fails, go nuclear with undefined claims of racism.
Almost every big magazine has a black person on the cover this month. Probably will in
October too. Coincidence? Sure it is.
They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are
inciting racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to
office in 2016 and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to
transform America into a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
I'm shocked that they're trying to sell this Q-tier bullshit about Trump fighting the deep
state.
The reality about Trump is that he is the release valve, the red herring designed to keep
whitey pacified while massive repossessions and foreclosures take place, permanently
impoverishing a large part of the white population, and shutting down the Talmudic
service-based economy, which is all that is really left. It is Trump's DHS that declared a
large part of his white trashionalist base to be terrorists.
The populist majority never had anyone to vote for. This system will never give them one.
They aren't bright enough to make it happen.
Agree. Barack Obama in particular will go down in history a real disgrace to the legacy of
the US presidency. He is violating the sacred trust that the people of the United States
invested in him. What a fraud!
Good post Mr. Whitney especially about "white supremacy" garbage .which has only been
going on since the 90s! You know, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elohim City and Okie City, militias,
"patriot groups," etc. This really is nothing new. And, since so many remember the "white
supremacy" crapola was crapola back in the 90s, I'd say everyone pretty much regardless of
race over the age of 40 knows there is, as it says in Ecclesiastes in the Bible, "there is
nothing new under the sun." And, if you home schooled your kids back then, then you kids know
it as well. Fact is this: the DHS as with every other govt. agency is forced to blame "white
supremacy" for every problem in this country because who the heck else can they blame? Jews?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh when pigs fly After all, Noahide just might be around the
corner ..
Sheriffs have a lot of legal power. Ultimately, the battle is privatized money power
vs Joe Citizen/Sheriffs.
This sheriff is working a Constitutional angle that says: Local Posse (meaning you.. Joe
citizen) working with the Sheriff department to protect your local community. Richard Mack is
teaching other Sheriffs and (some Police) what their Constitutional power is, and that power
doesn't include doing bidding of Oligarchs.
Sheriffs are elected, and their revenue stream is outside of Oligarchy:
So Donald Trump suddenly discovers that racial Bolshevism is the official policy of
his own executive branch – a mere 3 years and 8 months after assuming the
position
... Looks like the same old flim-flam they pull every four years. No matter who wins, the
Davos folks continue to run the circus and fleece the suckers dry.
Because it is. Substitute "the ethnic Russian middle class are class enemies" for
"Anglo-American are all racists" and there you have it. Permission for a small organized
minority to eliminate a whole class on ideological grounds...
I live in a former communist country in Eastern Europe with corrupt politicians, oligarchs
and organized crime.
America was a country with a minor corruption and in which the oligarchs, although
influential, were not united in a small group with decisive force. Now America is slowly
slipping into the situation of a second-hand shit-hole country.
Is that I can see the situation more clearly than an American citizen who still has the
American perception of his contry the way it was 30 years ago.
Essential thing:
1) The current situation cannot exist without the complicity of the secret services and
the police. The heads of the secret services are either part of the cabal or close their eyes
in fear .
2) There can be no single oligarch. It must be a larger group but very united by fear and
a common goal. This can only be achieved if they are all Jews or Masons. Or both under a
larger umbrella like some kind of pedo-ritual killing-satan worshiper. Soros can't do it
alone.
3) Of course politicians are corrupt and complicit but usually they are not the
leaders
4) BLM are exactly the brown shirts of the new Hitler.
Soon we will se the new Hitler/Stalin/ in plain light.
Thirty black children murdered recently; zero by police / BLM & 'the media' say
nothing: https://www.outkick.com/blm-101-volume-7-the-lives-of-innocent-black-kids-do-not-matter/
BTW:
– Last year, the nationwide total for all US police forces was 47 killings of unarmed
criminals by police during arrest procedures.
– 8 were black, 19 were white.
Though blacks, relative to their numbers, committed a vastly higher number of crimes, hence
their immensely greater arrest rate.
@Justvisiting urally, it is nonsense -- nasty, power-hungry, censorious nonsense.
It is the opposite of scientific or empirical thought -- science can not accept theories
which are not capable of falsification. (Take astrology -- actually, don't ! -- what ever
conclusion it comes to can never be wrong : Dick or Jane didn't find love ? Well, one
of Saturn's moons was retrograde & Mercury declensed Venus (I don't know what it means
either) . or Dick went on a bender & Jane had a whole bad hair week.
Frankly, to play these pre-modern tricks on us is just grotesquely insulting. That some are
falling for it is grotesquely depressing.
Another ringer from Mike Whitney! Keep 'em comin', brother.
We are not experiencing a sudden and explosive outbreak of racial violence and mayhem.
We are experiencing a thoroughly-planned, insurgency-type operation that involves myriad
logistical components including vast, nationwide riots, looting and arson, as well as an
extremely impressive ideological campaign.
Yup. TPTB have been grooming BLM/Antifa for this moment for at least 3-4 years now, if not
longer. Here's a former BLMer who quit speaking out three years ago about the organization's
role in the present 'race war':
It is very clever politics and (war) propaganda. You break down and demoralise your
enemies at the same time as assuring your own side of it's own righteous use of violence.
This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look
beyond the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows.
Nailing it.
4. They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are
inciting racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to
office in 2016 and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to
transform America into a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
Which of these four statements best explains what's going on in America today?
If you chose Number 4, you are right.
If we believe this – we need to act like it. These are "enemies, foreign and
domestic ". This isn't ordinary politics, it arguably transcends politics.
What hope is there without organization?
And whatever is done – don't give them ammunition. The resistance must not be an
ethno-resistance.
But he is either naive or a bad manager, as his hires are deadly to his aims. And the
management criticism is big, because as a leader that is mostly what he does.
That he gets information to affect US policy for good, from outside of his circle of
trusted personnel, is a sad state of affairs.
@Robert Dolan ds that it would have ended on day one were it not officially sanctioned
and the rioters protected from prosecution. Why hasn't the Janet Rosenberg/Thousand
Currents/Tides Foundation connection with the BLM/DNC/MSM cabal, as well as with Antifa and
social media, been the major investigation on Fox News? Why haven't Zuckerberg, Zucker, et al
been arrested for incitement to commit federal crimes, including capital treason to overthrow
the duly elected president? (Just a few rhetorical questions for the hell of it.) What's so
galling is that the cops and federal agents are being used as just so many patsies who are
deployed, not to protect, but deployed to look like fools and be held up for mockery as
pathetic exemplars of white disempowerment.
The officials who concocted this scam are advancing the agenda of their real bosses, the
oligarch puppet-masters who have their tentacles extended throughout the deep-state and use
them to coerce their lackey bureaucrats to do their bidding.
Agree, but where is President Trump? He was supposed to appoint undersecretaries and
assistant secretaries and deputy undersecretaries and Schedule C whippersnappers on whose
desks such outrages are supposed to die.
I've thought from the beginning that this lack of attention to "personnel as policy" --
with Trump overestimating the ability of the ostensible CEO to overcome such intransigence --
was one of his major failures. I am sympathetic, as there are not many people he could trust
to be loyal to his agenda, much less to him, but this is a disaster in every agency
Few years ago I watch a clip secretly recorded in Ukrainian synagogue where Rabi said
"first we have to fight Catholics and with Muslims it will be an easy job" ...
Thanks to Mr Whitney for being able to cut through the fog and see what's going on behind
it. The term "white supremacist" wasn't much in public use at all until the day Trump was
elected then suddenly it was all over the place. It's like one of those massive ad campaigns
whose jingle is everywhere as if some group decided on it as a theme to be pushed. They're
really afraid that the white working class population will wake up and see how the country is
being sold out from underneath their feet hence the need to keep it divided and intimidated.
Like all the other color revolutions everywhere else they strike at the weak links within the
country to create conflict, in the US case it's so-called diversity. There's billions
available to be spent in this project so plenty of traitors can be found, unwitting or
otherwise, to carry out their assignments. The billionaire class own most of the media and
much else and see the US as their farm. They have no loyalty whatsoever and outsource
everything to China or anywhere else they can squeeze everything out of the workers. They
want a global dictatorship and admire the Chinese government for the way it can order its
citizens around.
You are exactly right. Trump is doing his part (knowingly or unknowingly, but probably
knowingly) to accomplish the NWO objectives. He was not elected in 2016 in spite of NWO
desires, as most Trump supporters think, but rather precisely BECAUSE of NWO desires.
The NWO probably also wants him to win again this year, and if so then he will win. The
reason the NWO wanted him in 2016 (and probably wants him to win again) was primarily to
neutralize the (armed) Right in this country so they wouldn't effectively resist the COVID-19
scamdemic lockdown tyranny and BLM/Antifa riots.
@Trinity While I tend to agree with you that it looks like a race war, the question is
why is it happening now? If it were just a race war promoted by radicals in BLM and Antifa,
it does not explain the nationwide coordination (let's face it the faces of BLM and Antifa
are not that smart or connected), the support and censorship of the violence by the MSM and
the support of Marxist BLM by corporations to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
This is a color revolution in the making and may come to a peak after Nov. 3rd. Whitney is on
to something, there is much more going on behind the "smoke and mirrors" and AG Barr (if he's
not part of it) should be investigating it.
They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are
inciting racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to
office in 2016 and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to
transform America into a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
I keep reading such nonsense in the comments above. the so-called populist majority does
not get it, Trump is not placed here to stop the Globalist agenda, that is an electioneering
stunt. Look at what he has actually and really done.
How has he stopped the Globalist move forward?? By the Covid plandemic being
allowed to circle the globe and shut down the US economy and social norm? By moving our high
tech companies to Israel? Giving Israel and their Wall Street allies what is left of US
credit wealth? Draining the swamp with even more Zio-Neocon Swamp creatures in the govt than
ever? Moving the embassy to Jerusalem and all requests per Netanyahu's wish list? A real
anti-Globalist stand? Looting the Federal Reserve for the Wall Street high fliers, who
garnered more wealth during the crash test run of March-April and are sure to make out with
even more for the coming big crash?
Phoney stunts of stopping immigration or bashing China. Really? China is still rising
propelled by Wall Street and Banker funds. I have not seen any jobs coming home, lost more
than ever in US history this year. Only lost homes for the working and middle classes.
How is Populist America standing up for their constitutional rights which is being
shredded a little more each day? Standing up for their Real Interests, which are eroded and
stolen on an almost daily basis by Trump's NY Mafia and Wall Street Oligarchs. Jobs gone for
good and government assistance to the needy disappearing, as that is against the phoney
Republic individualism, that you must make it on your own. Right just like the big goverment
assistance always going to the big money players and banks, remember as they are too big
to let fail!
Dreaming that Trump is going to save White America from the Gobalists is just
bull corn . From whom BLM? Proven street theatre that will disappear on command. I
actually have come to learn that some Black leaders are speaking out intelligently for street
calm and distancing themselves from BLM.
Problem with the USA is the general population is so very dumbed down by 60 years of MSM
– TV s and Hollywood mind control programming that the public prefers professional
actors like Reagan and Trump over real politicians, and surely never chose a Statesman or
real Patriotic leader. the public political narrative is still set by Fox , CNN and
MSNBC .
The deep state is so infiltrated and overwhelmed with Zio and Globalist agents, that it is
now almost hopeless to fix. Sorry to point out but Trump is best described as the Dummy
sitting on his Ventriloquist's lap (Jared Kushner).
Situation is near hopeless as even here on Ron Unz Review the comments are so
disappointing, almost 80% are focused on the Race as the prime issue and supportive of Trump
fakery (not that I support Biden and Zio slut Kamil Harris either).
In sum, beyond putting their MAGA hats on, White America is more focused more on
playing Cowboy with their toy guns, AR's and all than really getting involved politically to
sort things out to get American onto a better track. Of course, this is not taken seriously
as it might call for reaching out to other American communities that are even more
disenfranchised: African- Americans and Latinos.
@David Erickson nted him in 2016 (and probably wants him to win again) was primarily to
neutralize the (armed) Right in this country so they wouldn't effectively resist the COVID-19
scamdemic lockdown tyranny and BLM/Antifa riots.
Covid and BLM/ANTIFA are just window dressing for the financial turmoil. "Look over here
whitey, there's a pandemic" and "look over here whitey, there's a riot" is much preferred to
whitey shooting the sheriff who comes to take his stuff.
Wave the flag and bible while spreading love for the cops, and the repossessions and
evictions should go off without a hitch. Yes, Trump is a knowing participant.
"My impression is that BLM, Antifa and other protestors are well aware of this"
Like all good Maoists the cult white kids of antifa rigidly adhere to the mission statement
and stick the inconvenient truth in the back of their mushy minds. BLM ... is a mercenary.
Can you imagine any other groups rioting and destroying American cities for over 3 months?
Imagine if the Hells Angels or some other White biker gang was doing what Antifa and BLM are
doing? Hell, imagine if it were a bunch of Hare Krishnas pulling this shit off? Hell, I think
the local mayors, police, and other law enforcement employees wouldn't even take this much shit
even if the rioters were Girl Scouts. We are talking 3-4 months of lawlessness, assaults,
rapes, murders ( cold blooded premeditated murders at that) and still the people in charge let
this shit go on night and day. IF the POTUS doesn't have the authority or the power to stop
shit like this from going on then what the hell do we even vote for anyhow? Granted, I see the
reason for not being ruled by a dictatorship, but who in the hell can justify letting these
riots go on? One can only assume that both the republicants and the demsheviks are fine with
these riots because no one seems in a hurry to shut them down or arrest the hombres funding
these riots. Who is housing and feeding the rioters? Who is paying their travel expenses? I'm
sure most everyone in Washington knows who the people are behind these riots but don't expect
any action anytime soon.
This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look beyond
the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows. There lies the cancer that
must be eradicated.
That's true to a large degree, but
It is indeed an attempt to liquidate the working and lower middle class. Most of the
American working and lower middle class, obviously not all, is White. So predictably we have
these calls for White Genocide. Agreed and good to see the tie-in with the Coronavirus Hoax
lock downs, too, which also spread the devastation into minority communities under the guise of
public safety.
The one question that remains unanswered is why the major cities were targeted for
destruction. Obviously these are the playgrounds of the oligarchs and have been decimated. We
will learn soon enough.
The Reverend William Barber is the only genuine black leader I am aware of.
And he makes a pointn of not speaking only for blacks, but for all disadvantaged communities,
including poor whites. IMO he is the real deal, and I very much hope he takes the lead in
articulating genuine community values of respect and equality for all, including basics such as
decent health care and food access.
The pressure exerted on someone like Barber by the BLM forces in the media and other
institutions is enormous.
I wish Ron Unz would invite him to write something for the UR.
BLM is all about anti-white activism, black supremacy and the forcible transfer of white
wealth to blacks but Tucker Carlson keeps insisting that BLM is a smokescreen for class
struggle.
The way that BLM are acting now they could almost be called pro-White activists. They
certainly don't make diversity look like a strength or something that would be in any way
shape or form desirable.
The Awan Brothers aided former DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz in making threatening voice modulated phone calls to
attorneys suing the DNC for election fraud.
Lt. Colonel Tony Schaffer told
Fox
News
that Schultz ordered the Awan Brothers to scare off the lawyers due to the threat they pose in exposing widespread
election fraud committed by the Democratic Party in 2016.
Disobedientmedia.com
reports: If substantiated, the claims may have significance for the DNC fraud lawsuit proceedings,
and add to the growing controversy surrounding the recent arrest of Imran Awan on bank fraud charges.
Jared Beck, and attorney litigating the DNC Fraud Lawsuit noted
on Twitter
:
There is really no need for more people, no need for population replacement, and the low TFRs are not really a problem as the population numbers are naturally decreasing to meet the future needs of these advanced societies as they develop.
While it is useful to have the ideological background behind the policies that our leaders
are implementing compiled in one or a few volumes for the benefit of those members of the
intelligentsia with an interest in this, as far as ordinary people – the majority of
the voters – are concerned, one just needs to keep reminding them of the reality
And
the anecdote of the confrontation between Gordon Brown and Gillian Duffy shows that Duffy has
a far better grip on reality than Brown, and even Brown confessed that she said "Everything".
Well almost everything in a nutshell.
The reality is that with increasing automation, increasing unemployment, and the
industrial/economic decline in developed countries, there is really no need for more people,
no need for population replacement, and the low TFRs are not really a problem as the
population numbers are naturally decreasing to meet the future needs of these advanced
societies as they develop.
That is all anybody needs to know to make sound decisions, and
racism, cosmopolitanism, diversity, cultural Marxism, ideologies of whatever colour, are just
so many red herrings.
To be clear; none more deserving of dignity than the working people of America; they keep the nation running; they are America's
better angels; and, they deserve to be better paid.
Those are lofty words. But what to do when there is not enough cookies for everybody. That's when economic ruptures occur (with
one form being Minsky moments)
In a sense, going back to Joan Robinson, the idea of rupture within the notion of historical time can also be found in Keynes,
although with an important difference. Here the emphasis put on irreversibility implies of course qualitative change, and indeed
the emphasis is put on the changing conditions underlying economic phenomena. Thus, for example, Joan Robinson discusses the notion
of scarcity in relation to historical time:
The question of scarce means with alternative uses becomes self‐ contradictory when it is set in historical time, where
today is an ever-moving break between the irrevocable past and the unknown future. At any moment, certainly, resources are
scarce, but they have hardly any range of alternative uses.
The workers available to be employed are not a supply of "labor", but a number of carpenters or coal miners. The uses of
land depend largely on transport; industrial equipment was created to assist the output of particular products.
To change the use of resources requires investment and training, which alters the resources themselves. As for choice among
investment projects, this involves the whole analysis of the nature of capitalism and of its evolution through time. (Robinson
1977: 8)
Although the emphasis on rupture is introduced, in this historical time, "where today is an ever moving break between the irrevocable
past and the unknown future," the sense of the "break," of rupture, is confined within the problems of capitalist accumulation,
of the problems posed by the right proportions of, following Robinson's example, carpenters and coal miners.
History here does not present alternatives and defines itself clearly and simply as "historical objectivism" in the continuum
of the capitalist relation, as contemplation of "what really was," that is, the "irrevocable [capitalist] past," and speculations
about an "unknown [capitalist] future."
In Keynes, the unknown character of this future is translated in the status of the long run expectations of the investors which,
to emphasize the difficulty of their modeling, in turn depends on their "animal spirits."
In Keynes, rupture as revolutionary, transcendental, rupture exists only in the form of a threat, implicit in the theoretical
apparatus, in the difficulty to endogenize variables, in the reliance on "psychological factors," on investors' animal spirits
which mysteriously respond to hints of this historical rupture, in the recognition of the difficulty to model behavioral functions,
etc.
This threat is recognized through the status of long run expectations of the investors.
In the case of the liquidity trap, in which the infinitely elastic demand for money curve is used to portray a situation of
hoarding that is, of capital's refusal to put people to work the threat is hanging over investors who perceive a gloomy future
without hope for their profit.
The truly unknown future from the capitalists' perspective, the true moment of rupture in their temporal dimension, is recognized
in order to be avoided, to organize the rescue of the capitalist relation of work. For this reason Keynes is not talking about
given functional relations, and is presupposing a moving marginal efficiency of capital schedule (Minsky 1975.
The future is there to puzzle the investors in the present. The aim of economic theory is to inform economic policy to limit
the puzzle within the borders of the capitalist relation of work. Although Keynes' theoretical apparatus is presupposing uncertainty
for the future, this uncertainty is seen with the sense of urgency typical of a world in transition. In the discussion of the
postwar Keynesian orthodoxy, it will be seen how this sense of urgency was lost, and the concept of time in economic theory changed,
although it was far from returning to the "timeless models" of the classical period.
@ 95 another rolling stone that illuminates the US necrotic process...unregulated dumping
of radwaste
tinyurl[dot]com/v3pva55
Evidently they actually spray the stuff on roads and, well, it's puckininsane stupid.
"..thing in this stuff and ingesting it are the worst types of exposure," Stolz continues.
"You are irradiating your tissues from the inside out." The radioactive particles fired off
by radium can be blocked by the skin, but radium readily attaches to dust,..."
(Honestly, I know it's hard to believe, but several immediate neighbors, possibly 1/3 of
the town, actually expect to be levitated to heaven in "rapture". Thus, according to their a
priori assumption, the poisoning is perfectly ok."
Anyway, both the bizarre beliefs and the idiotic actions (including with radwaste) are,
like Trump, a product, a manifestation. We agree.
About Rockefeller - Corbett Report has a very deep examination of that family and their
less well-known policy set.
It took balls for Carlson to have Anya Parampil on his show last night. He has had her on
before, so he knows what she is like she tells it like it is. He will get shit for that.
I don't think he agrees with everything she said but agrees with some of it.
A little over a week ago, we shared how President Trump's decision to expand the scope of
his crackdown on Chinese tech firms to include WeChat, Tencent's ubiquitous platform for
everything from payments, to messaging to e-commerce sent a wave of panic through American
multinationals like Apple who depend on the Chinese market for growth, and feared being
essentially shut out due to an oversight by the administration.
The backlash has been just as intense as could be expected. In
a quintuple-byline story published Friday afternoon, Bloomberg reported that an army of
corporate lobbyists are working with Team Trump to try and find a way to restrict WeChat's use
in the US without hamstringing every American company that depends on the app to connect with
Chinese consumers.
According to sources from within the West Wing, the administration is still "working through
the technicals" of how they're going to restrict WeChat in the US while allowing American
companies to liaise with it in foreign markets.
The Trump administration is signaling that U.S. companies can continue to use the WeChat
messaging app in China, according to several people familiar with the matter, two weeks after
President Donald Trump ordered a U.S. ban on the Chinese-owned service.
The administration is still working through the technical implications of how to enforce
such a partial ban on the app , which is owned by Tencent Holdings Ltd., one of China's
biggest companies. A key question is whether the White House would allow Apple Inc. and
Alphabet Inc.'s Google to carry the app in its global app stores outside of the U.S.,
according to the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Over the past week, lobbyists went into "overdrive" and started harassing White House and
Commerce Department staffers about Trump's order, and the "logistics and intention of the
WeChat executive order." Now they're pushing to "narrow" the scope of the looming ban.
"We are talking to everyone who will listen to us," said Craig Allen, president of the
US-China Business Council, whose group represents companies including Walmart Inc. and General
Motors Co. "WeChat is a little like electricity. You use it everywhere" in China, Allen
said.
Sign in to comment Viewing Options arrow_drop_down
All Comments 18
YesWeKahn , 3 hours ago
Wechat is just junk, people used to do a lot more business in china without it, I think
these tech firms are bought by the ccp
aberfoyle_crumplehausen , 1 hour ago
America is turning Fascist under Trump right in front of our eyes. Fascism: merging of
State and Corporates. Full stop. You can't argue this, don't even try.
LetThemEatRand , 3 hours ago
Big tech depends on a communist country for growth. Let that sink in.
hoytmonger , 2 hours ago
A communist country is better at business than the US.
Let that sink in.
holyvanguard , 3 hours ago
Xi and Trump should stage a photograph to reinact a classic Winne the Pooh scene.
NIRP_BTFD , 3 hours ago
Riddle me this. How the hell does the USA want to ban apps? I can install every possible
apk on my device. If google takes apps out of their store i just install them with an
alternative app store or just download them somewhere else.
inhibi , 3 hours ago
That's you and me and the few tech minded folks out there.
99% of the users get what the store bought phone gives them. This is just trying to rattle
China's market.
Lets be honest: the real issue, as you have touched upon, is the complete monopoly of OS
and app stores by Google and Apple.
philipat , 2 hours ago
You expect Gubmin to understand that?
Or that these things work both ways and China will surely tit-for-tat with restrictions on
US Companies, probably starting with Apple?
Still, there's an election coming.............
HedgeJunkie , 3 hours ago
**** 'em all, ban it totally, let their vastly inflated values inflate more.
cr1stal , 3 hours ago
you have no idea how globalism works. they dont go oh i have 1000 billion so ill let a few
beady eyed devil worshippers who just dropped out of harvard cooking school accrue a few
hundred million. a disruptive autistic clown is about as welcome as he would be in the opium
fields of the golden triangle
BeePee , 3 hours ago
This is what I will miss about the exiting of the Trump administration. Standing up to CCP
China.
After Biden's inauguration, all this will roll back, money goes into Hunter Biden's
account. China will roll over us. Yes, there will be some agreements, none of which will be
honored by CCP China.
Kamala will be jocking one of the young male interns at the VP mansion. Apparently she is
very adept at penis stimulation.
I guess we'll get what we want, or at least deserve. Trans bathrooms everywhere. There are
no longer male or female identities. To heck with science, sexuality and gender is just a
perspective. Crime really doesn't go up if you don't consider it a crime.
DeathMerchant , 14 minutes ago
Who gives a rats about Chinese consumers ?? Lobbyists should not even be permitted to be
in or communicate with anyone in DC.
American main stream media is not informing and reporting but is actually Goebbels-like
propaganda for the Democrats. Fox is only retaliating with opposing views. Imagine Walter
Cronkite being advocate for one party – that would be scandalous. However the present
insects on CNN, MSNBC, NYT or WP and other dishonest outlets have no guts to stand up against
their owners disloyalty to this country.
Insightful overview. Giraldi explores the most important topic in American life. And one
of the most neglected: MSM distortions, omissions, sanctimony, propaganda, deception and
gaslighting. Stomach-turning drek –all of it.
Americans are in a half-Zombie state because of what they see on TV, and cannot discuss on
social media.
Hollywood, elite media, and Big Tech are the gatekeepers [ of the neoliberal power].
The shysters at WPO and NYT think that once they have misdirected the voters for their
goal into voting for Joe Biden, it can pick up things where they left off and fix it without
any problems but what they don't realize is that the train has left the station and now it's
barreling down the dark abyss from where there is no return to safety.
It took balls for Carlson to have Anya Parampil on his show last night. He has had her on
before, so he knows what she is like she tells it like it is. He will get shit for that.
I don't think he agrees with everything she said but agrees with some of it.
@Tommy Thompson he military is responsible for or how Israel is treated, how corporations
are handed free billions upon billions, etc, and its largely business as usual. All the noise
about Trump the disruptor is just that, noise. He hasn't disrupted anything of note.
As long as the two political parties exist, voting is for people who want to believe a
lie. Deep down they know, absolutely know, that the system is rigged but they can't let
themselves fully believe that because that would mean there is no hope. They would realize
that they live in a sophisticated soft military dictatorship that has stolen $21 Trillion
dollars and is the actual gov't of the country. That realization is unpalatable and
hence rejected.
However the present insects on CNN, MSNBC, NYT or WP and other dishonest outlets have no
guts to stand up against their owners disloyalty to this country.
It's not a simple as that. All the media people know that it's a rotten system, but if
they step out of line – they lose their jobs – and make themselves unemployable
anywhere else.
IMO it's not a question of standing up – which is pointless – but using
organized subversion. After all, this is what Jewry have been doing for decades in targeting
Anglo run organizations and it works. It's your friend and collaborator who is really your
enemy.
hough it was quickly overshadowed by the big-ticket appearances of Barack Obama and Kamala
Harris, Elizabeth Warren's Tuesday address to the Democratic National Convention deserves some
consideration.
A probable VP nominee before the events of the summer made race the deciding factor, Warren
is an able representative of what might be called the "non-socialist populist" branch of the
Democratic Party. Her economic populism -- though it does have an unmistakably left-wing flavor
-- has caught the eye of Tucker Carlson, who offered glowing praise of her 2003 book The
Two-Income Trap ; her call for "economic nationalism" during the primary campaign earned
mockery from some corners of the Left and a bit of hesitant sympathy from the Right. A few days
ago in Crisis , Michael Warren Davis referred to her (tongue at least somewhat in cheek)
as " reactionary senator Elizabeth
Warren ."
There is some good reason for all of this.
As I watched the first half of Warren's speech (before she descended into the week's
secondary theme of blaming the virus on Donald Trump) I couldn't help but think that it
belonged at the Republican National Convention. Or, rather, that a GOP convention that
drove home the themes addressed by Senator Warren on Tuesday would be immensely more effective
than the
circus I'm expecting to see next week.
Amid a weeklong hurricane of identity politics sure to drive off a good number of moderates
and independents, Warren offered her party an electoral lifeline: a policy-heavy pitch
gift-wrapped as the solution to a multitude of troubles facing average Americans, especially
families.
It was rhetorically effective in a way that few other moments in the convention have been.
Part of this is due to the format: a teleconferenced convention left most speakers looking
either like bargain-bin
Orwell bogeymen or like
Pat Sajak presenting a tropical vacation as a prize on Wheel of Fortune. But Warren, for
one reason or another, looks entirely at home in a pre-school classroom.
The content, however, is crucial too. Warren grounded her comments in experiences that have
been widely shared by millions of Americans these last few months: the loss of work, the loss
of vital services like childcare, the stress and anxiety that dominate pandemic-era life. She
makes a straightforward case for Biden: his policies will make everyday life better for the
vast majority of American families. She focuses on the example of childcare, which Biden
promises to make freely available to Americans who need it. This, she claims, will give
families a better go of things and make struggling parents' lives a whole lot easier.
It's hard not to be taken in. It's certainly a more compelling sales pitch than, "You're all
racist. Make up for it by voting for this old white guy." It's the kind of thing that a smart
campaign would spend the next three months broadcasting and repeating every chance they get.
(The jury is still out as to whether Biden's campaign is a smart one.) This -- convincing
common people that you're going to do right by them -- is the kind of thing that wins
elections.
But there's more than a little mistruth in the pitch. Warren shares a touching story from
her own experience as a young parent, half a century ago:
When I had babies and was juggling my first big teaching job down in Texas, it was hard.
But I could do hard. The thing that almost sank me? Child care.
One night my Aunt Bee called to check in. I thought I was fine, but then I just broke down
and started to cry. I had tried holding it all together, but without reliable childcare,
working was nearly impossible. And when I told Aunt Bee I was going to quit my job, I thought
my heart would break.
Then she said the words that changed my life: "I can't get there tomorrow, but I'll come
on Thursday." She arrived with seven suitcases and a Pekingese named Buddy and stayed for 16
years. I get to be here tonight because of my Aunt Bee.
I learned a fundamental truth: nobody makes it on their own. And yet, two generations of
working parents later, if you have a baby and don't have an Aunt Bee, you're on your own.
Are we not supposed to ask about the fundamental difference between Elizabeth Warren's
experience decades ago and the experience of struggling parents now? Hint: she had a strong
extended family to support her, and her kids had a broad family network to help raise them. Not
too long ago, any number of people would have been involved in the raising of a single child.
("It takes a village," but not in the looney Clinton way.) Now, an American kid is lucky to
have just two people helping him along the way. As we've all been reminded a hundred
times, the chances that he'll be raised by only one increase astronomically in poor or black
communities.
Shouldn't we be talking about that? Shouldn't we be talking about the policies that
contributed to the shift? It's a complex crisis, and we can't pin it down to any one cause. But
a slew of left-wing programs are certainly caught up in it. An enormous and fairly lax welfare
state has reduced the necessity of family ties in day-to-day life to almost nil. Diverse
economic pressures have made stay-at-home parents a near-extinct breed, and left even
two-income households struggling to make ends meet. (Warren literally wrote the book on
it.) Not to mention that the Democrats remain the party more forcefully supportive of abortion
and more ferociously opposed to the institution of marriage (though more than a few Republicans
are trying real hard to catch up).
Progressive social engineering has ravaged the American family for decades, and this
proposal only offers more of the same. It's trying to outsource childcare to
government-bankrolled professionals without asking the important question: Whatever happened to
Aunt Bee?
Republicans need an answer. We need to be carefully considering what government has done to
accelerate the decline of the family -- and what it can do to reverse it. Some of the reformers
and realigners in the party have already begun this project in earnest. But it needs to be
taken more seriously. It needs to be a central effort of the party's mainstream, and a constant
element of the party's message. Grand, nationalistic narratives about Making America Great
Again mean nothing if that revival isn't actually felt by people in their lives and in their
homes.
If we're confident in our family policy -- and while it needs a good deal of work, it's
certainly better than the Democrats' -- we shouldn't be afraid to take the fight to them. We
should be pointing out, for instance, that Warren's claim that Biden will afford greater
bankruptcy protections to common people is hardly borne out by the facts: Biden spent a great
deal of time and effort in his legislative career doing exactly the opposite. We should be
pointing out that dozens of Democratic policies have been hurting American families for
decades, and will continue to do so if we let them. We should sell ourselves as the better
choice for American families -- and be able to mean it when we say it.
If we let the Democrats keep branding themselves as the pro-family party -- a marketing ploy
that has virtually no grounding in reality -- we're going to lose in November. And we're going
to keep losing for a long, long time.
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."
Africa Addio ( Goodbye Africa ) (1966), co-directed, co-edited, and
co-authored by Gualtiero Jacopetti and Franco Prosperi of Mondo Cane fame, is a must-see
red-pill documentary for race-realists. Filmed between 1963 and 1965 in Kenya, Tanganyika,
Zanzibar, Rwanda, Angola, the Belgian Congo, and South Africa, Africa Addio chronicles
the exit of the British and Belgian colonial powers from Africa, as well as the attempts of the
Portuguese and South Africa whites to hold on.
Many of you will find it simply unbelievable, for reasons of style and content. Africa
Addio is so superbly filmed and edited that it seems in places like a feature film, not a
documentary. Riz Ortolani's lush Morricone-like music, as well as the magic of Italian dubbing,
reinforce this impression. But as far as I can tell, only one sequence was created entirely by
the filmmakers, and obviously so: a graveyard with headstones for white farms in the Kenya
highlands.
As for the content: the colonial worlds created by whites as well as the results of the
African takeovers seem equally surreal.
In the Kenya highlands, British farmers recreated English country life, complete with fox
hunts (although the quarry is an African runner carrying part of a frozen fox). The
headquarters of a British wildlife rescue operation looks like a set from a Bond movie or
The Thunderbirds . The beach in Capetown, with its high-rise hotels and beautiful
blondes surfing and sunning, looks like California or Australia. Surely it must all have been
staged. But no. White people actually did this.
The sequences in post-colonial Africa seem so surreal, terrifying, and deeply unflattering
to blacks that that movie has been denounced as racist propaganda. It definitely leads to
racist conclusions. But all of it appears to be real. Still, one wonders: If blacks really are
that bad, why did whites ever settle there? Why did whites give blacks power over them? And
why, in the name of all that is holy, are we allowing these people to colonize us today? But
again, it is all real.
The first thirty minutes focus mostly on Kenya. We see the trial of Mau Mau terrorists and
their accomplices, who slaughtered white families and mutilated their cattle. They also
tortured and killed baboons, for no fathomable reason. They are sentenced to life in prison. A
few years later, Jomo Kenyatta pardoned the Mau Mau. The white farmers of the Kenya highlands
are forced to sell. We see their houses and European treasures being auctioned off by Indian
merchants. Then we see their yards and gardens being bulldozed, their trees dynamited, to
create subsistence gardens for hundreds of blacks, who fill the European houses to overflowing,
covering everything in filth and smoke, and slowly dismantling the houses to burn in their
fireplaces -- since it is easier than fetching wood, and it does not occur to them that at some
point, the house will become unlivable. In a stunning sequence, we see Boer farmers from South
Africa who settled in Kenya returning home with their herds the way they came: in covered
wagons.
In colonial Kenya, blacks could look at white women but not touch. In free Kenya, blonde
British nannies become a status symbol for the black elites, and an old blonde whore does a
strip tease for a roomful of sweaty blacks. At the end, she offers "Bwana" the privilege of
popping off her pasties. Unreal? No.
Africa Addio is filled with unflattering contrasts between blacks and whites. The
white colonists are remarkably good-looking in Kenya, Angola, the Congo, and South Africa. The
Africans, many filmed in extreme closeups, are often hideously ugly, with alarmingly discolored
eyes and teeth. The filmmakers could be accused of seeking out exceptionally attractive whites
and ugly Africans, but there are a lot of goofy and plain-looking whites as well. There are
scenes of European order and grace: soldiers on parade -- a ceremony in a church where the
former colonial flags are being entrusted to the clergy -- contrasted with noisy crowds of
Africans swarming and rioting. We cut from disciplined and well-dressed British soldiers to
clownish, shambling African troops and policemen. Post-colonial Africa began as a farce, a
grotesque parody of European civilization.
The bodies of Arabs killed in the violence
following the Zanzibar Revolution as photographed by the <i>Africa Addio</i> film
crew. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Then it descended into tragedy. Throughout the continent, African rebel groups, usually
backed by the USSR or Communist China, used terrorism to eject whites. Then, once the whites
were gone, they went on to massacre their tribal enemies. In Zanzibar and Tanganyika, the enemy
was "Arabs," meaning fellow Africans who had converted to Islam under the rule of Arab slave
traders along the East African Coast. In 1964, the newly independent government of Zanzibar was
overthrown by a Communist-backed revolution, and up to 20,000 Arabs were massacred. The
filmmakers hired a plane in Tanganyika to document what was happening. They were fired upon
when they tried to land but over two days managed to film from the air burned out villages,
columns of Arabs been marched to their deaths, as well as mass graves and random heaps of
corpses. One day, we see pitiful refugees fleeing to the beaches; the next day the beach is
littered with countless corpses. It seems that genocide is part of every Communist
revolutionary playbook. That would include the playbooks of the communists that Donald Trump is
allowing to run amok in America today.
The filmmakers were on the ground during the Arab massacres in Tanganyika. At one point,
they were pulled from their car by soldiers and put against a wall. They were about to be shot
when someone looked at their passports and said. "Wait, these aren't whites. They're Italians."
The birth of a meme?
We also visit Rwanda, where we see the aftermath of a genocide of Hutus against Watusis. I
guess there were many. We see Watusi survivors and their cattle streaming into exile in Uganda,
as well as rivers choked with the corpses of those who were not so lucky. It is slick and
cinematic, but the blood and bodies were real.
In the Belgian Congo, we see European troops and mercenaries repelling rebels who seized
Stanleyville. The aftermath is sickening. The rebels had raped, killed, and tortured white
nuns, nurses, and schoolchildren. They had also tortured, killed, and sometimes eaten 12,000
fellow Africans. We see European families who had narrowly escaped rape, torture, and death.
Later, the filmmakers fly over a mission school where the rebels were holding nuns and
children. A few days later, the mission has been burned to the ground. The grounds are littered
with the corpses of nuns. Fortunately, the rebels were rather easy to defeat. They believed
that magic made them immune to bullets. We see close up that this is not so as we witness the
summary execution of two rebels. The filmmakers were actually accused of staging these murders,
as if the Africans needed any incentive given the carnage we have seen already.
Two sequences deal with the mass slaughter of wildlife after whites pulled out and could no
longer protect them. It is totally sickening. There are two kinds of hunters: whites and
blacks. The white hunters are seen mowing down fleeing zebras by towing a rope between two
jeeps. Another has a helicopter drive an elephant toward him before shooting it down. I have no
patience for people who kill big game, even on sustainable game reserves, even if they are
white. No, especially if they are white.
But the most sickening spectacle is of thousands of blacks cordoning off huge areas and
killing everything that moves by chucking spears at them. The attempts of white
conservationists to save the victims of the slaughter are touching but mostly futile. Again,
you will wonder, "Can this be real?" But the blood is real, the fetal hippos and elephants
ripped from their mothers' wombs are real.
The final sequence is set in South Africa, Africa's "sanctuary for whites." It begins with a
huge crowd of uniformed black children running toward a low set camera. The narrator declares
that five blacks are born for every white in South Africa. It is a very effective way of
communicating the demographic problem. Here comes the future!
We then visit the mines of Pretoria, where armies of blacks mine gold and diamonds. Although
ordinary whites tried to build a nation in South Africa, it was always a colony, an economic
zone in which a tiny oligarchy imported cheap nonwhite labor to heap up gold and diamonds. The
lure of cheap labor plus high black fertility doomed South Africans to demographic eclipse and
political impotence. The film ends with the Cape penguin colony, marooned far from their home
in Antarctica. The analogy with whites is obvious. We never belonged there.
Africa Addio is a strange and sobering masterpiece. I highly recommend it as a tool
for red-pilling young whites about race.
What drugs are you doing? Mao and his merry band of communist have the blood of 80 million
of their one people on their hands. This yet to count the Uighur.
It's being filmed as we speak and has been going on since Rodney King and the advent of
24/7 news and social media. It's hard not to ask where is all this heading.
Are there winners and losers?
Will our black overlords be as merciful as we have been to them.
There is no turning back from here.
All we can do is survive and get away from the savagery.
Two sequences deal with the mass slaughter of wildlife after whites pulled out and could
no longer protect them. It is totally sickening. There are two kinds of hunters: whites and
blacks. The white hunters are seen mowing down fleeing zebras by towing a rope between two
jeeps. Another has a helicopter drive an elephant toward him before shooting it down. I
have no patience for people who kill big game, even on sustainable game reserves, even if
they are white. No, especially if they are white.
I watched this film on Bitchute and these were the sequences that filled me with a
despondent speechless rage.
No animals will survive the blacks in Africa. What a sour stupid irony that the SJWs who
worship Negros pretend that they love animals. There was a POS black shaking a puppy by his
neck in the BLM riots (Beat Loot Murder) and the MSM never aired it.
Watching this movie ( it was sagely recommended by a poster here) was utterly enthralling
and horrifying. You have to watch it.
As you watch, you understand that blacks are deviant, dangerous and deranged on a cellular
level. They can't be trusted, helped or managed. Without massive global infusions of wealth
and planned migration, natural selection would have done its work. The world should let
it.
@Anon n it through the
herd. They break their legs, leaving them broken. This is black and white men.
Running down and exhausting an elephant with a helicopter and then shooting it with a high
power assault rifle is no skill. It's blood lust. It's cowardice.
To kill for the sake of watching something die is sociopathic. What other desire does it
fulfill?
Those animals have no habitat, and then are stalked by brainless blacks
–truly– the elephants are smarter, more graceful and loyal.
Give me one million elephants over those troglodytes.
I don't know about Africans, but I have to give credit where credit is due, a great deal
of African Americans have beautiful teeth. Funny thing, I never see Blacks at the dentist or
here Blacks talk about going to the dentist. Sure, there are Blacks with awful teeth and no
doubt some of them have false teeth or even implants since Blacks now have a lot of good
paying jobs thanks to affirmative action laws. I spent a great deal of time in Haiti while in
the USCG, but I never paid attention to the typical Haitian's choppers. Look at a lot of
African American's teeth, they look very white, maybe that is due to their dark skin, but
they also look straight and strong looking. Sure, you can point out some Blacks with bad
teeth, but the majority have better teeth than Whites. Give the poor saps that much, other
than that and playing football, basketball and running, they really don't have too much else
to brag about.
@Anon sick f*ck takes
pride in killing a beautiful animal like a lion or a noble giant like an elephant for sport?
Hell, I have no idea how anyone kills a deer, but at least they eat the deer so that can be
excused. Of course, only a few people actually have to depend on hunting to feed themselves
or their family in the year 2020, but IF you eat what you kill, at least I can see the reason
behind it. Some of these rich f*cks that go over to Africa and think they are proving their
manhood by shooting a lion from a safe distance more than likely have problems in the sack or
lack a reasonable sized penis.
The US military has quietly taken over most of Africa the past ten years while destroying
three nations on the Neccon hit list: Libya, Somalia, and Sudan.
I honestly don't see that, although you're right about looking whiter against their skin
(as in the slang term "shines" alternating with "darkies"). I see them with buck teeth and
that gap in the front (Tracey Morgan eg) although of course some Whites have that too
(Letterman, Lauren Hutton). But btw military dentistry and welfare, perhaps they do get
pretty good dentistry overall.
As per South Africa, why didn't the whites there just hive off a small area by the coast
for themselves and leave all the rest of South Africa for the various black groups? It seems
to have worked for Israel, more or less.
Let us say you have the money to live overseas. Americans are not terribly liked. If
you're some rural hick who wears cheesy cowboy costumes with Bolo ties and a hat and boots
you're going to have things thrown at you on the streets of Sydney or London or Europe.
Eurofags are are so stupid they assume all Americans vote for George Bush and support wars in
the ME. In Southeast Asia, you are relatively free of this. But if you immigrate to
Australia, start pretending to be a Canadian.
White women deserve black men for betraying their race with the birth control pill and
suffrage. Any settling of the Black Question is going to necessitate the settling of the
White Woman Question. Most whites should only be looking at slavic wives, I think. I am quite
happy with my Tartar one.
We here in China made the critical mistake of giving them contraception. They rewarded us
by going off to America for university and getting railed by every white, black, Persian, and
latino they could -- much like yours. Thankfully, we will never let them whiff a ballot
box.
The lure of cheap labor plus high black fertility doomed South Africans
Doomed ordinary South Africans.
As we are seeing repeated in the whole US/UK/Euro etc., the "lure of cheap labor" only
gulled the wealthy class that use "nations" as pump-and-dump operations.
So they finish with S. Africa, started on the USA. After the states are totally drained
(getting there real fast) they'll move to Canada and Australia and other places that will be
congenial. For awhile. Then the next victim gets destroyed and the fatcats get in their
private jets to their tax havens and secure bunkers and cast around for the next victim.
Places like Japan, S. Korea, China are remain essentially mercantile and are safe for that
reason. Only the white man ever bought the nonsense of "free trade" and "cheap labor" and
both are weapons against their own workers.
@Trinity e congo. All
these american blacks get husky dental or other similar free health/dental in their state of
residence. husky dental covers everything for free including braces ,so don't tell me why
blacks in america have good teeth.Especially since all the shit food they eat. And as far as
playing football, basketball ,this is only because Whitey invented these modern sports for
them to play. So once again it is always Whitey that brings these evolutionary throwbacks
into the modern world. Without Whites, evolution,nature,whatever,would have taken care of
blacks .They would have been culled as nature intended.
@TKK e went on a
Quixote-type quest to save the elephants.
Too gloriously nuts for the fifties, it bombed. But it was ahead of its time for two
reasons:
1. Only Europeans care about preserving nature -- in any way at all.
2. What you see in The Roots of Heaven is French Equatorial Africa. Not the
Afro-run disaster areas you'll see today. There was law, order, peace. And the film also has
a glimpse of the future in the form of an African revolutionary who's a pretty good preview
of what was already replacing law, order, peace.
@Sphinx r dying day.
And yet here we have such people, on this blogsite, where most of us understand the nature of
the lies we have been fed since the 1930s ('Hitler was the acme of evil'; 'Germany started
WWII'; 'Mao killed tens of millions for no particular reason'; 'Saddam had Weapons of Mass
Destruction'; 'The Twin Towers were brought down by aircraft fuel oil, and the planes flown
by Arabs armed with box-cutters'; 'The Uighurs in NW China are being suppressed and
enslaved'.
None of the above tropes is true. In fact, they are demonstrably false. Yet 'normies'
believe them all. How about you?
I watched this years ago, although I had to skip some parts. Some amazing and unbelievable
scenes, but others (especially the ones with animals, violence and dead people) are hard to
watch.
I think it's not easy to find it in its full uncensored version.
I am not sure it would work as a "red pill" today, those seem images from another world,
both for whites and for blacks.
I think the film is considered "racist" because it sympathizes with the colonizers,
something which would be very unusual today. But I think the film is not totally negative or
depreciative about African blacks, just mostly realistic.
I just hope no one has to film Europa Addio, America Addio, etc
Another film about Africans in the same vein (although much less interesting or
well-done), is the "Vice Guide to Liberia", which was actually done by liberals who regretted
it afterwards.
It seems that genocide is part of every Communist revolutionary playbook. That would
include the playbooks of the communists that Donald Trump is allowing to run amok in
America today.
Glad I'm not the only one to fear this coming our way, but it would be helpful if many
more of us could grasp that while we dislike cancel culture, those espousing it see it as a
waypoint to a grim final destination. We dislike them; they want us dead.
It seems that genocide is part of every Communist revolutionary playbook. That would
include the playbooks of the communists that Donald Trump is allowing to run amok in
America today.
How would DT go about stopping Communists from "running amok" in America if this is indeed
the case? He doesn't control the Democratic party nor the media which panders to it.
If the human race -- all of our ancestry -- walked off the African continent at some point
in our history and headed north and then to the east what could the genetic differences be
between blacks and whites often cited as the reason for the high levels of black crime today?
A rational explanation or reference material illustrating one would be appreciated.
For a balanced perspective consider the divergent stories of Southern and Northern
Rhodesia.
In Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) , whites were too few to resist black takeover. Race
relations after independence were amicable and a white man was even elected Vice President in
the 2010s.
In Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) , whites fought until they were defeated militarily
by 14 year old soldiers under the leadership of Robert Mugabe. Surprisingly, Mugabe was quite
reasonable in the first 20 years after independence towards the farmers he had defeated. He
allowed them to keep their property and farm. But the white farmers could not come to terms
with losing to blacks and acted like they had a strong negotiating position. They didn't want
to give away any of their land to help Mugabe placate his constituents. ( If the whites
were so red pilled from living in Africa during the post colonial transition why were they so
stupid to do that? ) Finally in 2000, Mugabe lost patience and expropriated the property
of 98% of the white landowners (one of the only exceptions was Prince Harry's white
girlfriend's father who cooperated with Mugabe and had bad land). Although it was
economically catastrophic during the first decade after taking the land, the black farmers
eventually got the hang of it. Now 100,000 black farmers are producing more tobacco on their
small plots than the white landowners could in an average season. The white landowners were
generally lazy and not interested in using all of their land or couldn't finance expansion.
Whatever the excuse they called the waste of land to be conservation.
There is a scene from "Africa Addio" in which a black woman who had been a maid for a
white family is on trial, after letting her black male friends into the house to slaughter
her employers, who had accepted her as part of the household. To her, "independence" meant it
was her house now, and she could preside over their executions. This is one of the scenes
that seems as if it were from a feature film, and may have been one of the reasons Jacopetti
and Prosperi came in for such legal and political grief. After all, it was in a courtroom,
and the camera crew were obviously invited to film the scene. However, the woman is not
acting. She is completely uncomprehending and vacant, as she looks at the camera stupidly.
She cannot grasp why she is being punished. When recommending this film to a much younger
friend, I described this scene, and exclaimed, "The woman does not even look human!" This
was, in effect, my appalled summation of the overall impact that this movie should have on
white viewers, but I have learned not to make such outbursts, as they tend to cause one's
interlocutor to end the conversation while backing away slowly. Later, my young friend
watched the film, and began to understand what I was getting at.
Sadly, Jacopetti's later feature film "Goodbye, Uncle Tom" seemed like an elaborate apology
for "Africa Addio" to the Left, by rhetorically enshrining black rage much in the way that
Tarantino's "Django" did decades later.
@Trinity have to work
to stay alive, but the bolsheviks add the nice touches of psychological warfare, the power of
the rumour preceding the Righteous Wave of revolutionaries approaching over the unseen
horison. There are some horrifying woodcuts from the time the Bolsheviks subjugated the
Russians. When they discovered all the mineral riches under African soil, the Agricultural
population must be dispensed with, as a contented rural population always wins over the
liberal urbanites. Hence the destruction of farmers and wildlife.
As for the rest of the racist invective of the rest of you, grow up, you are partaking in the
next round of "le's go gedd'em heedins, boyz!!!" Just like your Bolshevik masters have
trained you.
We get it. You like hunting. I think the author has mass slaughter in mind. Or killing for
the sake of a trophy.
Most people don't disagree with hunting if it's for food. Sport is different. Which isn't
a truly accurate description. Fat, out of shape guys in camo aren't athletes.
Anyway, nothing wrong with hunting for meat to eat.
The footage is stunning but what the film needs is narration and an explanation (honest of
course) for what you are seeing ,most(99.9%) of Americans have no idea about what happened in
africa after the Europeans left.
You can find the movie here, but buyer beware. You will need a torrent client to download
the movie. Very important that you have some decent anti-virus software on your device before
you hit the link.
The demise of the traditional White Christian societies in the world today can be directly
attributed to colonization of the swarthy cultures no need to glorify the film!
Yep, I watched that movie/documentary – And the same people that profat from
Africa's wealth, are the same tribe that profated on Russia, Europe, Asia and is looting the
America's. Also, the same tribe is most likely responsible for the massacres of both Blacks,
Europeans, Asians and Whites, in order to cover their tracks. And yep, they want the whites
in America and Europe destroyed, just like in Africa. They've had Centuries of experience,
with some pretty cutthroat accomplices– but rich – followers.
It seems that genocide is part of every Communist revolutionary playbook?
Genocide is part of every Capitalist playbook, too.
The Commie movement of the last century and this one was conceived and paid for by a
"chosen" set of powerful capitalists so it should be as plain as the nose on one's face that
there is about as much difference between them as between Democrats and Republicans.
I hate hunting and in particular trophy hunting. Those who hunt for fun are sick sadist
blood thirsty cunts. And I certainly far more respect for a beautiful innocent animal than
sick fucks who murder them for fun.
There's also Sir Richard Francis Burton's Wanderings in West Africa , available
free on the Internet, which documents racial relations along the west coast of Africa 150
years ago. The blacks in English-controlled areas were innately expert at entrapping
Englishmen disembarking from the ships, for which the penalties imposed on whites were
severe. This is not unlike these blacks in America setting up whites, not to mention the
knee-taking cops, with the "hands up, don't shoot" or "peaceful protest" scenarios we see
being enacted everywhere. This is also a variation on the same ploy as blacks doing that
shuckin' and jivin' as they axe you a question intended for no other purpose than sizing up
your vulnerability. Never fall for it and let one of these savages move into striking
distance within your space, as that white fellow working in Macy's found out too late.
It was inevitable we'd finally witness the execution of Cannon Hinnant for being a white
child and the scene in Portland of the white truck driver encountering a "peaceful protest"
and then, to use a phrase from Camp of the Saints , being literally "stomped into a
puddle of his own blood in the street" after being torn from his truck. We should expect the
recent BLM trial run in Hugo, Oregon to serve as the model for blacks not only not
being turned away from suburban areas, but getting in with a police escort; getting
protection from knee-taking cops taking out their emasculation on innocent whites who will be
their own families soon enough; and, streets lined with white women and their children waving
little BLM flags and their prize school essays denouncing themselves and their parents for
what amounts to nearly 100% black-on-white violence and butchery.
Blacks and their DNC/MSM handlers have imposed on whites the need to treat every encounter
as a possible Cannon Hinnant encounter, and yet blacks demand we accept the opposite as the
case. There can be zero accommodation with blacks from now on since their brazen lies mean
death for whites. At some point, it would be wise to never be found alone where there might
be a group of blacks. Neighborhood watch groups in suburbia and rural areas will need to fire
warning shots to make it clear that any potential black mobs have had fair warning to turn
around and go back to wherever they were bused in from. We need to start talking strategy
from now on, knowing the with the Republicans and White House at our back we're facing a war
on two fronts.
It was never a nation and was always a colonial project. Those in charge of white South
Africa chose cheap labour and high profits over safety and community. The Israelis have not
made this mistake. The nation was founded in reaction against old stereotypes of the Jew as
profiteering capitalist and middleman.
Of course, as with all things, there is more complexity than is implied in this dichotomy,
but you have your explanation.
People Republic of China: 73,237,000 victims. Source: R. J. Rummel: China's Bloody
Century, Genocide and Mass Murder since 1900, Transaction Publishers, 1991. Plus Rummel's
correction in 2005.
A dentist once informed me that there is a biological relation between hair color and
teeth color. Redheads have the yellowest teeth and black haired people have the whitest. No
idea if that's legit, but it does comport with experience.
Then it descended into tragedy. Throughout the continent, African rebel groups, usually
backed by the USSR or Communist China, used terrorism to eject whites.
@Big Dan pray-painted
big orange X's on the dairy herd at the start of hunting season, so the idiot, liquored up
city folk from DC and Pittsburgh who invaded our county with their thousand-dollar Mossburgs
wouldn't try to murder them. Lots of locals took deer (illegally) year-round because they
were an important food source. That is legitimate hunting: the ethic was never to kill
something you weren't planning to eat. Well, all right, so we didn't eat groundhogs, but I
shot them so the livestock wouldn't break their legs in their burrows, and the cats always
got the internal organs and the dogs got the carcasses.
Incredible! I would really like to watch it. Would you happen to know where I can find a
DVD copy? I want to show this to friends but I don't want to just kick a YouTube link over to
them in an email (I think I have found it on YouTube, in fact) https://youtu.be/V355OG77SQM
Same with Chinese people in Asia, Africa and beyond. Every year in North America, many black
bears are illegally killed for their gall bladders because help make penis strong or
whatever. Rhinos and elephants in Africa and tigers in Asia suffer the same fate.
Only White people care about nature and the environment. Absent White people, many, many
species will permanently disappear. One of the most disheartening things about this "anti
racist" madness has been seeing environmentalists, people who should know better, embracing
it.
I watched both Africa Addio and goodbye Uncle Tom, a shokumentary by the same duo some years
ago. Some of the scenes in Africa addio must be real footage, but there are similar scenes in
goodbye Uncle Tom which are clearly staged. Goodbye Uncle Tom, while clearly fictional in
parts, is hilarious for the subtext. "What does that have to do with anything?" Lol! The
Italians were a spiritually unconquered people for a while. What does it mean when the blacks
are helping the whites to capture their own people?
@Jeff
Stryker fellow Semites (and also they don't view Islam as an enemy, to them Christianity is
anathema, White Christians are "Amalek", Muslims are not, Jesus was always the central target
of Jewish enmity, Muhammad was never one) despite all the wars and perpetual conflict. Once a
Hungarian Jewish woman wrote commenting on an obscure Hungarian blog that she feels being much
closer to a Palestinian Arab Muslim than to any "Anti-Semitic" Hungarian. A rare occassion of
sincerity.
Don't get fooled by anti-islamic propaganda of the neocon jews, that's only for consumption by
Gentile white nationalists.
Yep. The Asians (Chinese) are even worse than the Africans. They will kill (and eat) without
pity anything that walks (or crawls)!! Or use it for their weird medicine. Chinese + Africans =
bye bye wild animals in Africa.
The Uncle Tom movie was done for the only reason that "Africa Addio", even then, was
considered "racist", so the filmmakers had to atone for their sins. I haven't watched it, but
it's probably kind of silly, while Africa Addio is still relevant today
(Lot of Blacks in Italy right now!!!! Coming in boats every week! Blacks destroying the once
beautiful country!!!! ITALIA ADDIO!!! )
@anonymous te that
Zimbabwe is unlikely to gain new financing because the government has not disclosed how it
plans to repay more than $1.7 billion in arrears to the World Bank and African Development
Bank. International financial institutions want Zimbabwe to implement significant fiscal and
structural reforms before granting new loans. Foreign and domestic investment continues to be
hindered by the lack of land tenure and titling, the inability to repatriate dividends to
investors overseas, and the lack of clarity regarding the government's Indigenization and
Economic Empowerment Act."
@Anonymous y're going to
arrest us for standing up for ourselves in front of our own house, on our own property, then
its time to adopt guerilla tactics. We need to conceal ourselves like the Minutemen did. The
present day "shot heard round the world"* will come from a white suburbanite's rifle.
*"The shot heard round the world" is a phrase that refers to the opening shot of the Battle
of Concord on April 19th, 1775, which began the American Revolutionary War and led to the
creation of the United States of America." Wiki
The British used German mercenaries, the Hessians. Today's occupying Jews use blacks.
"The PCI was founded as the Communist Party of Italy on 21 January 1921 in Livorno by
seceding from the Italian Socialist Party (PSI). Amadeo Bordiga and Antonio Gramsci led the
split. Outlawed during the Fascist regime, the party played a major role in the Italian
resistance movement. It changed its name in 1943 to PCI and became the second largest political
party of Italy after World War II, attracting the support of about a third of the vote share
during the 1970s. At the time, it was the largest communist party in the West, with peak
support reaching 2.3 million members, in 1947,[10] and peak share being 34.4% of the vote (12.6
million votes) in the 1976 general election. "
Having lived in Africa I can tell you looking at the film is one thing. Actually being there
and seeing the disintegration is another.
As I have said in many of my previous comments, the "AFRICAN ?? American, whatever that
means, who glorifies his heritage needs to take a trip back to the old country. There he will
cone face to face with his "Roots" and these realities which are by no means exhaustive. Call
these the 10 commandments of Africa LOL
1. There are no social programs and unemployment is rampant
2. Blacks hate other blacks more than the white man ever could hate a black man
3. There are slums, misery and poverty beyond the scope of one's imagination
4. The Police or Military will fuck you up with cell phones whirring and witnesses galore
faster than a white cop in the US will "shoot down" a black man
5. Crime in all its forms is out of control
6. Disease and hunger is a part of every day life
7. The witch doctor is fully employed and slavery still practiced
8. Bribery and corruption are well entrenched.
9 Nepotism, family and tribal connections are everything ie if your name is LeMarcus Duncan and
the Dictator's name is Ngoro Babongo you are out of everything including luck
10. The legal system and jails are of course not geared toward rehabilitation or a comfortable
stay
Upon return to the US, our "Frican American brothers will be very grateful to the Crackers
for forcing them to come to the US.
That said, one need not spend money or time on the movie. We only need to take our noses out
of our cell phones and tool around the black areas in this our beloved USA. The observant
traveller will note that in every borough of New York for example, there are fine brownstones
built back in the day by wealthy whites. These days many have been restored by whites and
rented to whites. Many however are tenements destroyed by blacks with black tenants who (and
one does not want to be crass) pay no rent.
As the world turns and the sun sets eternally in the west, one hundred years from now, we
Unz commenters will all be worm food and a new Unz type site will proclaim some must see film
by an esteemed film maker entitled "Blackrica: How Blacks Fucked up the US"
Teeth aren't supposed to be as pure White as Ginger skin. Black Africans may have better
teeth in the jungle but with access to skittles, grape soda, ect. forget about it.
Suggestion to the author, "Goodbye Uncle Tom" aka "Farewell Uncle Tom." This film was made
in the early 1970's and PURE ANTI-WHITE PROPAGANDA. In his book, "My Awakening," Dr. David Duke
describes how he and a couple of friends went into a theater filled mostly with Blacks to view
this movie back in the day. It had some violent scenes where Blacks where brutally murdering
Whites, the Blacks were cheering, "kill Whitey," etc. Dr. Duke and his friends hightailed it
out of there right before the very end to escape a possible beating or worse from the charged
up crowd. I checked the film out on JewTube back in the day when you could watch free full
length movies on JewTube. It was truly a disgusting piece of trash and anti-White bullshit that
clearly was made to send Blacks into a frenzy and indoctrinate them to hate Whitey to the
core.
@Colin Wright hat if I'm
not going to eat it, it's left alone. Trophy hunters make me think of Hemingway
manqué and I don't have much use for them to be honest. For some reason or other,
trophy hunters seem kind of "gay" to me, the types that try and impress that they're "real men"
in spite of working in offices to fund their fantasies. It's like hedge fund managers who take
up fly fishing to prove that they're some sort of aristocrats in spite of their
nails-on-the-blackboard accents. No doubt they wear clothing designed by Ralph Lifschitz (aka
"Lauren"),Mr. Brideshead Revisited himself.
@Marcali naman, one of
Unz most prolific and idiotic commenters, was of course upset that the police in the US were
all psychos and all whites who thought that Floyd got what he deserved were all equally
mentally unhinged.
The funny thing is that even he (and this fool lives in Hong Kong) does not know his own
history and seems unable to distinguish the number of deaths required to be classified as a
psycho.
In essence though Mao was right. The whole problem with China is that there are too many
Chinese ! Mao the Dong attempted to fix this problem but like all Chinese was hopelessly
inefficient.
@Montefrío gay" to
me, the types that try and impress that they're "real men" in spite of working in offices to
fund their fantasies. It's like hedge fund managers who take up fly fishing to prove that
they're some sort of aristocrats in spite of their nails-on-the-blackboard accents. No doubt
they wear clothing designed by Ralph Lifschitz (aka "Lauren"),Mr. Brideshead Revisited
himself."
So true.
(A Manhattan friend bequeathed to me their multi-thousand dollar fly fishing rods, reels,
vests and flies, all in perfect shape, having only been used once while on vacation.)
Montefrío
, says: August 20, 2020 at 3:28 pm
GMT
Also well worth reading are Laurens van der Post's earlier work ( Venture to the
Interior ; Lost World of the Kalahari ; The Heart of the Hunter ), before he
began canonizing the Bushmen and seeing the mantis (Bushman tribal deity) as a universal deity
of sorts. Nevertheless, he gives an interesting portrait of Africa in his time. Pity he went
overt the top later and began foaming at the mouth and kissing the hindquarters of Prince
Charles, the human VW bug with its doors open.
It's saddening when Whites don't learn anything from history that's been playing out right
before their eyes. It just doesn't sink in that it will come down to that and they will be
next:
A little humour D D. The rumour I heard was – that when Mohomad Ali traveled to Africa
for a boxing match, he was quite amazed at their " backwardness" and turned to a friend and
said " Thank God or Allah that my great great great Grand father – got on that boat ,
headed for America" . Either way, America has been good for most African Americans –
those that pulled themselves up – and made something for themselves.
I deplore the fate of wildlife and mega-fauna in Africa. But let's remember that all this
mega-fauna still existed when the first settlers arrived, whereas all was slaughtered in
Europe, Asia, North America. The North American mega-fauna was mostly destroyed and eaten by
the first native settlers, and the remaining bears, buffalo herds, and sky covering passenger
pigeons were killed with an industrial fervor and wanton. While Asians eat everything
Africans have ended up seeing all the wildlife associated with the white colonists, and
likely felt those animals were given more status and respect and care than they received Yes,
there was wanton destruction coming from pent-up hatred and frustration. The white settlers
made the life better for themselves and didn't give a rat's ass on the locals They, the
settlers have also destroyed any traditional, communal way and structures that allowed
communities to function more normally, so the increase inter-tribal violence.
It is likely that mega-fauna in Africa would still have been destroyed without White
presence, by increase population and encroachment on land for agriculture. A process similar to
what is happening now in Brazil, which is partly driven by big Agri-business.
So while the documentary and the article describe what happened, there is no analysis why it
happened, and whether this is something never seen before A big fail this time for Mr.
Lynch.
South Africans escaped to UK and Australia because they belonged to a Commonwealth. The US
belongs to no Commonwealth. All Boer needs is a plane ticket and he can move to UK or Oz and
get a job. What Commonwealth do Americans belong to?
Have you visited the UK lately? Certain parts are already third world plus feeble-minded
Brits will a minority in their own country by 2066.
BTW Commonwealth just means colonization of the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada by
millions of Indians and other non-whites.
Is this article supposed to absolve the whites?I'll bet you that many things blacks did they
learned from civilised and good looking whites, he is talking about!
@trickster nfo is
secondhand, but even so, it seems to me that she is unbearably naive, and were it not for the
fact that she is also family, I believe I'd have been a bit more insistent in rebutting the
nonsense she was spouting. This is an educated woman who has led and still lives a very
comfortable, insulated life in a "privileged" enclave, and while her heart bleeds for the
blacks, she has never nor will ever live among them unless her candidate wins and imposes them
upon her up-until-to-now lily-white community. I repeat: I despair from afar.
But I also repeat: nothing is eternal in the sphere of politics.
@Godfree Roberts gardless
it is not genocide by definition.
It is not an inherent property of the 'Chinese' or 'Communism' to cause mass death (and as
being 'the enemy,' could be exaggerated as per usual). The UK and US have been masters of that,
particularly in their helpful infomercials that maintain their saintliness towards their
subjects and subjected pops and the ordained righteous cause against their enemies, which lives
have less than no value (see, eg., War Without Mercy, re the Pacific War).
Modern China is more imperial/authoritarian capitalist than any form of communist, in any
event. All hail Emperor Xi.
I think the irony is that the SJWs complaining about South Africa's apartheid and the "Black
majority" fail to recognize that most of that "Black majority" came as immigrants, and spawned
many more. Not only that, Mandela's Bantus were invading from the North about the time the
Boers were landing on the Cape and negotiating with the original inhabitants (Khoisan) about
land usage and ownership. The Bantus and Zulus would have completely wiped out the Khoisan had
it not been for the Whites.
Europeans and Americans have arrived at ecological conservatism after ravaging their own
continents. Millions of bison, grizzley bears and carrier pigeons, etc. were exterminated in
North America with the advent of the whites. In Europe, there's almost no wildlife, except in
parks. Yet they never stop lecturing the world. And the number of whites killed by the Mau Mau
in Kenya was less than 50 during their fight for freedom. The British were more savage.
The atrocities carried on the black race by Arabs, Jews and whites were far greater in
comparison.
"Bantus were invading from the North about the time the Boers were landing on the Cape
and negotiating with the original inhabitants (Khoisan) about land usage and
ownership."
Agree. I've used all my allotted "Agree/Disagree etc" on Coronavinus.
CARLSON: But more broadly, what you are saying, I think is, that the Democratic Party
understands what it is and who it represents and affirmatively represents them. They do
things for their voters, but the Republican Party doesn't actually represent its own voters
very well.
VANCE: Yes, that's exactly right. I mean, look at who the Democratic Party is and look, I
don't like the Democratic Party's policies.
CARLSON: Yes.
VANCE: Most of the times, I disagree with them. But I at least admire that they recognize
who their voters are and they actually just as raw cynical politics do a lot of things to
serve those voters.
Now, look at who Republican voters increasingly are. They are people who
disproportionately serve in the military, but Republican foreign policy has been a disaster
for a lot of veterans. They are disproportionately folks who want to have more children.
They are people who want to have more single earner families. They are people who don't
necessarily want to go to college but they want to work in an economy where if you play by
the rules, you can you actually support a family on one income.
CARLSON: Yes.
VANCE: Have Republicans done anything for those people really in the last 15 or 20 years?
I think can you point to some policies of the Trump administration. Certainly, instinctively,
I think the President gets who his voters are and what he has to do to service those folks.
But at the end of the day, the broad elite of the party, the folks who really call the shots,
the think tank intellectuals, the people who write the policy, I just don't think they
realize who their own voters are.
Now, the slightly more worrying implication is that maybe some of them do realize who
their voters are, they just don't actually like those voters much.
CARLSON: Well, that's it. So I watch the Democratic Party and I notice that if there is a
substantial block within it, it's this unstable coalition, all of these groups have nothing
in common, but the one thing they have in common is the Democratic Party will protect
them.
VANCE: Yes.
CARLSON: You criticize a block of Democratic Voters and they are on you like a wounded
wombat. They will bite you. The Republicans, watch their voters come under attack and sort of
nod in agreement, "Yes, these people should be attacked."
VANCE: Yes, that's absolutely right. I mean, if you talk to people who spent their lives
in D.C. I know you live in D.C.
CARLSON: Yes.
VANCE: I've spent a lot of my life here. The people who spend their time in D.C. who work
on Republican campaigns, who work at conservative think tanks, now this isn't true of
everybody, but a lot of them actually don't like the people who are voting for Republican
candidates these days.
Experts familiar with law enforcement requests say that what TikTok collects and hands over
is not significantly more than what companies like Amazon, Facebook, or Google regularly
provide, but that's because U.S. tech companies collect and hand over a lot of information.
The documents also reveal that two representatives with bytedance.com email addresses
registered on the website of the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, a fusion
center that covers the Silicon Valley area.
And they show that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland
Security actively monitored TikTok for signs of unrest during the George Floyd
protests.
The number of requests for subscriber information that TikTok says it receives from law
enforcement is significantly lower than what U.S. tech giants reportedly field, likely
because police are more accustomed to using data from U.S. companies and apps in
investigations. TikTok enumerates its requests from law enforcement in a biannual
transparency report, the most recent of which says that for the last half of 2019, the
company received 100 requests covering 107 accounts. It handed over information in 82
percent of cases. Facebook, by contrast, says it received a whopping 51,121 requests over
the same period, and handed over at least some data in 88 percent of cases.
That last sentence... That's *why* Facebook exists. As does Google and Twitter and the
rest of the social media giants.
Home / Articles / Economy
/ All About The Chips: Taiwan Is Next Battleground For Trade Fight ECONOMY , WORLDAll
About The Chips: Taiwan Is Next Battleground For Trade Fight
The media likes to dabble in war-game fantasies between the 21st-century great powers China
and the U.S., but it's a distraction from the hybrid economic warfare that is underway -- from
Trump's tariff hikes to the shores of the advanced economy.
Here in a nutshell is the problem facing the United States. The country that used to be a
world leader in all forms of high tech, especially semiconductor chips, now spends its time
redesigning chocolate chips. By contrast, Taiwan, officially a "rogue province of China,"
but in reality operating as an independent nation of 23 million people, ranked 20th as a
world economy (right behind Switzerland), is now a leading global player in the production of
semiconductor chips. As such it has emerged as the key supply link to a multiplicity of
American and Chinese high-tech companies at a time when the Trump administration is working
hard to cut China's access to Taiwan's semiconductors.
For all of China's significant technological advancements, the country still lags in the
production of semiconductor chips.
Memory chips are principally made by Samsung, SK Hynix (South Korea), and Micron (USA).
Intel also makes some memory chips for its own use. Memory chips are a big issue for China.
Beijing has deployed considerable fiscal resources into producing them and last year set a goal
of producing 5 percent
of the world's total production by the end of 2020.
That's ambitious. It's one thing to produce memory chips, another to get a usable "yield,"
i.e., the percentage of output that actually works. It is a singularly challenging industry in
which to attain industrial self-sufficiency.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) is a "
fabless chip maker " that produces customized semiconductor chips for use in various types
of electronics, such as digital cameras, smartphones, and the new technologically sophisticated
"smart" cars. They also produce chips for the military, and for 5G base stations. China's
leading telecom equipment manufacturer, Huawei, was a large customer, but the Trump
administration has now
mandated that all semiconductor chip manufacturers using U.S. equipment, IP, or design
software will require a license before shipping to Huawei, which has forced TSMC to stop taking
fresh orders from Huawei, as it uses U.S. equipment in its own manufacturing processes,
such as LAM research and Applied Materials.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.400.1_en.html#goog_567409621 Ad ends in 44s
Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family
Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
The wisdom of so many companies relying on manufacturing facilities located in Taiwan is
debatable. Intel and Micron locate fabs around the world, in part to diversify risk
(earthquake, weather, politics) and to access skilled labor pools. Intel has long had
production facilities in Ireland, Israel, and China itself; it has also purchased Israeli
companies for their research and development. But it also has retained significant production
facilities still in the United States. Similarly, Micron has fabs in Boise Idaho, Utah, and
Manassas, Virginia (right near the CIA and Pentagon.)
TSMC is important because it is pretty much the only place to get processor chips
fabricated, unless you're Intel. In that regard, Intel's recent 2nd quarter
earnings announcement that its planned launch of the company's next generation of chips
will be delayed by six months is most concerning. News of the production delay (which now
pushes the production of the company's latest central processing unit (CPU) -- aka the "brains"
of the laptop -- out to early 2023) generated considerable market anxiety, as evidenced by the
17 percent fall in the share price in the wake of the disclosure. From a long-term perspective,
however, the more alarming aspect is Intel's decision to consider
outsourcing its manufacturing capacity, a sharp break from the company's historic practice.
Intel has been one of the few leading American high-tech companies that has hitherto largely
resisted the panacea of offshoring its production. Much of this is a product of the corporate
culture established by former CEO Andy Grove, who had warned that Silicon Valley risked
"squandering its competitive edge in innovation by failing to propel strong job growth in the
United States," according to a New York Times op-ed by Teresa Tritch written shortly after his
death. Tritch explains
that:
in [Grove's] view, those lower Asian costs masked the high price of offshoring as measured
by lost jobs and lost expertise
Mr. Grove contrasted the start-up phase of a business, when uses for new technologies are
identified, with the scale-up phase, when technology goes from prototype to mass production.
Both are important. But only scale-up is an engine for job growth -- and scale-up, in
general, no longer occurs in the United States. "Without scaling," he wrote, "we don't just
lose jobs -- we lose our hold on new technologies" and "ultimately damage our capacity to
innovate."
Intel's decision comes at a time when American policymakers are finally beginning to
appreciate the adverse economic and strategic consequences of such moves. Were Intel to
follow through on its outsourcing threat, it too would further exacerbate America's strategic
reliance on Taiwan for customized semiconductor manufacturing, as well as undermining the
impact of recent legislative attempts to
rebuild the country's semiconductor manufacturing capacity.
By contrast, economic competition that degenerates into out-and-out war would be a disaster
for all sides. As David Arase, resident professor of International Politics at the
Hopkins-Nanjing Center of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International
Studies, recently contended in
the Asia Times, "Even an unsuccessful invasion of Taiwan would cause a supply chain
disruption." By the same token, actively upgrading
diplomatic relations with Taiwan to something akin to the old
mutual defense treaty that existed prior to Washington's recognition of Beijing in 1979 as
the one sovereign government representing China, would almost certainly provoke a more
aggressive response from Beijing.
U.S. goals should be far more modest: not to underwrite the freedom aspirations of another
country (even a vibrant multi-party democracy such as Taiwan) but, rather, to fix a key
vulnerability in the global supply chain that currently renders the U.S. so reliant on Taiwan.
Even TSMC has implicitly acknowledged its own geographical shortcomings, as it has recently
announced plans to build a new $12 billion chip manufacturing facility in Arizona. Consider
this a form of political risk insurance.
A full-scale defense of Taiwan would cost thousands of lives, and potentially entrench the
U.S. military in a long-term quagmire; it would also represent a logistical nightmare in terms
of supplying such a force over so many thousands of miles (versus an opposing Chinese army a
mere
100 miles away .) To say nothing of the risks posed to numerous substantial American
multinationals already operating in China.
A key conceptual problem that our policymakers and business leaders have today is an
addiction to 19th-century concepts that are anomalous in the context of a 21st-century economy.
David Ricardo's " comparative advantage " --
that "refers to an economy's ability to produce goods and services at a lower opportunity cost
than that of trade partners" -- has less relevance at a time when such advantage can be largely
created as a byproduct of state policy. Countries such as Taiwan, South Korea, and now China
itself, can dominate targeted industries by subsidizing them aggressively. Because of
increasing returns to scale, there is a winner-take-all pattern in which, at any given time,
one nation tends to dominate a huge global market share of the underlying product -- since the
1970s, Japan, South Korea and China in that order. It also creates huge employment
opportunities in high-quality jobs for the countries as they scale up production. This was also
a key insight of Andy Grove .
None of these countries had a natural "comparative advantage" in semiconductor production;
they just followed the
classic pattern of subsidizing their growth via substantial government support,
relentlessly driving down cost inputs to push other marginal manufacturers out of the
industry.
The incessant focus on market share usually comes at a cost of short-term profitability (a
no-no for Wall Street, which focuses on quarterly earnings as intently as an audience waiting
for the white smoke to emerge from a papal election). However, businesses usually recoup these
costs later once they've established dominant market share.
Semiconductors are a high value-added manufacturing platform industry that has a significant
multiplier effect on the domestic economy. It represents an area that should be prioritized by
the U.S., not de-emphasized (as Intel's proposed move threatens to do). The road back to
manufacturing relevance is a long one, but the perpetuation of the current policy risks
exacerbating longstanding pathologies in the U.S. economy, while simultaneously creating new
national security vulnerabilities.
Taiwan is a vibrant multiparty democracy that constitutes a model of economic development.
But those virtues could be threatened if we try, shortsightedly, to turn it into a U.S.
protectorate to address problems that should be resolved much closer to home.
Marshall Auerback is a market analyst and contributor to the Independent Media
Institute .
TSMC's Arizona fab is tiny compared to its 12 Taiwan ones, and more of a sop to the Trump
administration than a serious effort to diversify. The jugular vein of the semiconductor
industry is within easy reach of China's missile arsenal, and indeed the Chinese military can
be said to have been designed specifically for the task of retaking Taiwan.
China might not even need to invade. If they blockade Taiwan--air and sea--and threaten to
destroy ships and aircraft trying to enter or leave Taiwan, they can stop chip export.
It's similar to Iran saying, "Either everybody can export oil from the Gulf or no one
can." China would say, "Either everyone can import chips from Taiwan or no one can. And China
is in a much better position to enforce its will than Iran.
The reaction to Auberback's refutation of comparative advantage would be extreme depending
on who was reacting. The field of economics is like a cult, with a lot of groupthink and
academic homogeneity. In this way failed consensuses are continued and alternatives, even if
they have a good historical track record, are railed against as heterodox and fringe.
Its amazing how in just two or three decades we forgot about basically all of US economic
history and policy history up to that point.
I completely agree that a supply chains including those for memory chips in Taiwan must be
diversified but it is of paramount importance that Taiwan not be left weakened and vulnerable
to mainland China by these shifting supply chains because any weakness in Taiwan will be an
invitation for Beijing to exploit...and if Beijing exploits that invitation then they could
take that invitation all the way to an invasion which will be a detriment of all other
nations in the Pacific. Right now China is focused on Hong Kong, Taiwan and India....with
Hong Kong and Taiwan gone the China will push its aggressive hegemony to Indonesia, Malaysia,
Philippines, etc.
I also complete agree that we (the US, Japan and any other asian nation that will join)
need a treaty protecting Taiwan's independence from mainland China but the very first thing
the US should do prior to such a new treaty is to get other nations to start using the name
Taiwan again on their maps, plane flights, UN, etc because as you know Beijing has been doing
everything possible to not just get nations and businesses to stop recognizing Taiwan and to
even stop using its name in an attempt to erase both the existence of Taiwan and any
distinction that Taiwan is separate from mainland China. The recognition of Taiwan and the
use of its name must be reinforced everywhere in the world as part of the first step in
negotiating a security treaty for Taiwan.
The USA has a one China policy and recognises the Chinese Government as the Government of
China. It's true that it once recognised the Government of Taiwan as the Government of China.
It's a completely new policy you're proposing of splitting China into 2 (or more?) states.
That needs war, as it would if China was proposing to break up the USA, and the USA would
lose a non-nuclear war.
The USA could win a nuclear war but would lose a lot of its population. I don't know how
seriously we should take the US estimate of 90% within a year by starvation and disease with
just an EMP attack. Mexico, Canada and Cuba might accept many US refugees even though they
would also suffer damage. Not all of the area of those countries would suffer EMP damage.
Other countries might also provide some charity.
Mexico, Canada and Cuba could be rewarded for their charity by dividing the USA between
them. That would be a powerful incentive and remove a country fond of wars of aggression. A
USA that poses no threat to anybody could continue to exist and be called Hawaii.
[email protected]
TSMC's Arizona fab is tiny compared to its 12 Taiwan ones, and more of a sop to the Trump
administration than a serious effort to diversify. The jugular vein of the semiconductor
industry is within easy reach of China's missile arsenal, and indeed the Chinese military can
be said to have been designed specifically for the task of retaking Taiwan.
China might not even need to invade. If they blockade Taiwan--air and sea--and threaten to
destroy ships and aircraft trying to enter or leave Taiwan, they can stop chip export.
It's similar to Iran saying, "Either everybody can export oil from the Gulf or no one
can." China would say, "Either everyone can import chips from Taiwan or no one can. And China
is in a much better position to enforce its will than Iran.
The reaction to Auberback's refutation of comparative advantage would be extreme depending
on who was reacting. The field of economics is like a cult, with a lot of groupthink and
academic homogeneity. In this way failed consensuses are continued and alternatives, even if
they have a good historical track record, are railed against as heterodox and fringe.
Its amazing how in just two or three decades we forgot about basically all of US economic
history and policy history up to that point.
I completely agree that a supply chains including those for memory chips in Taiwan must be
diversified but it is of paramount importance that Taiwan not be left weakened and vulnerable
to mainland China by these shifting supply chains because any weakness in Taiwan will be an
invitation for Beijing to exploit...and if Beijing exploits that invitation then they could
take that invitation all the way to an invasion which will be a detriment of all other
nations in the Pacific. Right now China is focused on Hong Kong, Taiwan and India....with
Hong Kong and Taiwan gone the China will push its aggressive hegemony to Indonesia, Malaysia,
Philippines, etc.
I also complete agree that we (the US, Japan and any other asian nation that will join)
need a treaty protecting Taiwan's independence from mainland China but the very first thing
the US should do prior to such a new treaty is to get other nations to start using the name
Taiwan again on their maps, plane flights, UN, etc because as you know Beijing has been doing
everything possible to not just get nations and businesses to stop recognizing Taiwan and to
even stop using its name in an attempt to erase both the existence of Taiwan and any
distinction that Taiwan is separate from mainland China. The recognition of Taiwan and the
use of its name must be reinforced everywhere in the world as part of the first step in
negotiating a security treaty for Taiwan.
The USA has a one China policy and recognises the Chinese Government as the Government of
China. It's true that it once recognised the Government of Taiwan as the Government of China.
It's a completely new policy you're proposing of splitting China into 2 (or more?) states.
That needs war, as it would if China was proposing to break up the USA, and the USA would
lose a non-nuclear war.
The USA could win a nuclear war but would lose a lot of its population. I don't know how
seriously we should take the US estimate of 90% within a year by starvation and disease with
just an EMP attack. Mexico, Canada and Cuba might accept many US refugees even though they
would also suffer damage. Not all of the area of those countries would suffer EMP damage.
Other countries might also provide some charity.
Mexico, Canada and Cuba could be rewarded for their charity by dividing the USA between
them. That would be a powerful incentive and remove a country fond of wars of aggression. A
USA that poses no threat to anybody could continue to exist and be called Hawaii.
[email protected]
The Trump administration is
working to dispossess the Chinese company ByteDance by blackmailing it to sell its
valuable TikTok business to a U.S. company for a bargain price. This to the benefit of yet
unknown people.
False allegation over the security of TikTok user data were used to threaten the
prohibition of the video app in its U.S. market. In the U.S. alone the app is used by more
than 80 million people. It plays an important
part in the youth culture and music business. Faced with a potential close down of its
prime business in one of its most profitable markets ByteDance had no choice but to agree to
negotiate about a sale.
ByteDance declined an offer by two of its U.S. based minority investors to buy the
business for $50 billion as that price was far below its presumed value. The White House
stepped in to find a new buyer with enough change to pay for a deal. As the largest social
media companies - Facebook, Apple, Google and Twitter - are already
under congressional investigations for their monopoly positions in U.S. markets none of
them could be the potential buyer. Facebook has in fact just launched a rip-off of the TikTok
product under the name Reels. It is
trying to poach TikTok 'creators' for its own service. Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg has
warned
of Chinese competition. He would be the biggest winner should TikTok be thrown out of the
U.S. market.
The White House finally came up with Microsoft as a potential buyer. But Microsoft has
historically been unsuccessful in the social media business. It also does other business with
China and is reluctant to get involved in a move that could damage that business.
Despite Microsoft's lack of interest President Trump personally pressed for a shotgun
marriage. The Democrats are supporting him
in this. But neither ByteDance nor Microsoft really want to make the deal.
TikTok could become totally independent from its Chinese owner ByteDance to continue
operating overseas, according to a source who has been briefed on the discussions.
But the source said that despite reports that the video-sharing platform would be taken
over by Microsoft, ByteDance founder Zhang Yiming and investors were reluctant to sell to
the US company.
...
[I]f it is able to continue operating in the US, the board of ByteDance will agree to a
complete spin-off for the overseas version of the app, which operates under the name Douyin
in China.
The new entity would keep the TikTok name, but will have different management and will
no longer answer to ByteDance.
"Except for Zhang Yiming, almost all those in the room favour such a spin-off," the
source said. "The mood is kind of: 'the founder will be out and the house will be
ours'.
"But even for Zhang himself, there's really no other option because the app will be
killed if you don't let it go."
The spin-off would cover all markets except China where a ByteDance owned app similar to
TikTok is run under the name Douyin. A sale to Microsoft would only include the markets in
the U.S., Canada, New Zealand and Australia. (Note that Britain is the only member of the
5-eyes club missing here.)
That Microsoft is not really wanting the deal can be gleaned for the convoluted statement
it issued yesterday. This is clearly unprecedented language in a public company's
communication:
Following a conversation between Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and President Donald J. Trump,
Microsoft is prepared to continue discussions to explore a purchase of TikTok in the United
States.
Microsoft fully appreciates the importance of addressing the President's concerns. It is
committed to acquiring TikTok subject to a complete security review and providing proper
economic benefits to the United States, including the United States Treasury .
Microsoft will move quickly to pursue discussions with TikTok's parent company,
ByteDance, in a matter of weeks, and in any event completing these discussions no later
than September 15, 2020. During this process, Microsoft looks forward to continuing
dialogue with the United States Government, including with the President.
The discussions with ByteDance will build upon a notification made by Microsoft and
ByteDance to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).
...
Microsoft may invite other American investors to participate on a minority basis in this
purchase.
...
Microsoft appreciates the U.S. Government's and President Trump's personal involvement as
it continues to develop strong security protections for the country.
This ass kissing of Trump is not what Microsoft is used to do. Satva Nadella was clearly
pressed into publishing this. Such a statement would usually include language about
increasing shareholder value or better user experience. This statement has none of that
standard sweet talk.
The stock market seems to believe that a takeover of TikTok would be profitable for
Microsoft :
I have my doubts that Microsoft can successfully run a social network business. This one
would be restricted to just four countries and it would likely lose access to the continuing
development of the app. Where is the potential growth for such a restricted application?
And how will China react if Microsoft takes part in the U.S. raid of ByteDance's business?
While China is only contributing some 2% to Microsoft's overall revenue the company's biggest
R&D center outside of the U.S. is in China . It
contributes to its global success:
"[There has been an] explosion of innovation in China," [Microsoft President Brad] Smith
said. "One of the things that we at Microsoft have long appreciated is the enormous
ingenuity of the engineering population of China."
Microsoft's X-Box game station as well as other hardware it sells is at least partially
developed and produced
in China . Some of Microsoft's Chinese engineers might have there own ideas on how China
should retaliate to the attack on a successful Chinese company. The Trump administration sees
that danger and it is pressing
Microsoft to get rid of all its relations with China:
White House trade adviser Peter Navarro suggested on Monday that Microsoft could divest its
holdings in China if it were to buy TikTok.
"So the question is, is Microsoft going to be compromised?" Navarro said in an interview
with CNN. "Maybe Microsoft could divest its Chinese holdings?"
Leaving China would surely damage Microsoft's long term business. For a global company
that country is a too big potential market to be left at the wayside.
But the real question about the mafia raid on ByteDance is who is destined to profit from
it.
Today Trump said (vid) that if Microsoft
closes the deal a substantial amount should be paid to the Treasury because his
administration 'enabled the deal'. He likely didn't consult a lawyer before making that
wrongheaded statement.
But who are the "other American investors" who are invited "to participate on a minority
basis in this purchase". Reuters had already reported
that 'minority investor' clause. Is the wider Trump family involved in this?
Why is that term so important for Trump that Microsoft has felt a need to repeat it in
what is essentially a public terms letter addressed to Trump?
Posted by b on August 3, 2020 at 17:47 UTC |
Permalink
I know B says this is about stealing, but maybe this is about sending China a message
about how it does business in general. As you should know by now, China disallows many
American apps in China. Is this a message to China about how America and maybe American
allies will do business with them from now on? First Huawei and now Tik Tok and next who
knows what? It looks to me like the message to China is: Follow the Golden Rule, which is not
"whoever has the most gold rules" but is instead "Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you."
Hey Kali, China DOES NOT need the US but what you are seeing is a violation of business
norms. You say China doesn't allow many apps from entering its market is not the same as the
US trying to blackmail a successful Chinese app that have already entered the US market.
Since you mentioned Huawei; they own almost the entire 5G technology so either you pay
directly or indirectly irregardless if the US bans them or not
Facebook at one time was operating in China. In 2008-2009 terrorists were using Facebook
to coordinate attacks in Xinjiang province. When the Chinese government demanded the
information Facebook declined to provide citing privacy issues. After that Facebook was
banned.
"For example Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Google--maybe they want complete control over
what their populations hear or says online?"
If that's the case why is it not illegal in China to have a VPN? How many strawmen are in
that diatribe you just posted? I can only knock down one at a time.
Is the dispute over Tik-Tok really about protecting American citizens?
Non-US companies collect a lot of info about US citizens and citizens of other Western
countries via internet apps and other means. And much info is available for sale as well.
Seems more likely that the forced sale is really about protecting the Western
establishment and US power-elite. A massive social network is a threat to their control
because it could be used to spread anti-US govt messages. Mostly to younger people who are
already very cynical (as we can see from the protesting) and thus more willing to accept it
as true or reflecting a truth.
Although Sarah's comedy is not a threat to the US power-elite, one can easily imagine
messaging that would be:
USA threatens war against a country and suddenly everyone in USA gets messages that
depict Trump/USA as a bully and that create sympathy for the good people of the target
country.
Messaging that decries the harsh and unfair treatment of political prisoners
(Assange?);
Messaging that calls into question the legitimacy of a US Presidential election.
Messages that mock Trump's blaming China for the pandemic by describing the Trump
Administration's inept response to the pandemic.
<> <> <> <> <>
PS Where's the libertarian mob complaining about government control? Those astro-turfed
bullsh*ters are not really interested in issues that they are not paid to be interested
in.
"As TikTok's global market influence was skyrocketing, the company was suppressed by the
US government. Again, this shows how difficult it is for companies from China to go global.
ByteDance said in a statement that it is "committed to becoming a global company." But
Washington will not easily let the company off just because of its good wishes.
"The US' decoupling from China starts from killing China's most competitive companies. In
the process, Washington ignores rules and is unreasonable. Although suppressing Huawei and
TikTok also incurs losses to the US, the suppression can still be implemented in the US. This
is because such suppression echoes the sense of crisis instigated by some US elites when
facing China's rise.
"Huawei and ByteDance can only provide limited protection to themselves via legal means.
But we should not overestimate the US' sense of justice. The country has shown us too many
examples of politics overwhelming everything else....
"Huawei has advanced equipment, and ByteDance sells services to the world through unique
concepts and technologies. The two companies are pioneers worldwide. They have brought a
sense of crisis to US elites, which shows that China's top companies have the ability to move
to the forefront of the world in technology. It reflects the power of China as an emerging
market. As long as such power continues to expand, these top Chinese companies can eventually
break through US suppression.
"By banning Huawei, the US would lag behind in 5G technology. By banning TikTok, the US
would harm its own internet diversity and its belief in freedom and democracy. When similar
things happen time and again, the US will take steps closer to its decline. The US is a
pioneer in global internet and has created Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. But in
recent years, the US' internet structure has been rigid.
"Rising stars such as ByteDance continue to emerge in Chinese internet sector, showing
huge vitality. China knows its deficiencies, strives to become stronger, and adheres to
opening-up to the world. The US, however, is gradually being shrouded in arrogance, seclusion
and a negative attitude. Chinese people should not be discouraged by temporary setbacks, or
our weaker position in the China-US confrontation. What's important is that China's trend of
faster-pace progress has not changed....
"The COVID-19 pandemic is an important issue, clearly showing us that the US has fallen
into a type of systematic chaos. This will severely limit its ability to indefinitely upgrade
and exert pressure on China. Many of the US practices, including banning TikTok, show the
country's weakening competitiveness. Can't Facebook just come up with a more powerful app and
beat TikTok in the market? The problem is Facebook cannot do it. It can only resort to the
brute force of US politics."
As you read, China takes this very differently. It sees the inability of Outlaw US Empire
firms to compete and thus seek protection as suggested here :
"Western countries' social media platforms have long dominated, and only a handful of
Chinese firms that have entered the arena in recent years have won popularity. TikTok has
seen record-high downloads across the world. Per data from an industry analysis platform
Sensor Tower in April, TikTok had been downloaded more than 2 billion times globally
.
"The US' plan to ban TikTok follows the same logic as its crackdown on Chinese tech firm
Huawei. The US has been limiting the 5G frontrunner for years, essentially the result of
evolving relations between China and the US-led Western world.
" TikTok and Huawei are not isolated cases. Chinese high-tech firms that expand
overseas will encounter different levels of barriers as China develops into a new tech power,
giving rise to concerns from countries that feel threatened by Chinese technology .
"The US will not allow a social media platform that enjoys high popularity among younger
generations to be operated by a foreign company, especially when the countdown to its
presidential election ticks on. Banning TikTok now is, to some extent, also a move by Trump
to control public voices after groups of young American TikTok users reportedly upstaged his
first large-scale public rally amid the COVID-19 pandemic by registering for tickets and
failing to attend.
"With the election drawing near, a plunging second-quarter GDP at negative 32.9 percent,
and the world's largest number of coronavirus infections, it is likely the Trump
administration will continue rolling out new and even harsher measures to antagonize China
and attempt to block it economically." [My Emphasis]
How much revenge and the election play into the drama are unknown, but we know Trump is
soft-skinned and very vindictive; Tulsa was a huge embarrassment. Can't compete; erect a
tariff wall to protect your weak companies--the Outlaw US Empire demands China "open up"
while it closes up instead. As the headline of the first item screamed, "Banning TikTok
reflects Washington's cowardice."
Gotta love the stupid Western capitalists.
First, it was "Let's all invest in China, do a lot of business and move all our factories
there because we'll make a shit-ton of $$".
Then, it's "Oh, they're too big and powerful, we need to stop trading and making any kind of
business with them".
As some clever guy said about these short-sighted idiots more than a century ago, they're
selling the rope with which to hang them.
The mafia methods used are often packaged as monopoly powers such copyrights, patents,
transformation of public goods into for profit private enterprizes (privatization), takeovers and
bankruptcy, private ownership of the highest levels of nearly all governments, and just 6 own 92%
of all media.
Takeover of Tik Toc by Microsoft is just one demonstrating of a wider trend -- the tend
toward gangster capitalism. BTW Chinese proposes complete divestment. That spells big trouble for
US heavyweights such as Amazon, Google and Facebook.
"We lie to deceive ourselves, we lie to comfort others, we lie out of pity, we lie out of
shame, to encourage, to hide our misery, we lie out of honesty. We lie for freedom."
Trump blames China every chance he can and the Democrats either agree or offer mealy-mouthed
protest.
Notable quotes:
"... It comes to light that at least 125 US companies owned or invested in by Chinese entities, including Chinese SOE, received hundreds of millions in PPP loans backed by the US SBS. ..."
"... This level of capitalust interconnection between elite investors and governments belies all the heated talk of cold war by politicians on both sides as well as useful idiots the world over. ..."
"... "If this is also national security, then US national security is synonymous with hegemony." ..."
China has never banned US high-tech companies from doing business in the country. What the
Chinese government demands is that what they do in China should comply with Chinese law.
That's all . It was some US companies that refused to comply with Chinese laws.
Google used to have a position in the Chinese market. It itself pulled out of China a
decade ago, while other companies were accused in the US of kowtowing to China when they
tried to design their specific versions for the Chinese market. This leaves no US internet
giant currently operating in China.
TikTok operates in the US in full compliance with US laws and is completely cut off from
Douyin, its Chinese equivalent. Users in the Chinese mainland cannot register for TikTok
even if they bypass the so-called great firewall . TikTok does not violate any US
law but fully cooperates with the US administration.
The US claim that TikTok threatens its own national security is a purely hypothetical
and unwarranted charge - just like the groundless accusation that Huawei gathers
intelligence for the Chinese government. This is fundamentally different from China's
refusal to allow the original versions of Facebook and Twitter to enter China and require
them to operate in accordance with Chinese laws.
In just three paragraphs, the Global Times killed two myths: that a "great firewall"
exists and that China censorship things from the West (i.e. that the Chinese people is
"living in the darkness").
I had a teacher who traveled to China recently. He went to a local bar (100% Mainland
Chinese) as soon as he landed. He was having difficulty accessing Google (I think it was
either Gmail or Google Drive). He tried, tried, tried but couldn't do it. When the locals
there realized he was trying to access Google products, they promptly and calmly told him he
should use VPN because Google didn't operate in China. No drama, no fear of a local police
officer suddenly coming to the place to arrest them.
They know what Apple, Google and Facebook are. It's just that China has better local
options for the same product.
Not that globalization is a one way street by any means.
It comes to light that at least 125 US companies owned or invested in by Chinese entities,
including Chinese SOE, received hundreds of millions in PPP loans backed by the US SBS.
This level of capitalust interconnection between elite investors and governments belies
all the heated talk of cold war by politicians on both sides as well as useful idiots the
world over.
Why even favorite Chinese PR flack Pepe Escobar recently characterized the Stupidity Trap
aka Thucydides Trap as childish nonsense.
"If this is also national security, then US national security is synonymous with
hegemony."
That is precisely the problem. Unfortunately, the current US economy has become dependent on
advantages arising from unrivaled geopolitical power. Take it away too suddenly, and there
would be a painful economic transition to become a normal nation again.
While concern might be legitimate, Trump administration actions looks more and more like
extortion. They really open the door for king US financial companies and accounting firms from
China and Russia. The latter also represent "national security" threat.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Sunday that President Trump would soon take action
against Chinese software companies that the administration believes present a national security
risk for Americans.
"President Trump has said, 'enough,' and we're going to fix it," Pompeo said on Fox News's
"Sunday Morning Futures." "And so he will take action in the coming days with respect to a
broad array of national security risks that are presented by software connected to the Chinese
Communist Party."
The comments come on the heels of Trump's announcement on Friday that he was prepared to
sign an executive order to ban TikTok, a Chinese-owned short-form video app, from operating in
the U.S.
Pompeo on Sunday asserted that Chinese-owned software companies doing business in America
were "feeding data directly" to the government in Beijing and that the practices amounted to
"true national security issues." He specifically named TikTok and WeChat, a Chinese-owned
messaging and social media app.
"They are true privacy issues for the American people. And for a long time, a long time, the
United States just said, well, goodness, if we're having fun with it, or if a company can make
money off of it, we're going to permit that to happen," Pompeo added, noting that officials
have been deliberating on a decision for months now.
TikTok, which has become especially popular among teens in recent years, has gained
relentless scrutiny from the Trump administration and members of Congress overs its
relationship with ByteDance, a Chinese firm. Lawmakers have voiced concerns that Americans'
information is not secure in the hands of TikTok, considering Chinese laws that require
disclosures of sensitive data upon request by the government.
TikTok has strongly pushed back against allegations about its handling of user data in
recent days, with the company's CEO releasing a statement rebuking "rumors and misinformation."
The company also sent a letter to leaders on the House Judiciary Committee last Wednesday
rebutting allegations about its data practices.
"TikTok is not available in China," the letter said. "We store Americans' user data in the
US, with back-up in Singapore, with strict access controls for employees. We have never
provided any US user data to the Chinese government, nor would we do so if asked. Any
allegations to the contrary are unfounded."
TikTok has not directly commented on Trump's stated plans to bar the app's use in the U.S.
Though TikTok's U.S. general manager, Vanessa Pappas, said in a video on Saturday that the
company is "here for the long run." The company has also highlighted the 1,000 people in the
U.S. it has hired, noting that it plans on adding another 10,000 employees in the country in
the future.
After Trump's comments on Friday, reports surfaced that Microsoft was in talks to purchase
the short-form video app, which boasts roughly 100 million American users.
Asked about that possibility and whether it would end any opportunity for Chinese
surveillance, Pompeo said on Fox News that the administration "will make sure that everything
we have done drives us as close to zero risk for the American people."
Multiple GOP Senators have voiced support of the prospect of a U.S. company purchasing
TikTok to avoid an outright ban. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in a tweet Sunday that a
"trusted" U.S. company buying the app would be a "positive and acceptable outcome."
Examples given show quite clearly that "cancel mob" is an established form of the political
struggle. And in this case the reasons behind the particular attack of the "cancel mob" is far
from charitable.
Cancel culture my assJustice for Brad HamiltonRoy Edroso Jul 14 38 30
Mendenhall loses endorsement deal over bin Laden tweets
[Steelers running back] Rashard Mendenhall's candid tweets about Osama bin Laden's death
and the 9/11 terror attacks cost him an endorsement deal.
NFL.com senior analyst Vic Carucci says Rashard Mendenhall has become an example of the
risks that social media can present to outspoken pro athletes.
Athletic apparel manufacturer Champion announced Thursday that it had dropped the
Pittsburgh Steelers running back after he questioned the celebrations of bid Laden's death
and expressed his uncertainty over official accounts of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New
York, suburban Washington and Pennsylvania.
Things haven't gotten any better. I've already written about
Springfield, Mass. police detective Florissa Fuentes, who got fired this year for
reposting her niece's pro-Black Lives Matter Instagram photo. Fuentes is less like Donohue,
the Chicks, and Mendenhall, though, and more like most of the people who get fired for speech
in this country, in that she is not rich, and getting fired was for her a massive blow.
The controversy began after [Lisa] Durden's appearance [on Tucker Carlson], during which
she defended the Black Lives Matter movement's decision to host a Memorial Day celebration
in New York City to which only black people were invited. On the show, Durden's comments
included, "You white people are angry because you couldn't use your white privilege card to
get invited to the Black Lives Matter's all-black Memorial Day Celebration," and "We want
to celebrate today. We don't want anybody going against us today."
Durden was then an adjunct professor at Essex County College, but not for long because
sure enough, they fired her for what she said on the show. (Bet Carlson, a racist piece
of shit , was delighted!) The college president defended her decision, saying she'd
received "feedback from students, faculty and prospective students and their families
expressing frustration, concern and even fear that the views expressed by a college employee
(with influence over students) would negatively impact their experience on the campus..."
Sounds pretty snowflakey to me. I went looking in the works of the signatories of the
famous
Harper's letter against cancel culture for some sign that any of them had acknowledged
Durden's case. Shockingly, such free speech warriors as Rod Dreher and Bret Stephens never
dropped a word on it.
Dreher does come up in other free-speech-vs-employment cases, though -- for example, from
2017, Chronicle of Higher
Education :
Tommy Curry, an associate professor of philosophy at Texas A&M University at College
Station, about five years ago participated in a YouTube interview in which he discussed
race and violence. Those remarks resurfaced in May in a column titled "When Is It OK to
Kill Whites?" by Rod Dreher in The American Conservative.
Mr. Curry said of that piece that he wasn't advocating for violence and that his remarks
had been taken out of context. He told The Chronicle that online threats had arrived in
force shortly after that. Some were racial in nature.
At the same time the president of the university, Michael K. Young, issued a statement
in which he appeared to rebuke the remarks made by Mr. Curry...
In his column on
Curry , Dreher said, "I wonder what it is like to be a white student studying under Dr.
Curry in his classroom?" Imagine worrying for the safety of white people at Texas
Fucking A&M!
Curry got to keep his job, but only after he "issued a new statement apologizing for how
his remarks had been received," the Chronicle reported:
"For those of you who considered my comments disparaging to certain types of scholarly
work or in any way impinging upon the centrality of academic freedom at this university,"
[Curry] wrote, "I regret any contributions that I may have made to misunderstandings in
this case, including to those whose work is contextualized by understanding the historical
perspectives of events that have often been ignored."
Bottom line: Most of us who work for a living are at-will employees -- basically, the boss
can fire us if they don't like the way we look at them or if they don't like what they
discover we feel about the events of the day. There are some protections -- for example, if
you and your work buddies are talking about work stuff and the boss gets mad, then that may
be considered " concerted
activity " and protected -- but as
Lisa Guerin wrote at the nolo.com legal advice site, "political views aren't covered by
[Civil Rights] laws and the laws of most states. This means employers are free to consider
political views and affiliations in making job decisions."
Basically we employees have no free speech rights at all. But people like Stephens and
Dreher and Megan McArdle who cry
over how "the mob" is coming after them don't care about us. For window dressing, they'll
glom onto rare cases where a non-rich, non-credentialed guy gets in trouble for allegedly
racist behavior that he didn't really do -- Emmanuel Cafferty, it's your time
to shine ! -- but their real concern isn't Cafferty's "free speech" or that of any other
peon, it's their own miserable careers.
Because they know people are starting to talk back to them. It's not like back in the day
when Peggy Noonan and George F. Will mounted their high horses and vomited their wisdom onto
the rabble and maybe some balled-up Letters to the Editor might feebly come back at them but
that was it. Now commoners can go viral! People making fun of Bari Weiss might reach as many
people as Bari Weiss herself! The cancel culture criers may have wingnut welfare sinecures,
cushy pundit gigs, and the respect of all the Right People, but they can't help but notice
that when they glide out onto their balconies and emit their received opinions a lot of
people -- mostly younger, and thoroughly hip that these worthies are apologists for the
austerity debt servitude to which they've been condemned for life -- are not just coughing
"bullshit" into their fists, but shouting it out loud.
This, the cancel culture criers cry, is the mob! It threatens civilization!
Yet they cannot force us to pay attention or buy their shitty opinions. The sound and
smell of mockery disturbs their al fresco luncheons and
weddings at the Arboretum . So they rush to their writing desks and prepare
sternly-worded letters. Their colleagues will read and approve! Also, their editors and
relatives! And maybe also some poor dumb kids who know so little of the world that they'll
actually mistake these overpaid prats for victims and feel sorry for them.
Well, you've already heard what I think about it elsewhere: Protect workers' free speech
rights for real, I say -- let them be as woke, as racist, or as obstreperous they wish off
the clock and the boss can't squawk. The cancel culture criers won't go for that deal; in
fact such a thing has never entered their minds -- free-speech is to protect their delicate
sensibilities, not the livelihoods of people who work with their hands!
And in the new tradition of the working class asking for more rather than less of what
they want, I'll go further: I give not one flaming fuck if these assholes suffocate under a
barrage of rotten tomatoes, and I think Brad inFast Times at Ridgemont
Highgot a raw deal from All-American
Burger and should be reinstated with full back pay: That customer deserved to have
100% of his ass kicked!
Examples given show quite clearly that "cancel mob" is an established, albeit somewhat
dirty, form of the political struggle. Often the reasons behind the particular attack of
the "cancel mob" is far from charitable. Orwell's 1984 describes an extreme form of the
same.
"... Case in point, reporting today on the newly disclosed Ghisline Maxwell documents only mentioned Prince Andrew and not a word about Bill Clinton ..."
"... believe James Murdoch was part of the "we are all gonna die in <11 years" Green New Deal school of thought. ..."
"James Murdoch, the younger son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch, has resigned from the board
of News Corporation citing "disagreements over editorial content".
In a filing to US regulators, he said he also disagreed with some "strategic decisions" made
by the company.
The exact nature of the disagreements was not detailed.
... ... ..,
I watch a lot of TeeVee news on all the major networks including the two Foxnews
channels.
It has become apparent to me over the last year or so that there is an internal ideology
contest at Fox between the hard core conservatives like Dobbs. Carlson, Mark Levin, Bartiromo,
Degan McDowell, etc. and a much more liberal set of people like Chris Wallace, Cavuto and the
newer reporters at the White House. I expect that the departure of James Murdoch will result in
more uniformly conservative reporting and commentary on Fox. I say that presuming that James
Murdoch was a major force in trying to push Foxnews toward the left.
I am surprised that Murdoch sent his son to Harvard. pl
Been noticing a lot of irresponsible reporting of late in the WSJ - not on the opinion
page, but in some pretty sloppy reporting with a lot of editorial bias in what is included
and what is intentionally left out.
Case in point, reporting today on the newly disclosed Ghisline Maxwell documents only
mentioned Prince Andrew and not a word about Bill Clinton . Doesn't WSJ know its readers
draw from multiple media sources that have provided original content? Everyday there are
several similar, bias by omission, articles.
One can only hope newly constituted management team will finally get rid of Peggy
Noonan.
Tucker Carlson described former President Obama as "one of the sleaziest and most dishonest
figures in the history of American politics" after his eulogy at the funeral of civil rights
icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) on Thursday.
Carlson, who also described the former president as "a greasy politician" for calling on
Congress to pass a new Voting Rights Act and to eliminate the filibuster, which Obama described
as a relic of the Jim Crow era that disenfranchised Black Americans, in order to do so.
"Barack Obama, one of the sleaziest and most dishonest figures in the history of American
politics, used George Floyd's death at a funeral to attack the police," Carlson said before
showing a segment of Obama's remarks.
he non-profit that sent the Democratic Party haywire during the Iowa Caucus earlier this
year has a new strategy: creating partisan news outlets in key states across the country ahead
of the 2020 election. With the financial backing of Hollywood, hedge fund managers, and Silicon
Valley, Acronym's Courier Newsroom may just change local journalism and politics forever.
Courier Newsroom , created by the
dark-money (not required to disclose donors) progressive non-profit Acronym, states that they
were created to restore trust in journalism by helping to rebuild local media across the
country. The opposite of this is true. Their true goal? Winning elections in key states.
Acronym CEO Tara McGowan, in a leaked memo obtained
by Vice, has stated that the goal of establishing Courier Newsroom is to defeat Republicans on
the new frontier of Internet political advertising. McGowan attributes Trump's 2016 success to
the campaign's ability to "shape and drive mainstream media coverage" through an influx of
internet spending. Courier seeks to counter this by challenging Trump on social media. By
definition, Courier serves as a political advertising operation for the Democratic Party rather
than a legitimate media source.
Calling for a new approach to political advertising, McGowan lambasted Hillary Clinton's
failed media strategy for its over-reliance on spending on traditional media, "In 2016, the
Hillary Clinton for President campaign raised an estimated $800 million online -- and spent a
large majority of it on television and radio advertisements." The 2016 election has proven to
be the reason for the creation of Courier Newsroom.
McGowan explicitly states that the papers are being used to boost political results, "
The Dogwood will not only function to support the flipping of both State House and
State Senate chambers in Virginia this November, but will serve as a vehicle to test, learn
from and scale best practices to new sites as we grow." The Dogwood , as of the time
of the writing of the leaked memo, was intended to be the prototype for future courier new
sites.
Courier has established news sites across key 2020 states including: Copper Courier
(Arizona), The Dogwood (Virginia), Up North News (Wisconsin), The
Gander (Michigan), Cardinal & Pine (North Carolina), The Keystone
(Pennsylvania), and The Americano (nationwide, intended for Latino audiences). Courier
extensively utilizes social media to promote stories made by the publications, generating
clicks in order to shape public voter opinion.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.400.1_en.html#goog_884035211 Ad ends in 15s
Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family
Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
Courier stories are written with the intent of mobilizing women and young people. McGowan
writes that Courier does this by "framing issues from health care to economic security in a way
that provides these voters with more personal and local relevance than they are often targeted
through traditional political ads." While these are real stories, they are packaged with the
intent on provoking a positive reaction from certain demographics of the population, in order
to spur them to vote for the Democratic Party this November. Courier itself has conceded that
they exist solely to challenge Republicans on social media.
Courier Newsroom Editor-in-Chief Lindsay Schrupp disagreed with the concerns regarding
journalistic integrity of its writers and service. Schrupp told The American
Conservative the following,
Courier Newsroom and its affiliated sites are independent from ACRONYM. We maintain an
editorial firewall, just like any other media company, and the managing editor of each site,
in addition to me as editor in chief, has ultimate discretion and control over content
published. Painting all partisan-leaning outlets with the same brush is dangerous and too
often creates false equivalency between very different types of newsrooms. All outlets in the
Courier Newsroom network operate with integrity and adhere to traditional journalistic
standards. It's offensive to our journalists -- many of whom have won state, regional and
national awards for their reporting -- to try to make a direct comparison to partisan outlets
on the right that often don't publish bylines, don't hire experienced or even local
reporters, don't comply with basic fact-checking standards, and don't do original reporting
in the regions where they operate. Courier aims to combat the misinformation spread by such
right-wing sites pretending to be "local news" by providing readers with transparently
progressive local reporting.
According to data from Facebook Ad Library, between May 2018 and July 12, 2020 Courier
Newsroom
spent $1,478,784 on Facebook ads on topics that include social issues, elections or
politics. Conservative
alternatives , such as the Daily Wire or Breitbart, have spent considerably less money on
Facebook advertising. Breitbart spent $11,404 since March 2018 and the Daily Wire spent
$418,578 since March 2018 according to Facebook's ad library.
Courier's political agenda is obvious. By looking into their Facebook ad-buys, Courier
Newsroom has spent extensively on vulnerable Democrats who came into office in the 2018
midterms. These pieces, while factual, highlight the accomplishments of narrowly elected
Democrats.
Among those that are frequently featured in mass ad-buys on Facebook are:
"Courier Newsroom's goal is to help elect Democrats. The site doesn't say that, but its
founder, Tara McGowan, has made this clear." Gabby Deutch of Newsguard, a journalism watchdog
focused on identifying fake news, tells The American Conservative. Deutch claims that
Courier is different from other partisan news outlets because their intentions are not clearly
stated. Courier instead argues that they are seeking to fill a void left in local
journalism.
According to The New York
Times in a story published in 2019, 1 in 5 local newspapers have been forced to shut
down forever. Political groups, such as Acronym, are poised to revitalize local journalism with
a new twist -- political advertising. Deutch warned The American Conservative of this
worrying development, "With fewer local newspapers -- a decline that's gotten even worse due to
the financial havoc wreaked by the pandemic -- there's room for political groups to fill the
void, playing off people's trust in local news. So they make a site that looks like local news
but has few (if any) reporters in the state, and then create content to woo voters."
There are examples on the right side of the spectrum too, she points out, including the
conservative Star network (Michigan Star and Tennessee Star are two examples) and AlphaNewsMN,
a conservative Minnesota site. "Readers deserve to know the agenda of the websites where they
get their news."
Browsing North Carolina's Courier news site Cardinal & Pine, one finds it brands itself
as "local news for the NC community." Newsguard' s assessment of Courier, is indeed
true, with the overwhelming majority of stories highlighting the successes of North Carolina
Democrats such as Governor Roy Cooper, attacking Republicans such as vulnerable Senator Thom
Tillis, and promoting Democratic policy positions -- notably as it relates to COVID-19 and BLM
social justice protests. Similarly, Virginia's Courier news site, The Dogwood, did not publish
an article detailing Virginia's biggest scandal of 2019: Governor Northam's controversial
blackface yearbook photo. Nor can one find any reference of Tara Reade, Joe Biden's sexual
assault accuser who entered the public eye earlier this spring.
Even more striking, is that as a 501(c)(4), Acronym is not required to disclose donors.
Acronym in 2018 received $250,000 from New Venture
Fund which is managed by Arabella. Through its dark-money ties,
Arabella has raised $2.4 billion dollars since 2006, making it one of the largest
financiers in American politics. Arabella's influence came into the limelight during the 2018
mid-term elections, in which they raised the
most ever by a left-leaning political non-profit. Courier Newsroom is, in other words, entirely
funded by secret donors that likely have significant ties to the Democratic Party and the Super
PACs bankrolling the 2020 election.
Acronym has invested millions of dollars to establish these papers across the country with
plans to continue their expansion into local media across the country in preparation for the
2020 election and beyond. Acronym has claimed that they are separate from Courier and allow the
creators to produce their own independent ideas, although, tax documents have revealed them to
be full owners
.
"This is all probably legal," says Bradley Smith, former Chairman of the FEC and foremost
scholar on campaign finance. "What surprises me is that more entities–especially on the
conservative side, since the majority of traditional media already lean left–don't do
this. But there are examples on the right–for example, NRA Radio." Donors can be kept
secret, as under Citizen's United , the 'periodicals' of 501(c)(4) groups do not have
to be filed with FECA. (Federal Election Campaign Act) Smith believes organizations such as
Courier will likely be a part of a greater trend in local journalism across the country.
Pacronym, also under the Acronym umbrella, is a Democratic Super-PAC charged with the single
goal of electing Joe Biden. Pacronym ads present similar content to what one would see on a
Courier publication, focusing heavily on the failures of Trump's handling of COVID-19, the
struggling of small-businesses across key-swing states (North Carolina, Arizona, Pennsylvania,
and Wisconsin), and Joe Biden's proposed response to the virus.
Courier, with the same goal, repurposes ideas by PACs and the Democratic Party by attaching
a 'news' label for legitimacy. "The anti-Trump ads from Courier focus on the same points as
Pacronym and other Democratic political groups, but if they look like news articles, the
audience sees them differently than the same content coming from a politician," According to
Deutch
at Newsguard.
Pacronym donors are publicly disclosed, and may have present a clue into Courier Newsroom's
finances. Some notable
financiers of Pacronym include billionaire hedge fund manager Seth Klarman, Hollywood icon
Steven Spielberg and his wife Kate Kapshaw, a billionaire heiress to the Levi Strauss brand
Mimi Haas, and silicon valley's very own LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman. Pacronym has
targeted a $75 million-dollar digital ad campaign, primarily using Facebook, against
President Trump for the upcoming election.
Acronym is also involved in another scandal, notably the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucus. Shadow
Inc, also operating under Acronym's umbrella, was established with the purpose of digitally
registering and mobilizing voters. Shadow Inc's leadership primarily consisted of 2016
ex-Clinton campaign staff. Shadow Inc received a contract by the Iowa Democratic Party for
$63,183 to develop an application to help count votes in the Iowa Caucus. Shadow Inc's
application, the IowaReporterApp, failed to properly report the caucus, leading to a delayed
result. Campaigns, pundits, and election officials were confused due to the inconsistencies
found in the results.
Candidate Pete Buttigieg claimed victory despite the caucus results not having been properly
released. According to data by the FEC, Pete Buttigieg's campaign paid Shadow Inc. $21,250 for
"software rights and subscriptions" in July 2019. Acronym CEO Tara McGowan's husband, Michael
Halle, was a senior strategist for the Pete Buttigieg campaign. Michael Halle's brother, Ben
Halle, was Pete Buttigieg's Iowa Communications Director. Many have suspected foul play, or at
least incompetence.
Courier Newsroom is distinct from both fake-news and astro-turf operations that came into
the public eye during the 2016 election. Rather than produce fake content with the intent to
mislead, Courier articles are legitimate and are written by real writers. In the leaked Acronym
memo, CEO Tara McGowan claimed that the Democratic Party was losing "the media war."
In 2014 the National Republican Congressional Committee established fake news
websites and paid to boost them on Google. These websites were deceptive with the intent on
defeating the opposing candidate. Although, these websites publicly disclosed that they were
paid for by the committee at the bottom of the article. Courier's funding remains
undisclosed.
PACs, in tandem with a surge in online political advertising, have weaponized newsrooms to
present misleading news for electoral success.
Alberto Bufalino is a student at Wake Forest University in North Carolina and TAC's summer
editorial intern.
I don't know . . . It's bad enough that the republic has to deal with a broad swath of
people getting their news from terrible facebook feeds. It's why America has a president
selling beans and promoting demon sperm doctors, and why it's one of the few countries that
can't keep covid down despite it's resources.
I don't think trying to get the rest of getting our news from people that operate at the
level of Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, and Breitbart is praiseworthy.
You are right in principle.
We have this six hundred pound Citizens United crapping all over the room though.
I too wish that the game was played by different rules. But this is not Switzerland and we
need to win first.
Is it clear though that repealing Citizens United would change this? The Double Plus
Wealthy are already funding the top online websites to the tune of millions of dollars a
year, and the funders of the Federalist are famously anonymous despite the Federalist
basically being an arm of the Republican party/embarrassment to thinking.
I am happy though that the anonymous funders of the Courier are not sponsoring fake news
that makes their readers dumber, unlike *checks the article** the National Republican
Congressional Committee . Yowza.
Repeal of Citizens United would make it possible to regulate who funds whom. It
would not guarantee the outing of arrangements like Courier. Give me a leaked memo any
day.
U.S. Officials Disseminate Disinformation About 'Virus Disinformation'Getald
, Jul 29 2020 17:44 utc |
1
In another round of their anti-Russian disinformation campaign 'U.S. government officials'
claim that some websites loosely connected to Russia are spreading 'virus
disinformation'.
However, no 'virus disinformation' can be found on those sites.
The Associated Press as well as the New York Times were briefed by the
'officials' and provided write ups.
Two Russians who have held senior roles in Moscow's military intelligence service known as
the GRU have been identified as responsible for a disinformation effort meant to reach
American and Western audiences, U.S. government officials said. They spoke to The
Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak
publicly.
The information had previously been classified, but officials said it had been
downgraded so they could more freely discuss it. Officials said they were doing so now to
sound the alarm about the particular websites and to expose what they say is a clear link
between the sites and Russian intelligence.
Between late May and early July, one of the officials said, the websites singled out
Tuesday published about 150 articles about the pandemic response, including coverage aimed
either at propping up Russia or denigrating the U.S.
Among the headlines that caught the attention of U.S. officials were "Russia's Counter
COVID-19 Aid to America Advances Case for Détente," which suggested that Russia had
given urgent and substantial aid to the U.S. to fight the pandemic, and "Beijing Believes
COVID-19 is a Biological Weapon," which amplified statements by the Chinese.
There is zero 'virus disinformation' in the Korybko piece. The aid flight did happen and
was widely reported. In a response to the allegations the proprietors of O neWorldpoint out that
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a recent Q&A also alluded to a new détente with
Russia. Was that also 'virus disinformation'?
The second piece the 'officials' pointed out, Beijing believes COVID-19 is a biological weapon , was
written In March by Lucas Leiroz, a "research fellow in international law at the Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro". It is an exaggerating analysis of the comments and questions a
spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry had made about the possible sources of the
Coronavirus.
The original spokesperson quote is in the piece. Referring to additional sources the
author's interpretation may go a bit beyond the quote's meaning. But it is certainly not
'virus disinformation' to raise the same speculative question about the potential sources of
the virus which at that time many others were also asking.
The piece was published by InfoBRICS.org, a "BRICS information portal" which
publishes in the languages of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South
Africa). It is presumably financed by some or all of those countries.
Another website the 'U.S. officials' have pointed out is InfoRos.ru which publishes in Russian and English. The
AP notes of it:
A headline Tuesday on InfoRos.ru about the unrest roiling American cities read "Chaos in
the Blue Cities," accompanying a story that lamented how New Yorkers who grew up under the
tough-on-crime approach of former Mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg "and have zero
street smarts" must now "adapt to life in high-crime urban areas."
Another story carried the headline of "Ukrainian Trap for Biden," and claimed that
"Ukrainegate" -- a reference to stories surrounding Biden's son Hunter's former ties to a
Ukraine gas company -- "keeps unfolding with renewed vigor."
U.S. officials have identified two of the people believed to be behind the sites'
operations. The men, Denis Valeryevich Tyurin and Aleksandr Gennadyevich Starunskiy, have
previously held leadership roles at InfoRos but have also served in a GRU unit specializing
in military psychological intelligence and maintain deep contacts there, the officials
said.
InfoRos calls itself a 'news agency' and has some rather boring general interest
stuff on its site. But how is its writing in FOX News style about unrest in U.S.
cities and about Biden's escapades in the Ukraine 'virus disinformation'? I fail to find any
on that site.
In 2018 some "western intelligence agency"
told the Washington Post , without providing any evidence, that InfoRos
is related to the Russian military intelligence service GU (formerly GRU):
Unit 54777 has several front organizations that are financed through government grants as
public diplomacy organizations but are covertly run by the GRU and aimed at Russian
expatriates, the intelligence officer said. Two of the most significant are InfoRos and the
Institute of the Russian Diaspora.
So InfoRos is getting some public grants and was allegedly previously run by two
people who before that worked for the GU. What does that say about the current state and the
content it provides? Nothing.
The NYTadds
that hardly anyone is reading the websites the 'U.S. officials' pointed out but that their
content is at times copied by more prominent aggregator sites:
"What we have seen from G.R.U. operations is oftentimes the social media component is a
flop, but the narrative content that they write is shared more broadly through the niche
media ecosystem," said Renee DiResta, a research manager at the Stanford Internet
Observatory, who has studied the G.R.U. and InfoRos ties and propaganda work.
There are plenty of sites who copy content from various outlets and reproduce it under
their name. But that does not turn whatever they publish into disinformation.
All the pieces mentioned by AP and NYT and attributed to the 'Russian'
sites are basically factual and carry no 'virus disinformation'. That makes the
'U.S.officials' claims that they do such the real disinformation campaign.
And the AP and NYT are willingly falling for it.
People being
prepared for Russia having the worlds first covid19 vaccine, the US will of course say it was
stolen from them. Infantile politicians create infantile press to feed infantile articles to
adult children. Critical thinking skills do not exist in the US population.
The development of propagation of information/disinformation through the internet eroded
the power of the old newspapers/news agencies. It's not that this or that particular website
is getting more views, but that the web of communications - the the imperialistic blunders +
decline of capitalism post-2008 -, as a whole, weakened what seemed to be an unshakeable
trust on the MSM (the very fact that this term exists already is historical evidence of their
loss of power).
And this process manifests itself not only in loss of power, but also loss of money: this
is particularly evident in the social media, where Facebook (Whatsapp + Facebook proper) and
Google are beginning to siphon advertisement money from both TV and the traditional
newspapers (printed press). When those traditional printed newspapers went digital, they
behaved badly, by using paywalls - this marketing blunder only accelerated their decline in
readership and thus further advertisement money, generating a vicious cycle for them.
The loss of influence of public opinion for the MSM also inaugurated another very
important societal shift: the middle class' loss of monopoly over opinion and formation of
opinion. Historically, it was the role of the middle class to be highly educated, to go to
academia (college) and, most importantly, to daily read the newspapers while eating the
breakfast. The middle class was the class of the intellectuals by definition, thus served as
the clerical class of the capitalist class, the priests of capitalism. With the
popularization of the internet, the smartphone and social media, this sanctity was broken or,
at least, begun to deteriorate. We can attest this class conflict phenomenon by studying the
rise of the term "expert" as a pejorative one. In the West's case, this shift begun through
the far-right side of the political spectrum, but the shift is there.
The popularization of what was once a privilege is nothing new in capitalism. The problem
here is that capitalism depends on infinite growth to merely exist (i.e. it can't survive on
zero growth, it is mathematically impossible), so it has to "monetize" what still isn't
monetize in order to find/create more vital space (Lebensraum - a term coined by the
hyper-capitalist Nazis) for its expansion and thus survival. Hence the popularization of
college education in the USA (then in Europe). Hence the popularization of daily news through
the internet/social media. This process, of course, has its positives and negatives (as is
the case with every dialectical process) - the fall of the MSM is one of the positives.
So, in fact, when the likes of AP, Reuters, NYT, WaPo, Guardian, Fox, CNN spread
disinformation against "alt-media", they are really just protecting their market share - the
fact that it implies in suppression of freedom of speech and to mass disinformation and,
ultimately, to war and destruction, is merely collateral damage of the business they operate
in. They are, after all, capitalist enterprises above all.
Excellent analysis, as always, by b. And vk's points are very pertinent too. One tiny
quibble: I doubt that the Nazis coined, though they certainly popularised, the term
lebensraum.
There is an air of desperation about these campaigns against "Russian" "disinformation"
massive changes are occurring, and, because they are so vast, they are moving relatively
slowly.
The old media model, now totally outdated, was the first thing to fall. Now capitalism itself
is collapsing as a result of the primary contradiction that, left to itself, the marketplace
will solve all problems.
As Washington, where magical thinking is sovereign, is demonstrating, left to itself the
hidden hand will bring only misery, famine, death and the Apocalypse. This was once very well
understood, as a brief look at the history of the founding of the UN will show, now it is the
subject of frantic denial by capitalism's priesthood who have grown to enjoy the glitter and
sensuality of life in a brothel. It is a sign of their mental decay that they can do no
better than to blame Russians.
One should presume the anonymous officials responsible for this ground-breaking report (sarc)
are close to the various "combatting Russian disinformation" NGOs. They are merely living up
to the mission statements of their benefactors. AP and NYTimes are being unprofessional and
spreading fake news by failing to reveal their sources. It's mind-numbing - the BS one must
wade through.
Good point however with one glaring contradiction in your thinking.
You make valid a very criticism of capitalism yet you tend to applaud Chinese capitalist
growth (although you tend to deny Chinese capitalist growth is capitalist, a feat of
breathtaking magical thinking).
The great Chinese wealth is fully 75% invested in bubblicious real estate valuations of
non-commercial real estate built on a mountain of construction debt. Sound familiar?
The irony is Chinese growth since 2008 has been goosed along entirely by the very same
financialized hyper capitalist traits as US: great gobs of debt creating supply-side
"growth", huge amounts of middle wealth tied to asset inflated bubbles, and of course the
resulting income and wealth inequality that rivals US inequality and continues to increase
over time.
I snorted coffee out my nose when Gruff tried to totally excuse Chinese income inequality
for being only slightly less than US level....how about the truth? Chinese inequality is
heinous, only slightly less than the also heinous US level.
The diseased working class in China only has an an arm and two legs hacked off while the
diseased US working class is fully quadriplegic. Much, much better to be a fucked over by
globalization Chinese citizen! Lmao
@ b who ended his posting with
"
And the AP and NYT are willingly falling for it.
"
Sorry b, but AP and NYT are active participants in the disinformation campaign of failing
empire and are not falling for anything
The folks that are falling for it are the American public that has lost its ability to
discriminate with the fire hose volume of lies told to them on a daily basis.
Empire is in the process of defeating itself which is the only safe way of ending the
tyranny of global private finance. I commend China and Russia for having the patience and
fortitude to hold the safe space for the dysfunctional social contract having private control
of the lifeblood of human commerce to self destruct.
This is SO hilarious! The propagandists are worried about Russian virus dis-information when
most dis-information has come from the US government in the person of Trump and from the CDC,
which spent months discrediting the effectiveness of face masks!!!
Theses propagandists need to get real jobs dealing with real world problems.
This is SO hilarious! The propagandists are worried about Russian virus dis-information when
most dis-information has come from the US government in the person of Trump and from the CDC,
which spent months discrediting the effectiveness of face masks!!!
Theses propagandists need to get real jobs dealing with real world problems.
there has been no national response to coronavirus but there must be a national acceptance
that this national non-response is China's fault. and any sources reporting truthfully about
the US or disseminating statements easily found elsewhere, as long as they are Russian,
Chinese, Venezuelan, Cuban, Iranian, etc., is pure disinformation. How brittle and weak the
US is. Where's the Pericles to say to the Spartans, "enter our city and inspect our
defenses"? The US is a nation of heavily-armed mice and sheep.
btw, the China love on display around here is pretty funny. in that the Chinese government
has mounted a national response to a very serious threat, China is a nation in a way that the
US is not. There is no US or we would not have 50 states doing different things in response
to the corona outbreak. the US is already dead. But China is a thoroughly authoritarian
capitalist state. they are who they are in a dialectic competition with the US and other
capitalist powers, not because of some Maoist-Confucian amalgam that inspires such wisdom in
their brilliant leaders, who are just as quick to destroy their environment for capitalist
gain as anyone on this planet is. The decline of the US will not make China or Russia or any
"emerging" power less authoritarian or violent. au quite the contraire. They are Shylocks who
will try to better instruction.
However, none of this is of concern to people in the US, whose only concern is the Nazi
spawn who've been running "the West" for much longer than the last 75 years. but it's time to
kill the bitch, not let it keep screwing us and breeding.
As others already said, this is a bit rich, considering that virus disinformation comes from
Trump himself, both live and on Twitter, quoting genuine hacks and megalomaniac doctors,
depending on the week.
Reality check: Russians will be able to travel across the world way before Americans, for
obvious healthcare reasons.
Bevin, I agree, I once had a short exchange on Mondoweiss about the term Lebensraum, it
had been used in some type of marketing by my favorite Swizz supermarket. Which then,
apparently caused an uproar. The term Lebensraum on its own is rather innocent. Leben (life)
Raum (space), a noun compound. Context matters. And I am sure I checked it, and Micros
definitively did not use it in any type of world conquering settler context. I haven't
stumbled yet across a Micros supermarket anywhere outside Switzerland, ;)
I'm under the impression that Info Ros is a Russian government-funded, supported, backed,
site, it certainly looks like it and its reportage is decidedly 'neutral'.
This is SO hilarious! The propagandists are worried about Russian virus dis-information
when most dis-information has come from the US government in the person of Trump and from the
CDC, which spent months discrediting ...
Posted by: JohnH | Jul 29 2020 19:21 utc | 8
This is close to my overall take on matters. But I wouldn't put so much emphasis on
face masks but on something along the lines of Covid is notthing but a flu. Face masks were
initially discussed quite controversially everywhere.
Were it gets interesting is here:
A report published last month by a second, nongovernmental organization, Brussels-based EU
DisinfoLab, examined links between InfoRos and One World to Russian military intelligence.
The researchers identified technical clues tying their websites to Russia and identified some
financial connections between InfoRos and the government.
They have a competitor which seems Bruxelles based too, Patrick Armstrong alerted me to
a while ago: https://euvsdisinfo.eu/
EUvsDisinfo is the flagship project of the European External Action Service's East StratCom
Task Force
************
But yes, on first sight InfoRos seems to be neatly aligned with US alt-Right-Media in
basic outlook. More than with the US MSM.
And now I first have to read what has been on Andrew Korybko's mind lately. ;)
Many Americans of all walks of life do not trust their own government, yet most people here
seem to have faith that their media outlets are telling the truth. How do you break through
to the public that has utter faith in whatever newspaper or television channel they prefer
and highlight the lies in a way which gains real traction?
I believe it takes leadership, which, for Americans, mean celebrities have to endorse the
idea or it likely won't be taken seriously. This cult of celebrity is mirrored on social
media platforms, where millions flock to be a part of some beautiful person's beautiful
photograph or some known personalities acceptable opinion du jour.
There is a great bond gripping the minds of American media consumers. They have trained
their entire lives to worship at the cult of celebrity and this is the key to breaking the
entire media landscape down for them.
This also is the key to unlocking the voices of those who know better with regards to
media lies, but keep silent out of fear.
Will a Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson be able to break the spell? I think it will never
happen based on how Hollywood gatekeeps celebrity and based on how hopelessly apathetic most
are to Julian Assange.
Lol I write for One World. I'm an American who has never had a piece edited or been told what
to write. I was allowed to write a piece about Russia where I was critical of their policy of
backing the STC in Yemen (I thought it was bad to divide Yemen). No one makes anybody tow any
specific line. I decided not to publish my piece on Russia and the STC in Yemen because I
didn't find the topic interesting enough, but I was 100% allowed to be critical of Russia.
Lol I write for One World. I'm an American who has never had a piece edited or been told
what to write.
...
Posted by: Ben Barbour | Jul 29 2020 22:36 utc | 23
Is it possible that you're just the in-house joke at OW?
If they don't care that you'd write "tow" instead of "toe" or that you're too
lazy/thoughtless to reproduce the full name of the entity for which STC is an acronym, before
using the acronym, then it suggests that One World's Editorial Standards are as lax as your
own :-)
"... Two Russians who have held senior roles in Moscow's military intelligence service
known as the GRU have been identified as responsible for a disinformation effort meant to
reach American and Western audiences, U.S. government officials said. They spoke to The
Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak
publicly ..."
Of course GRU agents always work in pairs, guided only by the mysterious telepathic powers
of the Russian President and no-one or nothing else, as Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov
did in Salisbury in March 2018 when they supposedly tried to assassinate or send a warning to
Sergei Skripal, and as Dmitri Kovtun and Andrei Lugovoy did in London in November 2006 when
they apparently put polonium in a pot of tea served to Alexander Litvinenko in full view of
patrons and staff at a hotel restaurant. It's as if each agent carries only half a brain and
each half is connected to its complement by the corpus callosum that is Lord Vlademort
Putin's thoughts beaming oing-yoing-yoing-like through the atmosphere until they find their
targets.
And of course US government officials always speak on condition of anonymity.
As Agence Presse News puts it:
"... The information had previously been classified, but officials said it had been
downgraded so they could more freely discuss it. Officials said they were doing so now to
sound the alarm about the particular websites and to expose what they say is a clear link
between the sites and Russian intelligence ..."
So if US government officials can now freely discuss declassified news, why do they insist
on being anonymous? This would be the sort of news announced at a US national press club
meeting with Matt Lee in the front row asking awkward and discomfiting questions.
The malicious cultivation (including Gain of Function research) and implantation of this
biowarfare agent (and other ones such as Swine Fever) by the U.S. Intelligence services in
various places around the world (especially in China and Iran), the intentional faulty
responses and deceptive statistics administered by the monopoly-controlled medical
establishment, the feigned inability to provide adequate testing, care, and treatment, along
with planned economic destruction as a means of restoring investor losses and control of
populations through stifling of dissent, are at the heart of the deflection and projection of
blame. That broadly-based subject is barely discussed in alternative media and is totally
obfuscated in MSM, because the "denier-debunkers" dispute the possibility of such extreme
malice existing in our institutions, in spite of previous experience with events such as 9/11
and the '08 financial crisis.
...
So if US government officials can now freely discuss declassified news, why do they insist on
being anonymous?
...
Posted by: Jen | Jul 29 2020 23:29 utc | 25
Precisely.
My guess is that they don't know when to quit.
and/or
They embrace the Mythbusters motto...
"If a thing's worth doing, it's worth overdoing."
"Is it possible that you're just the in-house joke at OW?
If they don't care that you'd write "tow" instead of "toe" or that you're too
lazy/thoughtless to reproduce the full name of the entity for which STC is an acronym, before
using the acronym, then it suggests that One World's Editorial Standards are as lax as your
own :-)"
Fair point on tow vs toe. That's why editing exists when writing articles. As for the STC
part, that is common knowledge if you follow basic geopolitics. When making a post in a
comment thread, should I write out "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" before using the acronym
ISIS? If I am posting in a comment thread about Iran, do I need to write out "Mujahedin-e
Khalq" instead of just using MEK?
It just displays a massive level of ignorance on your part. Nice try though.
Global media moguls are blaming the 1,000 American deaths per day from the Wuhan coronavirus
on Donald Trump to finally get him out of the way. But they are silent on their and the
Democrats complicity in the death toll due to the lack of a national public health system or
the funding to pay for it.
The USA is going to hell. A scapegoat is needed. For the media and Democrats, Russia is to
blame. Anybody else rather than themselves, the true culprits. Donald Trump blames China for
the pandemic if he acknowledges it at all but that is where all of Tim Cook's iPhones are
made. Blaming China is globalist heresy.
I think there's a reasonable case to be made that this is what has occurred.
And, if true, it is covered up by sly suggestions that nCov-19 was man-made with hints or
a smug attitude that convey the message that China created the virus. As well as a
virtual black-out in Western media of Chinese suggestions that the virus may have started in
USA or been planted in Wuhan.
But then, I already stand accused of attributing magical powers of self-interested
foresight and boldness to US Deep-State due to my belief that Trump was their choice to lead
USA in 2016. And so I expect you're theory will receive the same derision. Yet Empires have
not been shy about killing millions when it was in their interest to do so.
In any case, I've written many times that USA/West's unwillingness to fight the virus has
been dressed up as innocent mistakes. Even if the West wasn't the source of the virus they
have much to answer for. Yet very few have taken note of the way that USA/West have played
the pandemic to advance their interests - from lining the pockets of Big Pharma to blaming
China for their own "incompetence" (a misnomer: the power-elite are very competent at
advancing their interests!).
It seems disinformation has been redefined to mean information that counters someone else's
(yours) belief. We pretend to be in an Age of Reason but really, we have just replaced
religious beliefs with secular beliefs. Science has been taken over by pseudoscientists that
have replaced priests. The conflict of interest by the science/priests who profit from their
deceptions is beyond criminal.
To know what is the truth you just have to look at whats being censored. Nobody being
censored for supporting mask mandates, claiming vaccines are safe, and not questioning the
blatant data manipulation of COVID cases that anyone with an open mind and IQ of 100 , and
who reads the data, definitions and studies can see through.
It seems people on both sides of the fence have replaced their brains with their chosen
ideology. Its like watching a Christian, Jew and Muslim arguing which is the best or true
religion. No point in it.
so, lets say GRU agents are feeding russian propaganda sites... how does that compare to
all the CIA-FBI agents and has been hacks working for the western msm?? seems a bit rich for
the pot to be calling a kettle black, even if they are lying thru their teeth! i am sure if
someone did a story on how many CIA - m16 people are presently working with the western msm,
they would have a story with some legs... this shite from anonymous usa gov't officials is
just that - shite..
@ Ben, or Benson Barbour .. thanks for your comments!
Lol I write for One World. I'm an American who has never had a piece edited or been told
what to write. I was allowed to write a piece about Russia where I was critical of their
policy of backing the STC in Yemen (I thought it was bad to divide Yemen). No one makes
anybody tow any specific line. I decided not to publish my piece on Russia and the STC in
Yemen because I didn't find the topic interesting enough, but I was 100% allowed to be
critical of Russia.
There's such a thing as self-censorship. Mainstream US news has effectively brought up
folks to be this way: stay in line or become unemployed- doesn't need to be stated. Not aimed
at you, but it needs to be said (und understood).
@35 That's a very good point. I completely agree. Self-censorship and group think are two of
the biggest problems in modern journalism/analysis. One World consistently publishes
pro-Pakistan and pro-China articles. When I was first sending them submissions, I did a piece
on US vs China in Sudan and South Sudan. I considered omitting China's culpability in
escalating the conflicts, and instead focus on laying the blame squarely at the feet of the
US. In the end I told the truth about both countries' imperialist escalations (to the best of
my ability).
There is a lot of incentive to self-censor at just about any outlet. It's more comfortable
to fit in with a site's brand.
In the case of the Russia-STC article, I really just found the subject matter to be thin.
Russia's support of the STC is mostly just diplomatic. Not a lot to write about.
The Americans are increasingly unhinged in their spittle-flecked accusations against not only
Russia, but also China, Iran, Venezuela, etc.
It's so pathetic as to be humorous.
Underlying the USA's Two Minutes of Hate campaigns, however, is a deeper disease that
defines Americans as a nation and as a people.
Namely, Americans have an inbred fundamentalist belief in their own Moral Superiority as
the Beacon of Liberty, Land of the Free, blah, blah, blah--no matter how many nations they
have bombed back to the Stone Age, invaded, colonized, regime changed, sanctioned, or
economically raped in the name of Freedom and Democracy™.
Donald Trump is half correct.
The United States of America is truly a great nation alright--but great only in terms of
its deceit, great in terms of its delusions, and great in terms of the horrors that it has
inflicted on much of the world.
Comparing America to the Nazis would be a high insult ... to Nazi Germany, as the Third
Reich only lasted about 12 years, while the American Reich has unfortunately lasted well over
200 years and gotten away with its crimes against humanity by possessing what are likely the
greatest propaganda machine and political deception in human history: the American Free Press
and the world historic lie called "American Freedom."
Harold Pinter in his 2005 Nobel Literature Prize speech briefly but powerfully exposes
this heart of American darkness:
"The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless,
but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has
exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for
universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.
I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road.
Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a
salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a
winner."
"Top US immunologist Dr Anthony Fauci is now saying citizens are not "complete" in
protecting themselves from the Covid-19 pandemic unless they go beyond wearing a mask and add
in eye protection like goggles, too."
More provocation from the oligarchy. Now, that masks are becoming less controversial, time
to step up the provocation, division and control.
Fauci is also behind the anti-hydroxychloroquine propaganda, as well, that even b has
swallowed. This, despite it being used effectively in other countries. All of this simply
because Trump supports it (ergo, it must be bad) and Big Pharma (who control Fauci,
CDC abd WHO) can't profit significantly from its use.
"During the course of the debate, Kennedy also talked about the regular vaccines most
people take, from Hepatitis B to the flu shot, emphasizing that no proper testing had ever
been done, which is mandatory for any other medication. Vaccines "are the only medical
product that does not have to be safety-tested against a placebo," he explained."
Kennedy said
"it's not hypothetical that vaccines cause injury, and that injuries are not rare. The
vaccine courts have paid out four billion dollars" over the past three decades, "and the
threshold for getting back into a vaccine court and getting a judgment – [the
Department of Health and Human Services] admits that fewer than one percent of people who are
injured ever even get to court."
So, how well has the Russian vaccine been tested? Does anyone know?
It is interesting how USAians are being played by the oligarchy.
On foreign policy, the dems and reps are in basic agreement and the propaganda is to bring
the masses together to hate Russia, Chaina and anyone else who the Western (US) oligarchy has
targeted.
Domestically, unity is the enemy of the oligarchy. The masses must be controlled through
division and diversion, so the dems and reps play good cop, bad cop (bad and good being
relative to the supporter) to ensure the masses are diverted from important oligarch issues
to issues of irrelevance to the oligarchs, but easily manipulated emotionnally by the
oligarchs for the beast.
"[...]Donald Trump blames China for the pandemic if he acknowledges it at all but that is
where all of Tim Cook's iPhones are made. Blaming China is globalist heresy."
Then why do you phrase it the "Wuhan coronavius" yourself?
For those interested in corona virus truth,
I am interested in the question -- - was it spread by negligence or deliberately?
That question must be relivant to this debate on MOA.
I ask this now becouse -- --
Tonight on bbc 'panorama' there investigating the spread of the virus from Hospital to care
homes !! I'm told there is some pretty shocking information exposed.
Some may wish to catch that prog. Heads up.
I just add an obversation. -- western psychopathic disinformation and projection has led
to a confused public. A public deciding to disengage with politics. To the gain of the
psychopaths.
A new candidate to the demonization and disinfo operations has been added...Germany...which
has been labeled "delinquent" by the POTUS...in a clear exercise of projection...
Of course, to not be insulted or labeled delinquent, you must act as these other countries
enumerated by Southcom commander, to work for the US ( not your country...) and moreover pay
for it....Typical mafia extortion, isn´t it?
That broadly-based subject is barely discussed in alternative media and is totally
obfuscated in MSM, because the "denier-debunkers" dispute the possibility of such extreme
malice existing in our institutions, in spite of previous experience with events such as
9/11 and the '08 financial crisis.
YES to that and thank you for that post. That the institutions of state and private
sectors are the incubators and propagators of extreme malice is axiomatic in the UKUSAI and
its five eyed running dogs is beyond doubt. They attack and scorn any critic or unbeliever.
They assault and pillory truth speakers and those who might question 'their narrative'.
Then if all that fails the hunt them down and make preposterous claims about them being
anti semitic of anti religion or anti their nation.
Mendacity is the currency of the permanent state and its minions and they need to be outed
and shamed and challenged at every opportunity.
Fort Detrick coronavirus would be on the mark and as you most likely know, you cannot
trust the USA lying eyes once you have served them in their killing fields.
Even that right wing ex special forces advocate Steve Pieczenic testifies to the fact of a
deadly virus in USA in November/December plus his beloved bloggers say way earlier than that
around Maryland etc. Then there is the small problem of the 'vaping' illness that generated
lots of pneumonia like fatalities in June/July. And then the instant closure of Fort Detrick
due to its leaking all over the place through a totally inadequate waste water treatment
plant that couldn't scrub a turd let alone a virus.
The problem with presstitutes, possibly including Ben Barbour , (disclaimer: I've
never read any media products that particular individual generated) goes beyond the point
made by Seer @35 . To be sure, there is no chance that a presstitute would bite the
hand that feeds it, but there is more depth to the problem of why they all suck so
badly, at least the ones in the US. While journalism degrees are the university equivalent of
Special Education (nowadays referred to as "Exceptional Student Education" , which is
very fitting for students from such an "exceptional" nation), they still prepare the
future presstitute to understand that their capitalist employers have interests beyond their
immediately apparent ones. That is, more important to a capitalist employer than tomorrow's
sales and profits is the preservation of capitalism itself.
But the problem is deeper still. The presstitute that is successfully employed by a
capitalist enterprise will invariably be one that knows not to criticize the employer's
business, the capitalist system it depends upon, and the empire that improves that employer's
profitability. More importantly, that successful hireling will additionally have been
brainwashed from infancy that all of these things are good and necessary aspects of the
modern world that need to be ideologically defended. The prospective presstitute will be one
that not only voluntarily, but eagerly serves its capitalist masters varied interests. After
all, when there are plenty of whores to choose from, would you hire one that requires
explicit instructions on every last thing you expect from them and just follows those
instructions mechanically or the the one that puts effort into figuring out what would please
you and delivers that with enthusiasm? Keeping this dynamic in mind will allow one to better
understand the capitalist mass media's products.
The contempt at which the American ruling class hold their citizens is galling. The US
corporate media operates as if their targeted audience are all morons.
Mark2 @45: "...was it [ novel coronavirus] spread by negligence or
deliberately?"
Most likely both.
There is evidence to suggest that the virus was circulating in the US prior to it being
discovered in China. While it is possible this could have been the results of testing the
transmissibility of the virus, it seems more probable that it was an accidental release from
Fort Detrick. This would explain the facility being shut down last year. Military facilities
are never shut down simply for breaking a few rules but because those rule violations led to
something unpleasant.
An accidental release, coupled with the fact that the synthetic origin of the virus would
become apparent to scientists worldwide, resulted in a need to quickly establish an alternate
explanation for the virus. Since the US was losing its trade war with China, and use of a
bioweapon to turn the tide was already gamed out and on the table anyway, the virus (or
possibly a very similar strain that had been pre-selected for the attack) was deliberately
sprayed around a market in Wuhan.
The CDC and CIA probably thought that the virus was contained in the West and that since
it was a surprise to the Chinese it would run rampant there and result in their economy
shutting down and their borders being closed, decoupling China from the world. With the
Chinese treating the virus as a bio attack and defeating its spread, followed by the virus
rampaging through the West, the dynamic changed. Now in order for the virus to decouple China
it must become endemic in the West. The Chinese must be made to close their borders in fear
of becoming infected from the rest of the world. To make this backup plan a reality, and to
get the economies moving again as fast as possible, some western leaders have decided to
accelerate the spread in the hopes of quickly developing "herd immunity" . Taking out
some retirees whom the capitalists view as a burden on the economy is just some nice icing on
the cake.
@ 51 & @ 52
I'd say not ! I'm confided Vietnam Vet is doing 'balenced' Reporting ! The subject of this
post. Take another look at both this post and his comment. A lesson in how to be unbiased but
truthfull.
Soooo any one got a definition of fake news.
Mine would be Truth before personal agenda.
William Gruff @ 53
I think yours is just about the most clear and concise summary of this whole virus
catastrophe that I have seen so far. And that's a hell of a statement !
Unrelated I wonder what would have happened if the Chinese whistle blower had not blown the
whistle ? Now that's one to ponder ? As bad as this all is world wide, where would be right
now ? Dose not bare thinking about.
What are you trying to tell me? Anyone that does not acknowledge the virus originated in
China and that China didn't respond as fast as it could have? And more polemically: there is
some kind of African Marxist heading WHO who obfuscated China's late information to the
WHO?
There is a dot of truth in everything. There is also a dot of truth in the fact that Trump
or his relevant admin was informed early enough.
We've been acquainted with this virus about 7 months or so and it is difficult to separate
reliable information from disinformation. We know very little about it, eg, we don't know
whether those who recover can be reinfected. Is it like the common cold, against which there
is no immunity? We just have to assume that the Trump virus has infected every level of the
administration so that there is ignorance and unadulterated stupidity from the lowest level
in the ministry of propaganda to the secretary of state and, of course, the president himself
currently celebrating the wisdom of an animist/Christian hybrid doctor from Africa spewing
the foulest disinformation one can imagine.
Big @ 57 What ?
Posted by: Mark2 | Jul 30 2020 12:27 utc | 58
babbling: look if this is the good old VV from SST, I wouldn't want to nail him on the
usage of Wuhan virus. But on the larger content of his comment, I am wondering.
Full discovery: I entered the US conspiracy universe shortly after 9/11. I'll probably
never forget there was this one commenter that completely out of then current preoccupations
within the diverse theories, you recall?, suggested that the Chinese were approaching via the
Southern borders.
There surely should be a way how the US and Russia
There surely should be a way how the US and Russia
There surely should be a way how the US and Russia repartition their claims. After all
historically the Russian had some type of partly real Yellow threat too ... :)
Except the "whistle blower" was not a whistle blower since local, provincial, and nations
institutions were already advised or in the process of being advised. Dr Wenliang posted his
information in a private chatroom with other medical professionals on December 30th. Timeline
of events:
Dec 27 -- Dr. Zhang Jixian, director of the respiratory and critical care medicine
department of Hubei Provincial Hospital, files a report to the hospital stating that an
unknown pneumonia has developed in three patients and they are not responding to influenza
treatment.
Dec 29 -- Hubei Provincial Hospital convened a panel of 10 experts to discuss the now
seven cases. Their conclusion that the situation was extraordinary, plus information of two
similar cases in other hospitals, prompted the hospital to report directly to the municipal
and provincial health authorities.
Dec 30 -- The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission issued an urgent notification to medical
institutions under its jurisdiction, ordering efforts to appropriately treat patients with
pneumonia of unknown cause.
Dec 31 -- The National Health Commission (NHC) made arrangements in the wee hours, sending
a working group and an expert team to Wuhan to guide epidemic response and conduct on-site
investigations. The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission released a briefing on its website
about the pneumonia outbreak in the city, confirming 27 cases and telling the public not to
go to enclosed public places or gather. It suggested wearing face masks when going out. The
Wuhan Municipal Health Commission released briefings on the pneumonia outbreak in accordance
with the law. WHO's Country Office in the PRC relayed the information to the WHO Western
Pacific Regional Office, then to the international level headquarters.
Jan 1 -- The NHC set up a leading group to determine the emergency response to the
epidemic. The group convened meetings on a daily basis since then.
Jan 2 -- The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) and the Chinese
Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) received the first batch of samples of four patients from
Hubei Province and began pathogen identification. The NHC came up with a set of guidelines on
early discovery, early diagnosis and early quarantine for the prevention and control of the
viral pneumonia of unknown cause.
Jan 3 -- Dr. Wenliang signs a statement not to post unsubstantiated rumors.
There's no "whistle blowing" as the information of the cases were already going up the
chain of command. These are facts that can be sourced by multiple media outlets. I can't
believe this fallacy keeps floating and doesn't flush.
In retrospective analyses, SARS-COV-2 was found in routinely collected samples of European
sewage water dating back to at least december 2019. A french doctor reviewed archived medical
samples and imagery from patients who had fallen mysteriously ill in the latter half of 2019
and also found that some had been early cases of COVID-19.
The real coronavirus whistle-blower is a doctor in Washington state USA who tested for the
virus in Januari 2020 and was silenced by USA medical and federal authorities.
I am afraid that there will never be a sincere investigation into the real cause of the
"vaping disease" that caused many deaths from sudden respiratory failure in the USA in the
summer of 2019. Tell me again when Ft. Detrick labs was shut down exactly?
What are you trying to tell me? Anyone that does not acknowledge the virus originated in
China and that China didn't respond as fast as it could have? And more polemically: there is
some kind of African Marxist heading WHO who obfuscated China's late information to the WHO?
There is a dot of truth in everything. There is also a dot of truth in the fact that Trump
or his relevant admin was informed early enough.
Posted by: vig | Jul 30 2020 12:21 utc | 57
vig repeats widely spread arguments, basically, the "official propaganda" from offices
related to an orange-American (excessive time spend on golf courses changes skin color,
perhaps in combination with sunscreen, without sunscreen you would get a "redneck look").
1. Origin: somewhat debatable, but any virus has to originate somewhere. Every country was
on receiving end of pathogens from other countries.
2. China did not respond as fast as it could have. Now, how fast and effective was USA?
One has to note that clusters of fatal lung infections happen regularly, but this is because
of mutations that increase impact on health, while separate mutations increase (or decrease)
the transmission. Draconian measures are necessary if you get both, but you do not lock
cities, provinces, introduce massive quarantine programs until you know that they are
necessary. For the same reasons, the response in Western Europe and USA was not as fast as it
could have.
3. "African Marxist heading WHO mislead poor naive Americans". What is the budget of
American intelligence, and American disease control? Do they collect information, do they
have experts? In particular, American authorities knew pretty much what Chinese authorities
knew, and they had benefit of several weeks of extra time to devise wise strategy. Giving
this benefit to people with limited mental capacities has a limited value. Perhaps China is
at fault here too, Pompeo reported about pernicious impact of Chinese Communist Party on PPT
meeting in USA, that could have deleterious impact on education and thus on mental
capacities.
Pompeo himself may be a victim. He excelled as a West Point student, but if the content of
education was crappy, diligence impacted his brain deeper and not for the better. But nobody
attempts to blame CCP for that.
For starters, the "whistleblower" wasn't a whistleblower at all: he thought he had found a
resurgence of SARS, not a new pandemic. Secondly, the head of respiratory diseases at the
region already was investigating some cases of a "mysterious pneumonia" since end of November
or mid-December - so the investigation already was well under way.
Discovering a new disease is not magic: a doctor cannot simply go the market, see a random
person, and claim he/she discovered a new virus. Doctors are not gods: they can only diagnose
the patients under their care.
The point of discord that the Western MSM capitalized upon was the fact that some random
officer from the local police intercepted his private social media and made him sign a letter
of reprimand. No Law is ever perfect, and these episodes of false triggers do happen even in
Western Democracies.
Little known fact (one which the Western MSM censored) is that the so-called
"whistleblower" was a member of the CCP. After knowing the details of the situation
(including that the disease was already being investigated), he quickly realized the
state-of-the-art and went to the frontlines to fight the pandemic - as any member of the CCP
would've done. Revolutionary communist parties have this tradition that comes since the
Bolshevik Party, where the leadership always leads by example. The Bolsheviks themselves lost
the vast majority of their elite in the Civil War, as they always led in the front
(vanguard). Fidel Castro himself led his army in the front when the invasion of the Bay of
Pigs begun. So, it is not surprising this doctor, once having the facts on the field, quickly
shut up and went to the frontline as a vanguard soldier.
After the whole truth came to the forefront, the Western MSM quickly begun to meltdown
over the fake story they fantasized, and the Taiwanese MSM invented a story of some another
whistleblower who had discovered the virus "at the end of November". That one never truly
gained traction, and silently died out.
But all of this is moot point for the West, because Trump and the other European liberal
powers refused to believe either that the virus was real or that it could reach them until
February the next year.
I think it is OK that b nails the US makes yet another display of stupidity.... on the other
hand I presume that b also has other things to care about, I mean exposing the US as a "fake"
nation is a full time job!
Americans have at least the last 50 years been known for fails, even Churchill commented
something like "the Americans will fail numerous times, but eventually they will get it
right" well that was back then! Today it is fail upon fail. I know that there must be bright
people over there, but it is my sincere impression, that they are a very small minority.
Maybe their schooling system has all gone bonkers ?
"3% of all Americans believe the Earth is flat! WTF!!!
America is on a steep slope downward.
I am personally not worried much about Covid 19, although I am 63 and live in Sweden, the
"black Sheep" in Europe because of our rather lax restrictions, the Swedes themselves are
rather good at keeping distance and using common sense.
I am much more worried that the American culture of ignorance, brain farts, stupidity and low
IQ media will infest my country further and maybe completely ruin it.
Especially by the junk that comes out of Hollywood, pure Sh*t served nice and hot!
I am happy I know, I have not got to endure further 30 years of this.
A few months ago, b posted a link to a Canadian vlogger who lives in Nanning, China. The
vlogger took us on a tour of a so called Wet Market. Here, the vlogger takes us to another
Wet Market tour. He does a good job dispelling racist stereotypes and showing real life in
China.
One to many @ 64
Thanks ! So there was a group of whistle blowers then. It's down to definitions again.
Perhaps mine is a little more loose. But it's of no concern.
For the sake of this excellent thread, perhaps we could all be a little less pedantic. VK ?
Also relevant - Crimson Contagion - the pandemic simulation run by the US government from
January to August 2019 and was based on an infectious coronavirus coming from a food market
in China
Everywhere u go in this world you'll find some version or an "murican" in every country.
Even a country like modern first world Switzerland has its "mountain folk".
In my personal experience with Americans I'm most often pleasantly surprised at their levels
of sophistication and introspection over their American experiences. An enjoyable and as
pleasant a people as anywhere. This may be clouded by mostly meeting these people outside of
the US where unless tourists are well educated and travelled and by default more aware of a
negative view of their homeland that exists outside of the US. For some reason most of these
Americans I've met abroad are decidedly non republican in nature and are mostly
from California and North and North Eastern States. Fellow future Canadians I would call
them.
The other side of the coin is when I've travelled to the states. Texas, Florida, Arizona.
Whew! What a difference. I've learned that talking politics is impossible and the natives are
almost entirely ignorant of anything outside their bubble. Outside of talking points there is
no information behind their arguments. Their knowledge of the outside world is incredibly
lacking and the view of the US in it is overwhelmingly positive.
It isn't Americans its America and its leadership, its influences, systems and all the other
shit that make the US the salad it is. The people r redeemable.
Calling the professionals doing their jobs in China "whistleblowers" is inaccurate.
"Whistleblower" implies revealing information that others are trying to hide. In this
case the suggestion is that the Chinese government was trying to hide the outbreak. This is
nonsense as the Chinese government was unaware of an outbreak until after the relevant
professionals had determined that there was an outbreak. There is no way the Chinese
government could have known about an outbreak before the outbreak was identified by the
professionals tasked with identifying outbreaks. The only ones who knew about the outbreak
before the outbreak occurred were the US "intelligence community" .
"... Join the Singapore Property Festival - a virtual exhibition organised by the South China Morning Post on August 1 to explore a wide range of affordable luxury residential and commercial real estate assets in Singapore, perfect as relocation and investment options. Get property project highlights and market insights from Info Session webinars and LIVE 1-on-1 chats with property taxation, immigration and investment experts. Register for your FREE PASS now. ..."
Curtis also stuck close to the main theme of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's
high-profile
China policy speech last week by arguing that the India border clash and sovereign debt
financing used for Belt and Road Initiative projects
"fits with a larger pattern of PRC aggression in other parts of the world". Pompeo called for
"a new grouping of like-minded nations" to counter China.
Accusing Beijing of "selling cheap armaments and building a base for the 1970s-era
submarines that it sold to the Bangladesh Navy in 2016", Curtis also committed to stronger
relations with Dhaka.
"We're committed to Bangladesh's long-term success because US interests in the Indo-Pacific
depends on a Bangladesh that is peaceful, secure, prosperous healthy and democratic," Curtis
said. "We continue to encourage the Bangladeshi government to renew its commitment to
democratic values as it prepares to celebrate its 50th anniversary of independence, next year."
Big Tech tangles with US lawmakers in antitrust showdown 30 Jul 2020
While the India-China border clash, pressing of maritime claims in the South China Sea, and
increasing military and economic pressure on Taiwan may have helped to push countries in the
region to cooperate more, Washington will not necessarily benefit, said Ali Wyne, a
non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a non-resident fellow at the Modern War
Institute.
"China's actions in recent months have compelled many of its neighbours to try and bolster
their military capabilities on an accelerated timeline and to intensify their security
cooperation with one another," Wyne said.
"For at least two reasons, though, it is unclear that those neighbours would be full
participants in a US-led effort to counterbalance China.
"First, geographical proximity and economic dependence constrain the extent to which they
can push back against Beijing's assertiveness without undercutting their own national
interests," he said. "Second, many of them are reluctant to make common cause with the United
States in view of the transactional diplomacy that it has pursued in recent years."
China's foreign minister calls on other nations to resist US and stop a new cold war 29 Jul
2020
China's embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.
However, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Tuesday called Washington's increasingly hard
line against the Chinese government "naked power politics". In a phone
call with his French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian on Tuesday, Wang said the Trump
administration's strategy was to "constantly provoke China's core interests, attack the social
system chosen by the Chinese people and slander the ruling party that is closely connected with
the Chinese people," according to state news agency Xinhua.
"These actions have lost the most basic etiquette for state-to-state exchanges and have
broken through the most basic bottom line of international norms," he said, warning that "the
world will fall into a crisis of division, and the future and destiny of mankind will also be
in danger".
https://www.youtube.com/embed/c3uzkXgW4yY?rel=0&mute=1&playsinline=1&frameborder=0&autoplay=0&embed_config=%7B%22relatedChannels%22%3A%5B%22UC4SUWizzKc1tptprBkWjX2Q%22%5D%2C%22adsConfig%22%3A%7B%22adTagParameters%22%3A%7B%22iu%22%3A%22%2F8134%2Fscmp%2Fweb%2Fchina_policiespolitics%2Farticle%2Finstream1%22%2C%22cust_params%22%3A%7B%22paid%22%3A1%2C%22scnid%22%3A%223095250%22%2C%22sctid%22%3A%22326745%22%2C%22scsid%22%3A%5B%2291%22%2C%224%22%2C%22318198%22%5D%2C%22articletype%22%3A%22DEFAULT%22%7D%7D%2C%22nonPersonalizedAd%22%3Atrue%7D%7D&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scmp.com&widgetid=2
US House of Representatives sends Uygur Human Rights Policy Act to Trump's desk for
approval
US House of Representatives sends Uygur Human Rights Policy Act to Trump's desk for
approval
Curtis was less sanguine about how much Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and other Central Asian
republics were resisting China's influence, citing an emphasis by governments in the region on
the economic consequences of strained ties with Beijing by protesting the treatment of Muslim
minorities in China's far northwest.
China's internment of Muslim Uygurs in the Xinjiang region has drawn international
condemnation. The UN has estimated that more than a million Muslims have been detained in camps
there for political re-education, but Beijing claims they are vocational training centres aimed
at countering religious extremism.
"With regard to the Central Asian countries, I think they're concerned about China's
economic influence in their countries, and therefore they very much hedge their comments about
the repression of Muslims in Xinjiang province," Curtis said, but added that she expected
public condemnation of China in Pakistan and Bangladesh to mount over the issue.
"There has been reticence, which has been disheartening, but I think as these countries see
China trying to trying to increase disinformation campaigns you'll start to see pushback from
the South Central Asian countries and more speaking out about the treatment of Muslims in
Xinjiang," she said. Join the Singapore
Property Festival - a virtual exhibition organised by the South China Morning Post on
August 1 to explore a wide range of affordable luxury residential and commercial real estate
assets in Singapore, perfect as relocation and investment options. Get property project
highlights and market insights from Info Session webinars and LIVE 1-on-1 chats with property
taxation, immigration and investment experts. Register for
your FREE PASS now.
"... Some of the neoliberal countries may be at the stage of the collusion; some of them may find themselves at the stage of oligarchy; some of them may be at the stage of corruption culture. ..."
"... In Japan, since 1957, there were twenty-one prime ministers of whom 75% were one-year or two-year prime ministers despite the four-year term of prime ministers. The short life span of Japanese prime ministers is essentially due to the short term interest pursued by the corrupted golden triangle composed of big business, bureaucrats and politicians. Unless, Japan uproots the corruption culture, it will be difficult to save the Japanese economy from perpetual stagnation. ..."
"... In the U.S. the big companies are spending a year no less than $2.6 billion lobbying money for the promotion of their interests, while the Congress spends $ 2.9 billion and the Senate, $860 million for their respective annual operation. Some of the big companies deploy as many as 100 lobbyists. ..."
"... It is unbelievable that the amount of lobbying is as much as 70% of the annual budget of the whole legislative of the U.S. ..."
"... Under such lobbying system, each group should deploy lobbyists to promote their interests. The immigrants, the native Indians, the Afro Americans, the alienated white people and other marginal groups cannot afford lobbyists and they are often excluded from fair treatment in the process of making laws and policies ..."
"... In the case of the U.S. its rank increased from 18 in 2016 to 22 in 2019. Thus in three years, the degree of corruption increase by 22.2% ..."
"... The U.S. is the richest country in the world, but it is also a country where income inequality is the most pronounced. I will come back to this issue in the next section. In relation to the corona virus crisis, income inequality means an army of those who are most likely to be infected and who are unable to follow CDC guidelines of testing, self quarantine and social distancing. Finally, the privatization of public health services has made the whole country unprepared for the onslaught of the virus. ..."
"... The experience of Japan shows how this can happen. The economic depression after the bubble burst of 1989, Japan had to endure 30-year deflation. The government of Japan has flooded the country with money to restore the economy, but the money was used for the bail-out of big corporations neglecting the healthy development of the SMEs and impoverishing the ordinary Japanese people. South Korea could have experienced the Japanese-type economic stagnation, if the conservative government ruled the country ten more years. ..."
"... The neoliberal pro-big company policy of Washington has greatly depleted consumer demand and SMEs even before the onslaught of the coronavirus. ..."
"... Fourth, the U.S. economy is shaken up so much that the neoliberal regime will not able to recover the economy. Thus, the survival of neo-liberalism looks uncertain. But, if the coronavirus crisis continues and destroys SMEs and if only the big corporations survive owing to bailout money, neo-liberalism may survive and we may end up with authoritarian governance ruled by the business-politics oligarchy. ..."
For the last forty years, neo-liberalism has dominated economic thinking and the formulation of economic policies Worldwide.
But the corona virus crisis has exposed, in a dramatic way, its internal contradictions, its incapacity to deal with the corona
crisis and its incompetence to restore the real economy ruined by the crisis.
In this article, we will focus on the relationship between Neoliberalism and the Corona Crisis:
Neoliberalism has prevented the governments from controlling effectively the initial outbreak of the corona virus.
Neoliberalism has made the wave of virus propagation higher and wider, especially in the U.S.
Neoliberalism can shake the foundations of the U.S. economy.
Neoliberalism may not survive the corona virus crisis in the U.S.
To save democracy and the global economy, We need a new economic model which supports the future of humanity, which sustains human
livelihood Worldwide.
1. Neoliberalism and the initial Outbreak of the Corona Virus
The most important part of neoliberalism is the relation -often of a corrupt nature- between the government and large corporations.
By corruption, we mean illegal or immoral human activities designed to maximize profit at the expense of people's welfare. In this
relation, the government may not be able to control and govern the large corporations. In fact, in the present context, the corporations
govern and oversee national governments.
Hence, when the corona virus broke out, it was difficult for the government to take immediate actions to control the virus break-out
to save human lives; It was quite possible that the price of stocks and large corporations' profit had the priority.
The theory known as neoliberalism distinguishes itself from the old liberalism prevailing before the Great Depression.
It became widely accepted mainly because of its adoption, in the 1970s and 1980s, by Ronald Reagan , president of the U.S. and
Margaret Thatcher , prime minister of Great Britain as an economic policy agenda applied nationally and internationally.
The justification of neoliberalism is the belief that the best way to ensure economic growth is to encourage "supply activities"
of private sector enterprises.
Now, the proponents of neoliberalism argue that public goods (including health and education) can be produced with greater efficiency
by private companies than by the State. Therefore, "it is better" to let the private enterprises produce public goods.
In other words, the production of public goods should be "privatized". Neoliberals put profit as the best measure of efficiency
and success. And profit can be sustained with government support. In turn, the private companies' policy is that of reducing the
labour costs of production.
Government assistance includes reduction of corporate taxes, subsidies and anti-labour policies such as the prohibition of labour
unionization and the abolition of the minimum wage.
Reduction of labour cost can be obtained by the automation of the production of goods
Under such circumstances, close cooperation between the government and the private corporations is inevitable; even it may be
necessary.
But, such cooperation is bound to lead to government-business collusion in which the business receives legal and illegal government
support in exchange of illicit money such as kick-backs and bribes given to influential politicians and the people close to the power.
As the collusion becomes wider and deeper, an oligarchy is formed; it is composed of corporations, politicians and civil servants.
This oligarchy's raison d'être is to make money even at the expense of the interests of the people.
Now, in order to protect its vested interests, the oligarchy expands its network and creates tight-knit political community which
shares the wealth and privileges obtained.
In this way, the government-business cooperation can be evolved by stage to give birth to the corruption culture.
Some of the neoliberal countries may be at the stage of the collusion; some of them may find themselves at the stage of oligarchy;
some of them may be at the stage of corruption culture.
South Korea
When the progressive government of Moon Jae-in took over power in 2017, South Korea under the 60-year neo-liberal rule by the
conservatives was at the stage of corruption culture.
The progressive government of Moon Jae-in has declared a total war against the corruption culture, but it is a very long way to
go before eliminating corruption.
In South Korea, of six presidents of the conservative government, four presidents were or are in prison for corruption and abuse
of power. This shows how deeply the corruption has penetrated into the fabrics of the Korea society
In Japan, since 1957, there were twenty-one prime ministers of whom 75% were one-year or two-year prime ministers despite the
four-year term of prime ministers. The short life span of Japanese prime ministers is essentially due to the short term interest
pursued by the corrupted golden triangle composed of big business, bureaucrats and politicians. Unless, Japan uproots the corruption
culture, it will be difficult to save the Japanese economy from perpetual stagnation.
Lobbying and "Corruption Culture"
Many of the developed countries in the West are also the victims of corruption culture. In the U.K. the City (London's Wall Street)
is the global center of money laundry.
In the U.S. the big companies are spending a year no less than $2.6 billion lobbying money for the promotion of their interests,
while the Congress spends $ 2.9 billion and the Senate, $860 million for their respective annual operation. Some of the big companies
deploy as many as 100 lobbyists.
It is unbelievable that the amount of lobbying is as much as 70% of the annual budget of the whole legislative of the U.S.
True, in the U.S., lobbying is not illegal, but it may not be morally justified. It is a system where the law makers give privileges
to those who spend more money, which can be considered as bribes
Under such lobbying system, each group should deploy lobbyists to promote their interests. The immigrants, the native Indians,
the Afro Americans, the alienated white people and other marginal groups cannot afford lobbyists and they are often excluded from
fair treatment in the process of making laws and policies
Some of the developed European countries are also very corrupted. The international Transparency Index rank, in 2019, was 23 for
France, 30 for Spain and 51 for Italy.
In the case of the U.S. its rank increased from 18 in 2016 to 22 in 2019. Thus in three years, the degree of corruption increase
by 22.2%
What is alarming is that, in the corruption culture, national policies are liable to be dictated by big businesses.
In South Korea, under the conservative government, it was suspected that the national policies were determined by the Chaebols
(large industrial conglomerates), not by the government.
As matter of fact, during the MERS crisis in 2015, the anti-virus policy was dictated by the Samsung Group. In order to save its
profit, Samsung Hospital in Seoul hid the infected so that the number of non-MERS patients would not decrease.
In Japan, the Abe government made the declaration of public health emergency as late as April 6, 2020 despite the fact that the
infections were detected as early as January, 2020.
This decision was, most likely, dictated by Keiretsu members (grouping of large enterprises) in order to save investments in the
July Olympics. Nobody knows how many Japanese had been infected for more than three months.
Similarly, Trump was well aware of the sure propagation of the virus right form January, but he waited until March 13, 2020 before
he declared the state of effective public health emergency. The obvious reason was the possible fear of free fall of stock price
and the possible loss of big companies' profits.
The interesting question is: "The delayed declaration of public health emergency, was it Trump's decision or that of his corporate
friends?" It doesn't matter whose decision it was, because the government under neoliberal system is controlled the big businesses.
So, as in Japan, Italy, Spain, France and especially, the U.K, Trump lost the golden time to save human lives to keep profit of
enterprises.
God knows how many American lives were sacrificed to save stock price and company profit!
Thus, the neoliberal governments have lost the golden chance to prevent the initial outbreak of the dreadful virus.
2. Neo-liberalism and the Propagation of Corona-Virus
We saw that the initial outbreak of the virus was not properly controlled leading to the loss to golden time of saving human lives,
most likely because of the priority given to business and political interests.
The initial outbreak of the virus was transformed into never-ending propagation and, even now, in many states in the U.S. the
wave of the virus is getting higher and wider.
This tragic reality can be explained by four factors:
people's mistrust in the government,
unbounded competition,
inequitable income distribution,
the absence of public health system.
These four factors (above) are all the legacies of neoliberalism.
The people know well that the corrupted neoliberal government's concern is not the welfare of the people but the interest of a
few powerful and the rich. The inevitable outcome is the loss of people's trust in the unreliable government.
This is demonstrated by Trump's indecision, his efforts of ignoring the warning of the professionals, his fabricates stories and
above all, his perception of who should be given the right to receive life-saving medical care at the hospital.
Under such circumstances, Americans do not trust the government directives and guidelines, allegedly implemented to protect people
from the virus.
The guideline of the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) for self quarantine, social distancing and wearing face masks has little
effect. There is another product of neoliberalism which is troublesome. I mean its credo of unbounded competition.
It is true that competition promotes efficiency and better quality of products. However, as competition continues, the number
of winners decreases, while that of losers rises. The economy ends up being ruled by a handful of powerful winners. This leads to
the segregation of losers and leads to the discrimination of people by income level, religion, race and colour of skin.
In the present context, largely as a result of government policy, there is little to no social solidarity; each individual has
to solve his or her own problems. I was sad when I saw on TV a young lady in California saying:
"To be killed by the COVID-19 or starve to death is the same to me. I open my shop to eat!"
This shows how American citizens are left alone to fight the coronavirus. Furthermore, neoliberalism has another unhappy legacy;
it is the widening and deepening income inequality.
The U.S. is the richest country in the world, but it is also a country where income inequality is the most pronounced. I will
come back to this issue in the next section. In relation to the corona virus crisis, income inequality means an army of those who
are most likely to be infected and who are unable to follow CDC guidelines of testing, self quarantine and social distancing. Finally,
the privatization of public health services has made the whole country unprepared for the onslaught of the virus.
In fact, in the U.S. there is no public health system. For three months after the first breakout of the virus, the country lacked
everything needed to fight the virus.
There was shortage of testing kits and PPE (personal protective equipment);
there were not enough rooms to accommodate the infected;
there was shortage of qualified medical staff;
there was lack of face masks.
Thus, neoliberalism has made the U.S not only to lose the golden time to prevent the initial breakout but also it has let the
wave of virus to continue. Nobody knows when it will calm down. As a matter of fact, on July 4, there were 2.9 million infected and
132,000 deaths; this gives a death rate of 4.6%. Given U.S. population of 328 million, we have 402.44 deaths per million inhabitants
which is one of highest among the developed countries. The trouble is that the wave of virus is still going higher and wider. On
July 4, the confirmed cases increased by 50% in two weeks in 12 states and increased 10% to 50% in 22 states.
3. Neo-liberalism and the very Foundation of the U.S. Economy
The message of this section is this. The foundation of the American economy is the purchasing power of the consumers and the job
creation by small-and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The consumer demand is 70% of the GDP, the SMEs create 66% of jobs. Unfortunately,
because of neoliberalism, the consumers have become very poorer and the SMEs have been neglected in the pro-big-company government
policies. The COVID-19 has destroyed the SMEs and impoverished the consumers. Nobody would deny the contribution of neo-liberalism
to globalization of finance, the creation of the global value chain and, especially the free trade agreement.
All these activities have allowed GDP to grow in developed countries and some of new industrial countries. However, the wealth
created by the growth of GDP has gone to countries already developed, some developing countries and a small number of multinational
enterprises (MNE). The rich produced by GDP growth has led to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few privileged. What
is more serious is this. If the skewed income distribution in favour of a decreasing number of people continues for long, the GDP
will stop growing and decades-long deflation is quite possible, as it has happened in Japan.
According to the OECD data, in the period, 1975-2011, the GDP share of labour income in OECD countries fell by 13.8% from 65%
to 56%. In the case of the U.S., in the same period, 1970-2014, it fell by 11%. The falling labour-income share is necessarily translated
into unequal household income distribution. There are two popular ways of measuring income distribution: the decile ratio and the
Gini coefficient.
The decile ratio is obtained by dividing the income earned by the top 10% income earners by the income earned by the bottom 10%
income earners . The decile ratio in 2019 was 18.5 in the U.S. as compared to 5.6 in Finland. The decile ratio of the U.S. was the
highest among the developed countries. Thus, in the U.S. the top 10 % has an income 19 times more than the bottom 10%, while, in
Finland, the corresponding ratio is only 6 times. This shows how serious the income gap is in the country of Uncle Sam.
The Gini coefficient varies from zero to 100. As the value of the Gini increases, the income distribution becomes favourable to
the high-income households. Conversely, as the value of the Gini decreases, the income distribution becomes favourable to low-income
households. There are two types of Gini: the gross Gini and the net Gini. The former refers to Gini before taxes and transfer payment,
while the latter refers to Gini after taxes and transfer payment. The difference between the gross and the net Gini shows the government
efforts to improve the equality and fairness of income distribution The gross U.S.- Gini coefficient in 2019 was 48.6, one of the
highest among the developed countries.
Its net Gini was 38.0 so that the difference between the gross and the net Gini was 12.3%. In other words, the U.S. income distribution
improved only by 12.3% by government efforts as against, for example, an improvement of 42.9% in the case of Germany, where the gross
Gini was 49.9 while the net Gini was 28.5 The net Gini of the U.S. was the highest among the developed countries. The implication
is clear. The income distribution in the U.S. was the most unequal. To make the matter worse, the government's effort to improve
the unequal income distribution was the poorest among the developed countries. There are countless signs of unfortunate impacts of
the inequitable income distribution in the country called the U.S. which Koreans used to admire describing it as "mi-gook- 美國미국 –
Beautiful Country". Now, one wonders if it is still a "mi-gook".
The following data indicates the seriousness of poverty in the U.S. (data below prior to the Coronavirus crisis).
In the U.S. the richest 1% of the population has 40% of all household wealth. (2017 data)
More than 20% of the population cannot pay monthly bills.
About 40% do not have savings.
31% of private sector worker do not have medical benefits.
57% of the workers in the service sector have no medical benefits.
These data give us an idea on how so many people have to suffer from poverty in a country where per capita GDP is $65,000 (2019
estimate), the richest country in the world. Most of the Americans work for small- and medium-sized companies (SMEs). In the U.S.,
there are 30 million SMEs. They create 66% of jobs in the private sector. The SMEs are more severely hit than big companies by the
coronavirus.
In fact, 66% of SMEs are adversely affected by the virus against 40% for big firms. As much as 20% of SMEs may be shut down for
good within three months, because of the virus. Under the forty years of neoliberal pro-big corporation policies, available financial
resources and the best human resources have been allocated to big firms at the expense of the development of SMEs.
The most damaging by-product of neoliberalism is no doubt the widening and deepening unequal income distribution for the benefit
of the big corporations and the uprooting of SMEs. This trend means the shrinking domestic demand and the disappearance of jobs for
ordinary people.
The destruction of the domestic market caused by the shrinking consumer demand and the disappearance of SMEs can mean the uprooting
of the very foundation of the economy.
The experience of Japan shows how this can happen. The economic depression after the bubble burst of 1989, Japan had to endure
30-year deflation. The government of Japan has flooded the country with money to restore the economy, but the money was used for
the bail-out of big corporations neglecting the healthy development of the SMEs and impoverishing the ordinary Japanese people. South
Korea could have experienced the Japanese-type economic stagnation, if the conservative government ruled the country ten more years.
The neoliberal pro-big company policy of Washington has greatly depleted consumer demand and SMEs even before the onslaught of
the coronavirus. But, the COVID-19 has given a coup de grâce to consumer demand and SMEs To better understand the issue, let us go
back to the ABC of economics. Looking at the national economy from the demand side, the economy consists of private consumer demand
(C), the private investment demand (I), the government demand (G) and Foreign demand represented by exports of domestic products
(X) minus domestic demand for imported foreign products (M).
GDP=C + I + G + (X-M)
In 2019, the consumer expenditure (C) in the U.S. was 70% of GDP, whereas the government's spending (G) was 17%. The investments
demand (I) was 18%. The net exports demand (X-M) was -5%.
In 2019 the composition of Canadian GDP was: C=57%; I=23 %; G=21 %; X-M=-1%.
Thus, we see that the U.S. economy heavily depends on the private domestic consumption, which represents as much as 70% of GDP
compared to 57% in Canada. The government's contribution to the national demand is 17% as against 21% in Canada. In the U.S. a small
government is a virtue according to neoliberals. In the U.S. the private investments account for only 18% of GDP as compared to as
much as 23% in Canada. In the U.S., off-shoring of manufacturing jobs and the global value chain under neo-liberalism have decreased
the need for business investments at home. It is obvious then that to save the American economy, we have to boost the consumers'
income. But, the consumer income comes mainly from SMEs. We must remember that the SMEs create 66% of all jobs in the U.S. Therefore,
if consumer demand falls and if SMEs do not create jobs, the US economy may have to face the same destiny as the Japanese economy.
This is happening in the U.S. The corona virus crisis is destroying SMEs and taking away the income of the people.
The coronavirus crisis is about to demolish the very foundation of the American economy.
4. Corona Virus Crisis and the Survival of Neoliberalism
The interesting question is this. Will neo-liberalism as economic system survive the corona virus crisis in the U.S.?
There are at least four indications suggesting that it will not survive.
First, to overcome major crisis such as the corona virus invasion, we need strong central government and people-loving leader.
One of the reasons for the successful anti-virus policy in South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore was the strong central government's
role of determining and coordinating the anti-virus policies. As we saw, the gospel of neo-liberalism is the minimization of the
central government's role. Having little role in economic policies, the U.S. federal government has proved itself as the most incompetent
entity to fight the crisis. It is more than possible that the U.S. and all the neoliberal countries will try to get away from the
traditional neoliberal governance in which the government is almost a simple errand boy of big business.
Second, the people's trust in the neoliberal leaders has fallen on the ground. It will be difficult for the neoliberal leaders
to be able to lead the country in the post-corona virus era.
Third, the corona virus crisis has made the people aware of the abuse of power by the big companies; the people now know that
these companies are interested only in making money. So, it may be more difficult for them to exploit the people in the era of post-COVID-19.
Fourth, the U.S. economy is shaken up so much that the neoliberal regime will not able to recover the economy. Thus, the survival
of neo-liberalism looks uncertain. But, if the coronavirus crisis continues and destroys SMEs and if only the big corporations survive
owing to bailout money, neo-liberalism may survive and we may end up with authoritarian governance ruled by the business-politics
oligarchy.
5. Search for a New Economic Regime: Just-Liberalism
One thing which the corona-virus crisis has demonstrated is the fact that the American neo-liberalism has failed as sustainable
regime capable of stopping the virus crisis, restore the economy and save the democracy. Hence, we have to look for a new regime
capable of saving the U.S. economy and democracy. We would call this new regime as "Just-liberalism " mission of which is the sustainable
economic development and, at the same time, the just distribution of the benefits of economic development. Before we get into the
discussion of the main feature of the new regime, there is one thing we should discuss. It is the popular perception of large corporation.
Many believe that they make GDP grow and create jobs. It is also the popular view that the success of these large corporations is
due to the innovative managing skills of their founders or their CEOs. Therefore, they deserve annual salary of millions of dollars.
This is the popular perception of Chaebols in South Korea.
But, a great part of Chaebols income is attributable to the public goods such as national defence, police protection, social infrastructures,
the education system, enormous sacrifice of workers and, especially tax allowances, subsidies and privileges. In other words, a great
part of the Chaebols' income belongs to the society, not the Chaebols. Many believe that the Chaebols create jobs, but, in reality,
they crate less than 10% of jobs in Korea. We may say the same thing about large corporations in the U.S. In other words, much of
the company's income is due to public goods. Hence, the company should equitably share its income with the rest of the society. But
do they?
The high ranking managers get astronomical salaries; some of them are hiding billions of dollars in tax haven islands.
We ask. Are large corporations sharing equitably their income with the society? Are the corporate tax allowances they get too
much? Is the wage they pay too low? Is CEO's income is too high?
It is difficult to answer these questions.
But we should throw away the mysticism surrounding the merits of large corporations; we should closely watch them so that they
do not misuse their power and wealth to dictate national policies for their own benefit at the expense of the welfare of the people.
The new regime, just-liberalism, should have the following eight features.
First, we need a strong government which is autonomous from big businesses; there should be no business-politics collusion; there
should be no self-interest oligarchy of corruption.
Second, it is the time we should reconsider the notion of human right violation. There are several types of human right violation
in developed countries including the U.S. For example, the racial discrimination, the inequality before the law, the violation of
the right of social security and the violation of the right of social service are some cases of violation of human rights defined
by the U.N. The Western media have been criticizing human right violation in "non-democratic countries", but, in the future, they
should pay more attention to human right violation in "democratic countries."
Third, the criterion of successful economy should not be limited to the GDP growth; the equitable distribution of the benefits
of GDP growth should also be a criterion; proper balance between the growth and the distribution of growth fruits should be maintained.
Fourth, market should not be governed by "efficiency" alone; it must be also "equitable". Efficiency may lead to the concentration
of resources and power in the hands of the few at the expense of social benefit; it must be also equitable. As an example, we may
refer to the Chaebols (big Korean industrial conglomerates) which kill the traditional village markets which provide livelihood to
a great number of poor people. The Chaebols may make the market efficient but not equitable. The Korean government has limited Chaebols'
penetration into these markets to make them more equitable.
Fifth, we need a partial direct democracy. The legislative translates people's wish into laws and the executive makes policies
on the basis of laws. But, in reality, the legislative and the executive may pass laws and policies for the benefit of big companies
or specific group of individuals and institutions close to the power. Therefore, it is important to provide a mechanism through which
the people – the real master of the country – should be allowed to intervene all times. In South Korea, if more than 200,000 people
send a request to the Blue house (Korean White House) to intervene in matters judged unfair or unjust, the government must intervene.
Sixth, those goods and services which are essential for every citizen must be nationalized. For example, social infrastructure
such as parks, roads, railways, harbours, supply of electricity should not be privatized. Education including higher education should
be made public goods so that low income people should get higher education as do high income group.
This is the best way to maximize the mass of innovative minds and creative energy to develop the society. Above all, the health
service should be nationalized. It is just unbelievable to see that, in a country where the per capita GDP is $63,000, more than
30 million citizens have no medical insurance, just because it is too expensive. Politicians know quite well that big companies related
to insurance, pharmaceutical products and medical professions are preventing the nationalization of medical service in the U.S. But,
the politicians don't seem to dare go over these vested interests groups and nationalize the public health system. Remember this.
There are countries which are much poorer than the U.S. But, they have accessible universal health care insurance system.
Seventh, the economy should allow the system of multi- generational technologies in which not only high-level technologies but
also mid-level technologies should be promoted in such a way that both high- tech large corporations and middle-tech SMEs can grow.
This is perhaps only way to insure GDP growth and create jobs.
Eighth, in the area of international relations, it is about the time to stop wasteful ideological conflict. The difference among
ideologies is narrowing; the number of countries which have abandoned the U.S. imposed democracy has been rising; the ideological
basis of socialism is weakening. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, 48% of countries are democratic, while 52% are not.
According to Freedom House, in 2005, 83 countries had net gain in democracy, while 52 countries had net loss in democracy.
But in 2019, only 37 countries had net gain while 64 countries had net loss. Between 2005 and 2018, the number of countries which
were not free increased by 26%, while those which were free fell by 44%. On the other hand, it is becoming more and more difficult
to find authentic socialism. For example, Chinese regime has lost its pure socialism long time ago. Thus, the world is becoming non-ideological;
the world is embracing ideology-neutral pragmatism.
To conclude, the corona virus pandemic has given us the opportunity to look at ourselves; it has given us the opportunity to realize
how vulnerable we are in front of the corona virus attack.
Many more pandemics will come and challenge us. We need a world better prepared to fight the coming pandemics. It is high time
that we slow down our greedy pursuit for GDP growth; it is about the time to stop a wasteful international ideological conflict in
support of multibillion dollar interests behind Big Money and the Military industrial complex.
It is therefore timely to find a system where we care for each other and where we share what we have .
***
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.
Professor Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics and co- director of the Observatoire de l'Asie de l'Est (ODAE) of the Centre
d'Études de l'Intégration et la Mondialisation (CEIM), Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). He is Research Associate of the Center
of Research on Globalization (CRG).
Growing Social and
Wealth Inequality in America
"... The problem for the US is that China is the world's biggest semiconductor market and biggest chip importer on the world ..."
"... these bans are lose lose situation for both the US and China ..."
"... I do not think that Pompeo is smelling blood and moving for the jugular, its not such a situation as China is not that vulnerable, it is more likely to be US elite anger due to the US weakening and China gains during the Covid-19 crisis. ..."
"... Trump strategy of bullying works many times. Supposedly there should be costs for the US in soft power and world opinion, but we are not seeing them. ..."
"... I guess most of the world is too cowardly and prefers to go with the flow. They will abandon the US only after the US lost anyway. Well, it is not an easy situation. Still, the US reactions are very strong and hateful precisely because things are still not good for it and its decline is continuing, regardless of some tactical victories, where in some cases it is a lose lose situation anyway. ..."
A Significant Decline Is Coming For The U.S.james , Jul 27 2020 18:10 utc |
1
by Passer by
In response to several comments in the last
open thread (slightly edited).
Actually there is even some real, and not only relative, decline for the US, for example
US life expectancy is dropping. This is a pretty bad sign for a developed country. Same for
the UK by the way.
On the issue of China gaining during the Covid crisis, they gained in raw power, for
example gained in GDP relatively to the US. And they gained in debt levels too, relatively,
as US debt levels exploded due to the crisis. Now you have V-shaped recovery in China and
poor, W-shaped double dip recovery in the US. With far more debt added.
Of course there is the issue of public relations and soft power. On the one hand the US
blamed China for the pandemic, but on the other hand it embarrassed itself due to its poor
performance in containing the pandemic, compared to other countries. And the US lost points
around the world due to rejecting WHO right in the middle of the pandemic. Europe and
developing countries did not like that at all. Don't forget that Covid also weakened the US
military, they have problems with it, including on ships and overseas bases, and even broke
the biggest US exercise planned in Europe for the last 30 years. And the pandemic in the US
is still raging, its not fixed at all and death rates are increasing again.
Here for example, the futurologists from Pardee Canter that that China gained during the
crisis, in raw capabilities. Future research and relative power between countries is
their specialty :
Research Associate Collin Meisel and Pardee Center Director Jonathan Moyer use IFs
(International Futures) to explore the long-term impact of COVID-19 in China in this Duck
Of Minerva blog post" "Where broad measures of material capabilities are concerned, the
picture is clear: COVID-19 is closing the gap in relative capabilities for the U.S. and
China and accelerating the U.S.-China transition. Through multiple long-term forecast
scenarios using the International Futures tool,
Research Associate Collin Meisel and Pardee Center Director Jonathan Moyer explain on the
Duck of Minerva blog that China is likely to gain approximately one percent of global
power relative to the U.S. by 2030 due to the economic and mortality impacts of COVID-19.
This share of global power is similar to the relative capabilities of Turkey today.
On the issue of the USD, Stephen Roach
also says that there will be a significant decline in the medium term. And the argument
is pretty logical - if the US share in the global economy is declining (and it will be
declining at least up to year 2060), and if the level of US debts is reaching all time high
levels, then the USD will decline. I agree with that argument. It is fully logical.
On the chip/semiconductor issue. David Goldman is skeptical that the US will be able
to stop
China on this :
The chip ban gives the world an enormous incentive to circumvent the US
Basically Huawei still has advanced suppliers, from South Korea and Japan. And
some of them are refusing to yield. The problem for the US is that China is the world's
biggest semiconductor market and biggest chip importer on the world , which gives
enormous initiative for private businesses to circumvent US made equipment in order to export
to China. Then also China is stashing large quantities of chips. By 2025, it should be able
to replace foreign production with homegrown. So these bans are lose lose situation for
both the US and China - yes, this will cause come costs to China up to 2025. But it will
also lead to US companies, such as Qualcomm, to lose the Chinese chip market, which is the
largest in the world, and there is nothing to replace it.
These are hundreds of billions of losses for the US due to gradually losing the most
lucrative market. Thus, in relative terms, China does not lose from these games, as the US
will pay a large price just as China. It is lose-lose situation, but in relative terms the
same. US loses just as China loses. And do not forget that China warned that a full US attack
on Huawei will lead to Boeing being kicked from the country, which is becoming the biggest
aviation market in the world, and will lead to hundreds of billions of losses for that
company too, and will probably burry it under Airbus. China needs lots of planes up to 2028,
when they will replace them with their own, worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Elevating
Airbus over Boeing, which already has big troubles, will be a significant hit for the US
aerospace industry.
So China has cards to play too. On the issue of the US getting some countries to ban
Huawei, it is again lose - lose situation - that is both the US and some of its allies will
lose due to using more expensive 5G equipment and will lose more time to build their
networks. So China loses, and US and some allies lose, but in relative terms things remain
the same between them power-wise, as they both lose. Do not forget that Germany said that
it will continue to use Huawei equipment, and this is the biggest economy in Europe:
Germany's three major telecommunications operators Deutsche Telekom, Vodafone and
Telefonica have been actively promoting 5G in recent years. They implement the "supplier
diversification" strategy and use Huawei equipment in their networks among other vendors.
Peter Altmaier, German minister of economy, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on July
11 that Germany would not exclude Huawei from the country's 5G network rollout. "There can
only be an exclusion if national security is demonstrably at risk. However, we will
strengthen our security measures, regardless of which country the products come from," said
Altmaier. "There is no change in Germany's position," a spokesperson of the country's
Interior Ministry told local broadcaster ARD on July 16.
So we can say that probably half of Europe will be using Huawei. Still, as you said, a
large part of the world will exclude it. Maybe half of world's GDP. Unfortunately things are
not perfect. One bright spot in that is that Huawei is betting on emerging markets, and
emerging markets have higher growth rates than western markets - that is, they will matter
more in the future.
I would agree that the US is harming China, but the damage is not large IMO, as these are
mostly lose lose situations where relative power stays the same. And with time, there will be
significant damages for the US too, such as losing the biggest chip and aviation markets and
the empowerment of Boeing competitors such as Airbus.
So its not too bad in China. Thus, after mentioning all of this, I do not think that
Pompeo is smelling blood and moving for the jugular, its not such a situation as China is not
that vulnerable, it is more likely to be US elite anger due to the US weakening and China
gains during the Covid-19 crisis.
On Hong Kong China had no options. It was a lose-lose situation. If they allowed
everything to stay as it is there would be constant color revolution there and they will be
constantly in the media. Maybe it is better to stop this once and for all. They hoped that
the Covid crisis will give them cover to do this. It did not work very well.
Unfortunately it is right that the Trump strategy of bullying works many times.
Supposedly there should be costs for the US in soft power and world opinion, but we are not
seeing them.
I guess most of the world is too cowardly and prefers to go with the flow. They will
abandon the US only after the US lost anyway. Well, it is not an easy situation. Still, the
US reactions are very strong and hateful precisely because things are still not good for it
and its decline is continuing, regardless of some tactical victories, where in some cases it
is a lose lose situation anyway.
The data shows a
significant decline incoming for the US.
2019 China 1,27 times bigger in GDP/PPP
2030 China 1,8 times bigger in GDP/PPP
US debt to GDP 2019 80%
US debt to GDP 2030 125%
US debt to GDP 2050 230 %
The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) will be depleted by 2021, the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI)
trust fund by the beginning of 2024, the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) trust
fund in the 2020s, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) Multi-Employer fund at
some point in the mid-2020s, and the Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI)
trust fund by 2031. We estimate the theoretically combined Social Security OASDI Trust fund
will run out of reserves by 2031.
Military budget (before Covid estimates, Trump budget) 2019 3,2 % of GDP - 2030 2,5 %
of GDP (Could drop to 2,3 % of GDP due to Covid)
Civilian discretionary spending (before Covid estimates) 2019 3,2 % of GDP - 2030 1.8 %
of GDP (drop to all time low) (Could drop further due to Covid)
That is not to mention the big divide in US society, and the ongoing Covid crisis, which
is still not fixed in the US. But is largely fixed in China. Do you see the decline now? They
have a big, big reason to be worried. A significant decline is coming for the US.
Posted by b on July 27, 2020 at 17:53 UTC | Permalink
thanks for highlighting 'passer by's post b... i agree with them for the most part... it
reminds me of a game of chess where pieces are being removed from the board.. it is a lose-
lose, but ultimately, it is a bigger loss for the usa down the road... for whatever reason
the usa can't see that the financial sanctions, bullying and etc, only go so far and others
work around this as we see with russia, iran, venezuala and china in particular...
the one comment i would view differently then passer by is this one - "Unfortunately it is
right that the Trump strategy of bullying works many times. Supposedly there should be costs
for the US in soft power and world opinion, but we are not seeing them." i think the usa is
losing it's position in terms of soft power and world opinion but you won't be reading about
it in the western msm.. that is going to come out later after the emergence of a new reality
is very clear for all to see... the trump strategy is really more of the same and it is like
a medicine that loses it's power over time and becomes ineffective - sort of like
antibiotics...
In other words the western oligarchs will lose out to the eastern oligarchs in the Great
Trade War under the cover of a fake pandemic.
Or perhaps the global oligarchs in general just want the world to follow more in the
Chinese model where the population is more agreeable to total surveillance, social credit
scores and even more out right fascistic government/corp model under the cover of a fake
pandemic.
With respect to "bullying works", in international diplomacy it usually does since weaker
powers have more to lose in a direct diplomatic crisis with a larger power. This is not to
say that they won't push back, but they will be far more strategic in where they do. In
essence, weaker powers have fewer "red lines" but they will still enforce those, while
greater powers have more "red lines", because they have more power to squander on
fundamentally insignificant issues. However, weaker states will still remember being abused
and oppressed, so when the worms turns while they won't be the first to jump ship, they will
be more than eager to pile on and extract some juicy retribution once it is clear they will
not be singled out. I suspect the Germany will be the bellwether, when (if) Germany breaks
from the US on a key aspect on the transatlantic relationship that will be the signal for
others to start jumping ship. If Nordstream 2 go through, then there will be a break within 5
years; if Nordstream is killed, then the break might be delayed for 5 years or more but there
will still be a break when the US pushes Germany to support the next major US regime change
war in the Middle East.
The engineered collapse is being called the "Great Reset" by many outlets already. The
covid nonsense is just a cover for it. Instead of Saudi Arabian terrorist it is a basically a
harmless coronavirus. Just in the days immediately following 911 the "terrorist'' threat was
so overhyped that security theater was employed everywhere. Now sanitation theater is the new
act in town.
Where does anyone get these numbers about military spend as a % of gdp? Have you listened
to Katherine Austin Fitts on Corbett Report?
Posted by: oglalla | Jul 27 2020 18:27 utc | 4
Good to see your comment. Lots of anecdotal evidence nationwide about store closures and
many vacancies in business centers, particularly within economic engines of NYC and elsewhere
along the East Coast. IMO, lots of self-censorship by business media while the reality
reported by Shadowstats goes ignored. As for losing the status of #1 economy, that was always
going to occur once China or India became a moderately developed economy. It just happened
that China is far more efficient politically which allowed it to become #1. And until India
improves politically, it will continue to lag behind numerous smaller nations. Too bad there
isn't a place where one can bet on the great likelihood that the Outlaw US Empire will
outperform all nations in the production of Bullshit and Lies.
I also disagree with the comparison between USA and China gdp and other statistics.
China is not simply competing against USA but against the Empire: 5 eyes, NATO, Euro
poodles, Israel and the Gulf States and others like Mexico, Columbia, Brazil, India.
Anyone that is minimizing the conflict and the advantages of one side vs another is doing
a disservice.
CitizenX @ 26
Agree with your tone and content.
Particularly the third from last paragraph. I think people are missing by choice the growing
ground-swell of public opinion US wide as this blog shows, a multi-faceted detereation of US
political morals and legality.
Combined with a world wide growing awareness of how deranged American leaders now are.
Haterd consumes itself as dose greed.
My ear to the ground tells me, the protests at present are growing some in full sight some
not.
This is not buseness as usual. Then return to normal. The mood now is -- -- - let's settle
this thing once and for all, let's get the job done.
So my personal opinion ? we will see a US regime chainge faster than a lot here predict. Much
faster.
Passer by is correct, no doubt, thanks to incompetent leadership in the US, but this
economic horse race doesn't matter.
What matters above all is that nations should hold it together, "it" being sustainable,
survivable support systems capable of providing for mass populations.We have failed that test
here in our encounter with this pandemic. We have failed to develop a sustainable financial
system. We have failed to meet any sort of environmental goals. We don't even have
environmental goals! Our electoral system doesn't work, either, proof being the election of
this idiot atavistic rich boy. If anyone thinks the election of Trump reflects the will of
the majority of Americans, they are part of the problem.
China is in deep trouble. The CCP's greatest challenge is simply to hold "it" together.
The Party has to perform economic miracles or the country will collapse. Those groups not
satisfied with life in the PRC have no outlet for their voices to be heard. They cannot
protest. They are under the strict control of an increasingly sophisticated but tiny elitist
clique that is only 6.5% of the total population. This clique will not relinquish power and
permit more democratic expression. On the contrary, more and more suppression of dissidence
of any sort will happen. The social scoring system is an especially insidious program of
social control. China's collectivism has turned the country into an ant hill. It is extremely
productive, but people are not ants.
Passer by is looking at the world through a keyhole.
Nightmare' conditions at Chinese factories where Hasbro and Disney toys are made
Investigators found there were serious violations at the factories which were endangering
workers.
In peak production season, employees were working up to 175 overtime hours per month.
Chinese labour law restricts monthly overtime to 36 hours per month, but the report alleged
factories would often ask local governments to implement a "comprehensive working hour
scheme" to override existing legislation.
One wonders if China will run into the same problems of the US in the not too distant
future?
"The End of Sweatshops? Robotisation and the Making of New Skilled Workers in China"
Over the past four decades China has undergone a process of massive industrialisation that
has allowed the country to achieve remarkable economic growth. Because of its large
manufacturing capacity based on a seemingly unlimited supply of cheap migrant labour in light
industries, China has come to be known as the 'workshop of the world'. However, since the
early 2000s the country's labour market has experienced a remarkable transition from labour
surplus to a shortage of labour, which has led to sustained increases in the wages of
ordinary workers. In such a context, since 2015 robotisation has become a driving policy for
industrial upgrading for manufacturing in China, with the slogan 'replacing human workers
with industrial robots' (机器换人) frequently appearing in media
reports and official policy documents.
The early date of "full spectrum dominance" (1996 not 2010) suggests to me that the
doctrine was related the "end of history" thinking of that time. USA Deep State believed its
own propaganda.
It also strengthens my case for the proximate cause for the current conflict originating
in 2014 when the US Deep State suddenly realized the threat that Russia and China Alliance
posed to their plans for global domination.
Not only had they believed their own propaganda but they had overreached with their
attempt to force Russia to capitulate and had been distracted by Israel interests that wanted
to use USA for the greater Israel project.
When I wrote my economic analysis paper on China in 1999, it was quite clear that the 21st
Century was going to become the Asian Century as the Outlaw US Empire would be eclipsed by
Asia's economic dynamism. 20+ years later, my prediction holds true, and it's even stronger
now than then with Russia's resurgence. Both outcomes clearly go against the 500+ years of
Western Global Hegemony and goads numerous people. For students of history like myself,
what's occurring isn't a surprise thanks to the West's adoption of--or should I write forced
indoctrination into--the Neoliberal political-economic philosophy, which is akin to that of
Feudalism since it benefits the same class as that of the Feudal Era. China too was once
Feudal and suffered a massive Civil War that destroyed much of its structure, a conflict
known to the West as The Taiping Rebellion that lasted
almost 14 years, from 1850-1864. One might say that was the first half of China's overall
effort to overthrow Feudalism and Western Imperialism, as the second half began in 1927 and
finally concluded in 1949. That amounts to a large % of years for a newbie nation like the
USA; but for a nation like China inhabited by humans for over 1.3 million years and with
4,500 years of recorded history, it's really just another Dynastic Rollover--something
inconceivable to non-Asians.
In reality, China's a conservative nation, culture and society with a several thousand
year ethos of Collectivism, although that allowed a significant divergence in social
stratification due to the ruling Feudal ways. Those who have read The Good Earth have
an excellent grasp on the nature of Chinese Feudalism, which was embodied by the Kuomintang
or KMT--as with Feudal lords, KMT leaders were deemed "Gangsters" by US Generals and
diplomats during and after WW2. General Marshall wrote in 1947 it was clear to him that the
KMT would lose to the CPC, that there was no good reason to throw good money after bad, and
it would be best for the USA and the West to accept the fact of a Communist China (all noted
by Kolko in his Politics of War ). Contemporary China when compared to China as
depicted in 1931 by Pearl Buck is one of the most amazing human achievements of all time, and
the conservative Chinese government intends to keep it that way through a series of well
thought-out plans. That's the reality. It can be accepted and worked with as numerous nations
realize, or it be somehow seen as unacceptable and fought against in what will prove to be a
losing effort since all China need do is parry the blows and reflect them back upon its
opponent using skills it developed over several thousand years. It would be much easier to
join China than fight.
It's misleading to assess the National Military Capability of various countries in $US terms.
The West's M-IC is privately owned and puts shareholder profit before all else. And the
owners of the Western M-IC also own the politicians who facilitate and approve the rip-offs.
China and Russia's M-IC are owned and controlled by The People via the government and can
therefore get $2+ of value for every $1 invested. For example, one can buy some very nifty
twin-engine bizjets for less than half the price USG pays for a flying Batmobile (F-35) - a
glorified hot-rod with guns.
There is definitely a decline in the USA. Deaths of despair and from the coronavirus are
too great to ignore anymore. 150,000 dead and counting are not nothing. The Western Empire
has fallen. The U.S. federal government failed. The Imperialists are quarantined at home.
The question is if the 19th century North American Empire from Hawaii to Puerto Rico
survives. The Elite have bet it all on a vaccine or patentable treatment to give the
Pharmaceutical Industry billions of dollars. However, quick cheap paper monoclonal antigen
tests would make testing at home before going to work or school practical.
This would end viral transmission and the pandemic. No drug jackpot for the 10%. Instead
public health is ignored as Americans die. The silence is deafening. The protests in the
Pacific Northwest are not about slavery. They are about the 90% of Americans being treated as
disposable trash.
150,000 dead and counting are not nothing. The Western Empire has fallen.
No offense VV but I can't help thinking that you (and maybe some others) are talking past the
issue.
To be clear, the issue is this: Will the West's decline play a role in the US/Empire's
ability and willingness to confront Russia-China? Or is the oft-heard refrain that US/Empire
can not 'win' against China (implying that they shouldn't/won't bother trying!)
because of its decline (usually attributed to 'late-state capitalism') just wishful
thinking?
Virtually everyone here has agreed that the West - especially USA - hasn't fought the
virus correctly and with vigor. And virtually everyone agrees that there has been a relative
decline in USA/West and in some areas an absolute decline.
IMO what is ignored is that:
from the perspective of the US 'Deep State' or Western power-elite the failure to fight
the virus is a net positive if the repercussions are blamed on China (in addition to
other 'positives' from their perspective: saving on cost of care to elderly, boosting Big
Pharma profits, etc.) -
In fact, deliberate mistakes and mounting only a token effort (as we've seen)
is exactly what we should expect from a craven power-elite that want to further their
interests;
the overall decline, while troublesome - especially to the ordinary blokes who get the
short end of that decline - is not yet significant enough to prevent USA/Empire from
countering the Russia-China 'upstarts' aggressively.
I likened the hopefulness of the anti-Empire crowd about Western decline to their hopefulness
they previously expressed regarding Turkey. "Erdogan is turning east!" proved to be wrong.
Posted by: Andrei Martyanov | Jul 27 2020 19:01 utc | 14 Within last 10 years China built
surface fleet which in terms of hulls (and "freshness") rivals that of the US. US economy
would have it bottom falling off if it tried to accomplish a similar task.
Nice to see you here again. Yes, I mentioned the relative navy building in the previous
open thread. China's navy will exceed US capability by 2050 and be on parity by 2030-2040
according to reports I've read. That's just ten years to twenty years from now.
Result: US gets kicked out of the South China Sea and has to share the Pacific, Indian
Ocean (as will India with gnashing of teeth) and even the Med with China. China will
undoubtedly project naval power all the way to the Med in support of BRI in the Middle
East.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 27 2020 20:43 utc | 27 There is decline, and while it has been
mostly relative it is also accelerating - but that hasn't significantly constrained
USA/Empire's response to the upstarts.
I agree. US military power isn't going away in ten years or twenty. China may achieve
parity at some point (and can do serious damage now). But that doesn't obviate the fact that,
short of nuclear war, the US is still in a position to throw its weight around and will
continue to do so until forced back by a (hopefully conventional) military defeat of serious
proportions, i.e., not just "give up and go home". And economic woes won't change that as
long as the taxpayer can be fleeced - and they will be, for at least a few more decades.
@ 62 A.L. "Would it be a surprise to you than there are many many protests in China at the
grass root level everyday?"
There are indeed protests all the time, which is the fire under the local Party leaders
that keeps them dancing. Usually the protests are against local corruption or mismanagement
and are not serious. People can get what they want this way. Each year at the general Party
gathering, however, special note is taken of "mass incidents", that is, protests on a larger
scale, and overtly political events such as those in the Uighur province of Xinjiang and in
Hong Kong. Any protest that challenges the control of the Party is not permitted. The current
protests in the US could not happen in China because they challenge political orthodoxy. The
Chinese don't just roll over on command for the CCP to scratch their bellies and the Party
knows just how volatile the political situation could be if mishandled. China is developing
into the ultimate surveillance state. There are lots of Chinese like that little guy that
stood down the tank at Tienanmen in 1989. Eventually that guy is going to say: "There is some
shit I will not eat!" The Party knows this.
Several years ago (close to 10) I noted that the US would be bringing back US companies
from China, that it would actually subsidize their relocation. It's only logical. I saw China
as becoming hostile to US corporations: in light of how things are going today it's the US
govt becoming hostile toward US companies in China. Make huge profits and then get free money
to return back to the US: and be welcomed as victorious troops arriving back from some
glorious war.
It's Musical Chairs. As the music plays more and more chairs are being removed. Capitalism
has been the most efficient economic system in which to trigger an economic collapse. WTF did
people think would happen with basing economic systems on the impossible, basing on perpetual
growth on a finite planet. All of this was readily foreseeable using SIMPLE MATH.
China is in deep trouble. The CCP's greatest challenge is simply to hold "it" together.
The Party has to perform economic miracles or the country will collapse.
How do you square your dire prediction of China's collapse with the
Edelman trust barometer of 2019 (warning: PDF file), where China scores 88 on the trust
index and the US scores 60?
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed that all the "leading" western countries are unable
to handle even a relatively moderate public health crisis. The neoliberal economic model
considers any aspect of society that isn't generating a profit as ideologically unsound and
targets these areas for "reform" (i.e. privatization).
Sometimes this is done outright, as when a public utility or service is sold to a private,
for-profit operator (e.g. British Rail in the UK). But when the government thinks the public
will resist and push back it is done by stealth, usually by starving the targeted
service/organization of funds and then farming out parts of it to for-profit companies in the
name of "efficiency", "innovation", "resilience" or some other neoliberal doublespeak concept
(they all mean only one thing of course: PROFIT). This is currently happening to the US
Postal Service.
Every public healthcare system in the so-called "advanced" nations encompassed by the
EU/NATO and Five Spies has been underfunded and subjected to stealth privatization for
decades. Furthermore, people in neoliberal societies exist to serve as fodder and raw
material for "the economy" (i.e. the plutocrat or oligarch class) and there is no mechanism
to deal with emergencies that can't be milked for a profit. Hence, the half arsed,
incompetent, making-it up-as-they-go-along response to COVID-19 that simply writes off older
and sick people as expendable.
Neoliberalism began as a US/UK project, that's why poverty, crime, inadequate health care
and social services etc. and governmental and societal dysfunction generally is more advanced
there than in, say, Canada and Germany.
So, yes, the US is in decline, maybe even collapsing, but that doesn't mean the imperial
lackey countries are immune to the forces tearing apart the United States. They are just
proceeding down that road at a slower pace. If the US falls, the west falls...globalization
takes no prisoners.
I live in Canada where sometimes people get a bit smug about how great everything is here
compared to the US. In British Columbia, for example, opiate overdose deaths are at a record
high and have killed many many more people than COVID-19 since the pandemic began. Housing in
cities like Vancouver is increasingly unaffordable, there aren't enough jobs that pay a
living wage, permanent homeless camps exist in city parks, there are entire blocks where
people who live in their vehicles park etc.etc.
The reality is that it's the west that is in decline, not only the United States.
China is developing into the ultimate surveillance state.
Posted by: jadan | Jul 28 2020 1:30 utc | 95
But don't you see, dear jadan, it is for the good of the people, if only the rest of the
world could see the benevolence of Big Brother we would all be much happier at least that is
what the thought police has told me to think. One government, one heart, one mind. Long Live
the PRC revolution./s
Amidst all of the nonsense in the discussion section of the following link, I believe
there are some germane comments from individuals that work in the semiconductor space that
touch on some of the challenges China's chip industry faces. link
I hope their hiring of 3,000 experienced chip engineers accelerates their learning curve.
Developing a chip industry on a moment's notice, let alone competing with Samsung and TSMC,
is no small chore.
One item not mentioned in the above article is whether China could build many consumer
components based on domestic 14nm (or larger) technology. Given China used to spend more
importing chips than oil, I assume that even less advanced chips used for TVs, etc. as
opposed to cellphones, would be very helpful for China's consumer electronics
manufacturing.
They are also making some strides in the flash memory and CPU space, but production
quantities are still very low.
Health, education, infrastructure, research and development. The backbone of prosperity.
These will all continue no matter trade war or cold war but barring hot war. There must be a
doubling time for this - something like an R0. Cold war and sanctions will only serve to
increase R&D
US mistakes, hubris ect move in the opposite direction, mistakes multiplying
mistakes.
@Schmoe 105
thanks, interesting. Here is a complementary tho less detailed article on some of the same
topics I ran across recently: China Speeds Up
Advanced Chip Development [semiconductorengineering.com]
One important point, clearly visible in the tables in the seekingalpha article linked by
Schmoe, is that the ultra-small 14nm/7nm stuff is for specialized (but strategically
important) applications. Most consumer electronics, industry, and everything else is 40-60nm
and up, although of course smaller has benefits to older applications in improve power (i.e.
mobile applications and servers) and cost (higher density/wafer)
US as an one excuse for its current hostilities against China is 'intellectual property'
theft. Makes me think of ninja Chinese sneaking around removing peoples brains.
But back to semiconductors. One of China's biggest imports is chips, mostly made by machines
using US tech. Many industries are highly specialized and it often makes sense from small
community level to national and global level to by a product from those that specialist in
that product.
China has been content to buy chips, but that will now change due to necessity. Yankistan can
now expect to get its brains hacked, but I am also reminded of the Scientists in the
Manhattan Project being the ones to pass on much information to the Soviet Union.
Yankistan will be leaking like a sieve. I guess that's why both oz and the poms are beefing
up their secret police laws. Wont be long before we are getting shot trying to run through
checkpoint charlie to the free east.
It is clear that the US is in decline. It is clear the US military is bloated and
overpriced but it can still turn most countries into rubble (even without using nuclear
weapons) and has done a few recently. Mostly the US uses its reserve currency status and
control of financial networks to punish countries that do not go along with its program. Can
you say sanctions. but as Hemingway said about bankruptcy - it happens slowly and then all at
once - is probably how it will continue to go. It is even losing its technological advantage.
Boeing used to be the leader and made reliable planes. Now they sometimes fall out of the
air. Things like high speed railways used to be the kind of thing the US did well. Now
California can't get one built. China has built thousands of miles of them. Russia built a 19
kilometer bridge to Crimea in 2 years after 2 years of planning. It appears to be competently
built on time and on budget. Do you really think this could happen in the USA now? In the 70s
the US was the leader in environmental actions. I wonder if the present day Congress could
even pass bills comparable to the Clean Air ACT or the Clean water bill. US national politics
are a mean joke. Our choice this year for President - two 70+ old white men with mental
issues. Our health system is overpriced. Medical bills are one of the main reasons for
personal bankruptcies. As others mentioned the US life expectancy is falling. As Dmitri Orlov
who watched the Soviet Empire fail said - Empire hollowed out the Soviet Union till it
failed, I see it doing the same thing in the US.
The current 'adjustment' in the USD & living standards is just what the doctor ordered
to allow elites to roll out "tech wave 2" - there is precious little gain to be had from
further staffing & wages cuts to the average shit-kicker, so now the bourgeoisie,
medicos, architects, academics, writers plus all the rest of the tertiary educated types who
blew hundreds of thousands on an education guaranteed to keep them employed, are about to be
tossed on the scrap heap.
We already know from previous stunts such as 911 & the 2008 'global financial
meltdown' that those most disadvantaged by this entirely predictable destruction of lives
will be easily diverted into time-wasting and pointless arguments about the real cause
of the mess.
This will allow the elites to use that diversion to funnel all federal funds into
subsidising the capital costs of the retooling, as both parties have begun to with the
despicable CARES Act, supported by the mad christian right in the senate, as well as the
so-called socialists in the Congress squad.
All the Cares Act does is inject capital into big corporations, boosting their stock price
& leaving citizens to lose most of their unemployment benefit. Citizens get evicted from
their homes. This time it will be tenants as well as home owners.
Both of those factions of elite enablers are going to create a great deal of noise and
crass finger pointing. The squad will jump up and down about this being a deliberate attack
on citizens by the elite while senate fundies will claim that this 'retooling' is the result
of unreasonable pay & working conditions demands by the communist unions.
What should be a universal expression of disgust will be reduced to just another culture
war.
Neither will ever admit that it is far too late to be worrying about cause, it is time to
concern themselves with effect, because to do so would create focus back on where the money
was going at time when it is important to be saying "everyone is hurting, including the
elites". Fools.
Eventually when the deed has been done assorted scummy senators & creepy congress
people will announce "It is time to move on" That will be a signal that treasury tanks are
dry, the elites have gotten everything which wasn't nailed down so now the citizens can roll
clawing & scratching in the mud.
I have no doubt that will be the direction of discussion here as well, it is much easier
to sit at a keyboard digging out obscure 'facts' that 'prove' one point of view or another,
than it is to leave the keyboard behind and put work into resisting the elites and in doing
so forcing a change that is more citizen friendly.
With the return of Russia to the geo-political arena, US can no longer destroy counties at
will through conventional weapons nor color revolutions and AQ freedom fighters.
Trump decided to go nuclear, so Russia placed its nuclear umbrella over it allies.
US can no longer destroy countries at will. It can attack a country and risk ensuring its own
destruction.
So back to hybrid war and proxie war ... but now the field is narrowed down to five-eyes and
in the case of China - India.
So to keep Russia out, yankistan has to rely on conventional war and hybrid war, though we
are looking at a country where the lunatics are in charge of the asylum so anything could
happen.
The MNCs producing it, the MSS, NSA and GCHQ, the IoT idiots and all authoritarians on the
globe. Consumers are happy with 3G: many don't even have 4G reception - give that to
them.
With IoT more unemployment, more electricity and Internet dependency, more chance of hacks
or natural disruptions (solar flares), more 1984.
The Chinese Communist Party wants a tributary international system where smaller countries
are deferential to larger powers, instead of a rules-based international order where
small countries enjoy equal rights.
The US/UK declining won't bother most billionaires with those passports: they just buy any
other. Stuck are the millions of others.
Equally "China" ascending brings joy for all billionaires around the globe holding stock
depending on Chinese near monopolies, including Anglo-es.
Some middle class Chinese are beginning to see that dying "rich" is is very limited goal,
as zero can be taken to the Here After and the price for this Now is too high. Money is not
everything. Welcome to this select club, Chinese brothers and sisters. Sure, a bit is good to
live but amassing is a waste of precious time and attention.
The US lacks the capacity to erect an "economic wall" that can stop China's
development. Trump's "trade war" was an attempt to do just that, and America got
steamrolled.
To be sure, the US can attempt even more irrational and desperate acts such as trying to
seize assets owned by Chinese people and organizations in the US, but that would be America
shooting itself in the head rather than just the foot.
The US simply does not posses the ability to "take the wind out of China's sails" .
That is not something that is within America's power to accomplish without going kinetic by,
for instance, trying to enforce a naval blockade of China's maritime transport routes. At
this point there are no economic measures America can take that will not do vastly more
damage to America than to China. Both trade war and bio attack were the best options America
had, and America has suffered grievously from those efforts with relatively minimal impact on
China. China's economy remains fundamentally strong while America's economy is
devastated.
As for disrupting China's international development efforts, America has been trying its
hardest for years now with the only impact being minor delays in China's plans. The only way
to truly disrupt China's international development efforts would be to offer a better deal,
but America no longer has anything to offer that is better. The only option left to America
to delay the BRI for longer would be a kinetic one, and the door is closing on that.
from the perspective of the US 'Deep State' or Western power-elite the failure to fight the
virus is a net positive if the repercussions are blamed on China (in addition to other
'positives' from their perspective: saving on cost of care to elderly, boosting Big Pharma
profits, etc.) -
It will not be possible to blame China, simply because no one believes the US press any
longer, and there is no convincing the woman or man on the street that US handling of the
virus has been in any way competent. We may not understand its virulence, and we perhaps
don't understand yet how to cope with it, but the example of China has been clear from the
earliest moments, and that speaks louder than any false rhetoric can claim.
We know what we have been experiencing in comparison with others who acted with celerity,
and that basically was what was needed. The US chose to go it alone, at its peril. It stuck
by a set of rules it had made for itself in these last years - rules which have not benefited
the people at large. It all comes down to that.
I would not quote a Zionist dominated source like Wikipedia on anything politically
sensitive and the article you refer to is in any case 10 years out of date. However if you
read it it refers to two foreign-owned firms, and it mentions that there are (In 2010)plans
to double wages in the next ten years which has happened. The article also states"
Strikes are not new in China. Chinese authorities have long tolerated limited, local
protests by workers unhappy over wages or other issues.[40] The Pearl River Delta alone has
up to 10,000 labor disputes each year. In the spring of 2008, a local union official
described strikes as "as natural as arguments between a husband and wife".[41] The Chinese
government sought balance on the issue; while it has recently repeated calls for increased
domestic consumption through wage increases and regulations, it is also aware that labour
unrest could cause political instability.[42][43]
In response to the string of employee suicides at Foxconn, Guangdong CPC chief Wang Yang
called on companies to improve their treatment of workers. Wang said that "economic growth
should be people-oriented".[44] As the strikes intensified, Wang went further by calling
for more effective negotiations mechanisms, particularly the reform of existing trade
unions. At the same time, authorities began shutting down some websites reporting on the
labour incidents, and have restricted reporting, particularly on strikes occurring at
domestic-owned factories.[46][47] Guangdong province also announced plans to
"professionalize union staff" by taking union representatives off of company payroll to
ensure their independence from management influence.
Which indicates to me that the suicides alerted the government to the fact that
these firms were making the lives of their workers miserable and took steps to improve the
control of them. They obviously realized that the Union officials had been bought by the
management. I wonder how the British government or the USG would have reacted? What I am
certain about is that the MSM would have been much less enthusiastic about reporting it.
IMO, taking a good look at Brazil's situation provides close to a mirror image for those
within the Outlaw US Empire having trouble seeing clearly. Too often we forget to look
South at the great sewer and its misery US Imperialism's created. It may be getting
defeated in Eurasia, but it's winning in Latin America.
That sewer of misery was running full flush during Susan Rice's rise through the
ranks.
National Security Adviser to Obummer 2013 - 2017,
US Ambassador to the UN 2009 - 2013
Do read the rest:
And well beyond South America.
Now she is close to seizing the prize of VP to Biden. She is a iron war horse of
formidable capacity and mendacity given her past roles. She has few redeeming features. She
will conform exactly to the dictats of the permanent state and she will easily step right
over Joe Biden as he either falls or is taken down at the most opportune time.
What drole sense of humour thought of this - the hapless Trump squeezed between two black
American presidents. Seems like something the Clintons dreamed up.
"It was asked upthread if the US citizenry would trade its no-longer existing Superpower
status for decent living standards.... There're only two forces keeping the American people
from attaining freedom from the above fundamental fear and having lifelong security: The
Duopoly and its Donor Class, the Rentier Class of Feudalistic Parasites that are the enemy of
virtually all humanity."
The US citizenry will choose decent living standards in a heartbeat, but the present
arrangement for eating off the labour of deplorables is just too profitable for the Duopoly
& Donor Class to be permitted to change for a couple decades more.
Perhaps they will move on when there is no more meat on the American corpse, or when they
have built up a sufficiently large group of useful idiots in China to begin eating off the
backs of deplorables with Chinese characteristics.
Anything is possible, with the right amount of moolah, even overcoming Confucian morals.
Joshua Wong comes to mind, who not only does idiotic, but actually looks idiotic.
In a segment due to air this
weekend, 'America This Week' host Eric Bolling sat down with Dr Judy Mikovits, a disgraced scientist who believes that the
coronavirus pandemic was orchestrated by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases head Dr Anthony Fauci and Bill
Gates to push vaccines on the population – a theory she set out in the documentary film 'Plandemic,' which has been effectively
censored off the internet.
Bolling called Mikovits' claims "hefty," and brought on medical contributor Dr Nicole Saphier to refute them, but CNN
claimed
the
host didn't push back hard enough against Mikovits' "baseless conspiracy theory," and hammered Bolling for allowing Mikovits to
"continue to make her case."
As CNN's article circulated
on Twitter on Saturday morning, the network's liberal audience called for a boycott of Sinclair. The broadcaster initially stood
by its decision to run the segment, declaring that
"at no juncture are we aligning with or
endorsing the viewpoints of Dr Mikovits."
However, within an hour,
Sinclair bent the knee and pulled the episode from the air until additional content could be added to counter Mikovits.
"All
stations have been notified not to air this and will instead be re-airing last week's episode in its place,"
Sinclair
tweeted. For good measure, the company added
"we valiantly support Dr Fauci and the work he
and his team are doing to further prevent the spread of Covid-19."
Sinclair is an incredibly
powerful organization to have been swayed by an online outrage campaign. The company and its partner organizations own nearly 300
local TV stations around the country, and reach 40 percent of American households.
Proponents of the boycott
celebrated their victory on Twitter, declaring that
"we shamed them into doing the right
thing."
Amid a recent upsurge in
'cancel culture,' few campaigns have brought a company to its knees as fast as Saturday's blitz by CNN. Similar campaigns have
been mounted against Fox News'
Tucker
Carlson
– with an advertiser boycott and attempts by journalists to doxx his family among the most recent moves, but Carlson
remains on the air and unapologetic.
For Bolling and his
colleagues at Sinclair on the other hand, it's back to the studio to reshoot their offending segment at CNN's behest.
"... Attempting to neutralise a global competitor is the main goal of Americans. Neutralising China's rapid, dynamic development is the essence of the American strategy ..."
Recap from today's Global Times where the argument is to continue to stay the
course and counterpunch in the typical martial arts fashion, as this op/ed from today's Global
Times says :
"Chinese analysts said Sunday the key for China to handle the US offensive is to focus on
its own development and insist on continued reform and opening-up to meet the increasing
needs of Chinese people for better lives. In the upcoming three months, before the November
US presidential election, the China-US relationship is in extreme danger as the Trump
administration is likely to launch more aggressions to force China to retaliate, they
said."
Stay the course; Trump's shit is just an election ploy. However,
"The US' posturing is serving to distract from domestic pressure over President Trump's
failure in handling the pandemic when Trump is seeking reelection this year, Chinese
observers said. However, the Trump administration's China stance still reflects bipartisan
consensus among US elites, so China should not expect significant change in US policy toward
China even if there is a power transition in November, which means China should prepare
itself for a long fight."
Don't stray from the Long Game. An international conference was held that I'll try to get
a link for. Here's GT's summation:
"According to the Xinhua News Agency on Saturday, international scholars said at a virtual
meeting on the international campaign against a new cold war on China on Saturday that
'aggressive statements and actions by the US government toward China poses a threat to world
peace and a potential new cold war on China goes against the interests of humanity.'
"The meeting gathered experts from a number of countries including the US, China, Britain,
India, Russia and Canada.
"Experts attending the meeting issued a statement calling upon the US to step back from
this threat of a cold war and also from other dangerous threats to world peace it is engaged
in.
"The reason why international scholars are criticizing the US rather than China is that
they can see how restrained China remains and the sincerity of China to settle the tension by
dialogue, even though the US is getting unreasonably aggressive, said Chinese experts.
"Washington has made a huge mistake as it has chosen the wrong target - China - to be 'the
common enemy or common fear' to reshape its declining leadership among the West. Right now,
the common enemy of humanity is COVID-19, and this is why its new cold war declaration
received almost no positive responses from other major powers and even raised concern, said
Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, on
Sunday."
Today's Global Timeslead editorial asked most of the
questions everyone else's asking:
"People are asking: How far will the current China-US confrontation keep going? Will a new
cold war take shape? Will there be military conflicts and will the possible clashes evolve
into large-scale military confrontation between the two?
"Perhaps everyone believes that China does not want a new cold war, let alone a hot war.
But the above-mentioned questions have become disturbing suspense because no one knows how
wild the ambitions the US ruling team has now, and whether American and international
societies are capable of restraining their ambitions."
IMO, the editor's conclusions are quite correct:
"The world must start to act and do whatever it can to stop Washington's hysteria in its
relations with China.
"Right now, it is no longer a matter of whether China-US ties are in freefall, but whether
the line of defense on world peace is being broken through by Washington. The world must
not be hijacked by a group of political madmen. The tragedies in 1910s and 1930s must not be
repeated again ."
Trump is elevated to the same plane as Hitler and Mussolini, and the Outlaw US Empire is
now the equivalent of Nazi Germany and the Fascist drive to rule the world--a well
illustrated trend that's been ongoing since 1991 that only those blinded by propaganda aren't
capable of seeing. I think it absolutely correct for China to focus its rhetoric on the
Outlaw US Empire's utter failure to control COVID, which prompts some probing questions made
from the first article:
"Shen Yi, a professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan
University, told the Global Times on Sunday that there is wide consensus among the
international community that the COVID-19 pandemic is the most urgent challenge that the
world should deal with. Whether on domestic epidemic control or international cooperation,
the US has done almost nothing right compared to China's efforts to assist others and its
successful control measures for domestic outbreaks .
"In response to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's 'new Iron Curtain speech' at the
Richard Nixon Presidential Library on Thursday declaring a new cold war against China, Shen
said, ' We can also ask 'is Pompeo an ally of coronavirus?' Because he wants to confuse
the world to target the wrong enemy amid the tough fight against the pandemic, so that the
virus can kill more people, especially US people, since his country is in the worst
situation .'
Shen said, 'In 2018, US Vice President Mike Pence already made a speech which the media
saw as a new 'Iron Curtain speech,' and in 2020, Pompeo made a similar speech again, which
means their cold war idea is not popular and brings no positive responses from its allies, so
they need to try time and again. Of course, they will fail again.'" [My Emphasis]
Wow! The suggestion that Trump, Pompeo, Pence, and company want to "kill more people,
especially US people" seems to be proven via their behavior which some of us barflies
recognize and have discussed. Now that notion is out in the public, internationally. You
don't need Concentration Camps and ovens when the work can be done via the dysfunctional
structure of your economy and doing nothing about the situation.
Shen provides the clincher, what Gruff, myself, and others have said here:
"'So if we want to win this competition that was forced by the US, we must focus on our
own development and not get distracted. The US is not afraid of a cold war with us, it is
afraid of our development .'" [My Emphasis]
My synopsis of both articles omitted some additional info, so do please click the links to
read them fully.
Sputnik offers
this analysis of the China/Outlaw US Empire issue , where I found this bit quite apt from
"Alexey Biryukov, senior adviser at the Centre for International Information Security,
Science and Technology Policy (CIIS) MGIMO-University":
"'The US is fighting with a country that is developing very rapidly, gaining power,
increasing its competitiveness in areas where previously there was undeniably US leadership.
Attempting to neutralise a global competitor is the main goal of Americans. Neutralising
China's rapid, dynamic development is the essence of the American strategy .
Meanwhile, China is interested in developing friendly relations with all countries.
Recently, it presented the idea of building a community of common destiny for humanity.
That's what Sino-American relations should be built around . It would seem that the
pandemic should have brought people together around the idea of building a prosperous world
for all, not just someone. But the Americans didn't understand that: they started looking for
the guilty ones. This is the favourite strategy of Anglo-Saxons, Americans including, to
look for the guilty . As a result, they found their main competitor – China'". [My
Emphasis]
That is the "guilty ones" that aren't within the Outlaw US Empire. Many more opinions are
provided in the article, but they all revolve around the one theme of Trump's actions being
motivated by the election and his morbidly poor attempts to corral COVID.
French authorities have told telecoms operators planning to buy Huawei 5G equipment that
they won't be able to renew licences for the gear once they expire, effectively phasing the
Chinese firm out of mobile networks, three sources close to the matter said.
####
Quelle surprise that they fall in to line too. No doubt €µ will say something
different to Beijing that France values 'friendly ties' with China, but the die is cast. It
must be tempting for Beijing to kill two birds with one stone by pulling the plug on UK NPPs
as France's EDF is also the project lead. The anti-China crowd want it out of any European
NPPs likewise. We'll see
What a triumph for the global bully. Well, as I have said before – marry in haste,
repent at leisure. European countries which commit to an inferior network just for the
privilege of having Uncle Sam spy on their every move instead of the Chinese will have many
years to ponder their gutlessness. The USA knows now that is in a fight to the finish, and
will want to consolidate as much of the globe as possible under its solid control. But those
who are in thrall will regularly be reminded who is the boss, with forced concessions to
American objectives, so let's have no more of this 'sovereignty' pap. If you're in, you're
ALL in.
It will mess up Huawei's plans and give the iPhone a new lease on life, but it will also
sharpen the division between East and West in terms of networks and smartphones. iPhones will
be bigger in the west as Huawei fades from competition, but iPhones should all but vanish
from the shelves in Asia, which was the growth market, especially China. Loyal American ally
Japan might become a bit of an outlier in its own region. Washington will have a much harder
time spying on China as the demand for American electronics dries up. What goes around comes
around, and the search will be on for neutral companies from whom you can buy a cheap
smartphone to use while you're going from one side to the other, which can draw on the
networks of both. America has been successful to a significant degree in excluding a
competitor who makes a superior product – which, by the bye, goes completely against
the blabber America spouts about a level playing field and trade based on merit – but I
am confident it will not go unanswered by China and American products in China will suffer as
a consequence.
Not a chance. Too many people's livelihood depends on war. From billionaires to the person
who putting bullets in boxes. Anyone who advocate no war will end up in prison for colluding
with the Russians.
monty42 , 16 hours ago
Colluding with the Reds, Terrorists, Chicoms, Covid...pick an enemy. That's how it works.
They roll out their psyops and make sure to inform you up front that those who question the
narrative are in the enemy column.
uhland62 , 14 hours ago
They've done it with us since 1970.
A_Huxley , 15 hours ago
Contractors like their world travel and over time.
Too many US camps, forts, bases around the world to keep working.
quanttech , 13 hours ago
The single most powerful voice against the wars in the last two years has been Tucker
Carlson - and look at what they're doing to him.
optimator , 8 hours ago
A vibrant economy can't tell the difference between manufacturing a submarine or a
refrigerator.
monty42 , 16 hours ago
Honor your oath and the wars for empire will stop. A standing army is only viable through
the Constitution for a short term defense of the States, not for endless wars of aggression
and invasion for the spread of a military empire.
quanttech , 13 hours ago
Correct. Lt. Ehren Watada refused his illegal orders to deploy to Iraq. His case was
dismissed, and he was simply discharged. Today he co-owns a restaurant in Vegas.
THERE'S LITERALLY NO PENALTY FOR FOLLOWING THE LAW.
alexcojones , 16 hours ago
As an old veteran, I've spent 50 years atoning some how, some way, myself.
"Vietnam veteran Tim O'Brien wrote: "There should be a law . . . If you support a war, if
you think it's worth the price, that's fine, but you have to put your own precious fluids on
the line. You have to head for the front and hook up with an infantry unit and help spill the
blood." As every old veteran knows, the day that happens is the day warfare ends forever,
when bullets are fattening rather than fatal to your health.
Heinlein's proposal in Starship Troopers - that only combat troops be given the franchise
to vote - is a concept with merit
ConanTheContrarian1 , 8 hours ago
I don't know that we have to make atonement. The official government position that we were
invited there to help the legitimate government of South VietNam still holds water. The
Nguyen and Tranh had been at war with each other for centuries until the French took over,
and the war was simply a continuation that the Dogpile Democrats of the day didn't see as
anything other than a way to make money. Just because you reject rightwing propaganda, don't
fall for the leftwing either.
Atlana99 , 16 hours ago
We need thousands of hardcore street activists to print these fliers out and place them on
car windshields all across America:
By Graham Dockery, Irish journalist, commentator, and writer at RT. Previously based in
Amsterdam, he wrote for DutchNews and a scatter of local and national newspapers.
Dark, incisive, and anti-authoritarian, George Carlin was a rebel until death. Now the woke
left have claimed him as their own, a figurehead in their anti-Trump crusade. But George's
legacy isn't one of feelgood social justice.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it,"
Carlin sneered in a famous 2005 monologue. In a devastating broadside against politicians, the
media, corporate interests, and the "dumb ass motherf**kers" who remain ignorant to the
"big red white and blue d**k jammed up their a**holes everyday," Carlin takes no
prisoners, and the crowd delights in his shredding of the status quo.
Now, a group of activists based in Portland have repackaged the famous monologue, putting it
alongside video clips of President Donald Trump's America: race riots, coronavirus deaths, and
of course, Trump shaking hands with Vladimir Putin. "#AmericaWakeUp," reads a caption at
the end of the clip.
Released on Sunday, the video was cheered by the anti-Trump brigade. "This video is
completely devastating for Trump," one activist wrote . "George Carlin
gives him the finger from the grave." More commenters shared the video, encouraging their followers
to vote Democrat in November.
However, Carlin's hatred for politicians and the elite was not just limited to the
Republican Party. Throughout his career, Carlin ripped on the "criminal" administration
of Ronald Reagan, both Bushes' fondness for "bombing brown people," and Bill Clinton,
who he said "might be full of shit, but at least he lets you know it."
The "big club" Carlin talked about in the latest video included Democrat and
Republican lawmakers, and Carlin didn't shy away from skewering both.
Furthermore, Carlin's best and most loved routines were written and performed when the right
held more cultural sway in the US. From Nancy Reagan's moralizing to the media-enforced
patriotism of the post-9/11 years, Carlin could count on the right as a reliable target. Times
have changed though, and the left holds far more power now than it did two decades ago.
Conservatives are regularly 'deplatformed' on college campuses, politically incorrect speech
can jeopardize one's career, and the consensus enforced by the mainstream media is
overwhelmingly a liberal one, no matter how many clips of Fox News' Tucker Carlson the Portland
activists can splice into their video.
"Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance," Carlin wrote in
2004, adding "political correctness is just fascism pretending to be manners." In an
autobiography published a year after his death in 2008, he was even more explicit.
"The habits of liberals, their automatic language, their knee-jerk responses to certain
issues, deserved the epithets the right wing stuck them with," he wrote. "Here they
were, banding together in packs, so I could predict what they were going to say about some
event or conflict and it wasn't even out of their mouths yet Liberal orthodoxy was as repugnant
to me as conservative orthodoxy."
Carlin is unfortunately not alive to offer his opinion on the times we live in. However,
it's not difficult to imagine him scoffing at the media's non-stop 'Russiagate' hysteria , just as
he scoffed at the media's coverage of the Gulf War in the 1990s, accusing the press of working
as an "unofficial public relations agency for the United States government." It's also
easy to picture him tuning out of the 'Orange Man Bad' liberal consensus on Trump, even if he
would probably savage his policies and personality.
That's assuming he would even have a stage in the first place. After all, Carlin delighted
in provoking the would-be speech police, with his 1970s '7 Dirty Words' routine aimed explicitly at angering the
censors. An updated version of this routine could well see him canceled by the woke
torchbearers of the social justice movement.
Closing consulates is far from the best foreign policy and fat Pompeo known it. It just
starts the unnecessary and counter productive spiral of retaliation and Chinese have more
leverage over the USA as more the USA diplomatic personnel woks in China than the china
diplomatic personnel in the USA. They were always burned in Russia and now they stepped on the
same rake again.
Maybe fat Pompeo knows he's on his way out and desperate to make a lasting mark on the
geopolitical stage on behalf of the West Point mafia and his brothers-in-arm at the Jweish
mafia.
QABubba , 8 hours ago
Quit stealing Russian consulates, Chinese consulates, etc.
It serves no purpose.
Haboob , 7 hours ago
Closing diplomacy with nations as USA shrinks on the world stage shows America's juvenile
behavior.
Salisarsims , 7 hours ago
We are a young twenty something nation what do you expect but drama.
Haboob , 7 hours ago
It is funny how the young and arrogant always think they are right and have manifest
destiny over the old and wise. The young never listen to the old and as the story goes they
are defeated everytime. China is older than America, older than the west, they understand
this world we are living in far more than we do.
me or you , 9 hours ago
He is right!
The world has witnessed the US is not more than a banana Republic with a banana healthcare
system
To Hell In A Handbasket , 9 hours ago
I love seeing how gullible the USSA dunces are susceptible to hating an imaginary enemy.
Go on dunces wave the star spangled banner, and place the hand over the heart, you
non-critical thinking imbeciles. I told you fools years ago we are going to invoke the Yellow
Peril 2.0, and now we are living it. China bad, is just as stupid as Russia bad, while the
state stenographers at the MSM netowrks do all in their power to hide our rotten
behaviour.
Who falls for this ****? The poorly educated, and the inherently stupid.
To Hell In A Handbasket , 8 hours ago
No, it's called nationalism or self preservation.
What are the citizens of the US suppose to do,
You are wrong on so many levels, but ultimately the Chinese have beaten us at our own
rigged game. When I was riling against unfettered free-markets, and the movement of capital,
that allowed the west for centuries to move into undeveloped foreign markets and gain a
stranglehold, I was called a communist, and a protectionist.
While the USSA money printing b@stards was roaming around the planet like imperialists,
and their companies was not only raping the planet, but gouging foreign markets, the average
USSA dunce was brainwashed into believing USSA companies were the best.
Now these same market and economic rules we the west have set for the last several hundred
years no longer work for us, we want to change the rules. Again, my point is "where was you
on this position 5-10-20-30 years ago?" I've always seen this outcome, because logic said so.
To reject our own status quo, and return to mercantilism, makes us look like the biggest
hypocrites ever.
If you allow a foreigner to give advice (although I should mind my own business) this is
one proposal to save America. President Trump goes to the Republican Convention and says: "I
admit that I am problematic, we all know that it is unfair, but we had four years of lies and
derangement, and it was not my fault, but anyway I don't accept the nomination, I step back
and I propose as candidate Tucker Carlson. Please give him a standing ovation". Then have a
live TV debate between Carlson and Biden.
You know, of course, that Carlson is just as compromised, more probably, as Trump or Obama
or Biden or you name it, don't you? And just as blackmailable and just as bribable?
Perhaps the best way to
describe Tucker Carlson's career at the moment is with a borrowed quote from 'A Tale of Two Cities': "
It
was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness...
" Although
the Fox News personality is at the top of his game, never before has his career looked more precarious than right now.
Last month, as the Covid
pandemic was sweeping the country, and the streets were exploding amid 'peaceful' Black Lives Matter protests, 'Tucker Carlson
Tonight' was the highest-rated cable news show in the country. That special honor, however, was marred by scandal and, some
would argue, the fake outrage and hyper-sensitivities of social justice warriors.
Carlson attracted the
wrath of his detractors for daring to say that the rioting and looting that broke out during the BLM protests was "
definitely
not about black lives.
" He went on to argue that it was critical to tell the truth when confronted by "the mob,"
otherwise "
they will crush you.
"
Regardless of what one may
think of those comments – and for the record, many black people agreed with him – the point is that Carlson's remarks deviated
180 degrees from the position of the mainstream media and the establishment. As punishment for merely expressing his
constitutionally protected opinion, shared by millions of other Americans, many of Carlson's corporate sponsors resorted to
what could be called institutional
censorship
,
pulling their crucial advertising from his show.
Yet who will freeze
funding of the establishment and 'legacy media' for downplaying the severity of the BLM and Antifa violence to such a degree
that the takeover of six blocks in Seattle was described by the Democratic mayor of that once-fair city as just another
chapter in the "
summer of love
?" Funny, that harmless love-in – which has spread
like wildfire to Portland, Oregon – has evoked so much illicit passion that it has forced Trump to send in federal forces to
quell the orgy of wanton naughtiness. Eat your heart out, Woodstock!
In another rebellious act of dissenting (ie. unacceptable) journalism, Carlson
laid
out
the Democratic Party's devious plan for getting their feeble-minded presidential nominee, Joe Biden, into the White
House: keep the American people in a state of pain and suffering for as long as humanly possible because "
unhappy
people want change.
"
"
Every
ominous headline about the state of the country makes it more likely that Donald Trump will lose his job
," Carlson told
his estimated four million viewers. "
The Democrats have a strong incentive, therefore,
to inflict as much pain as they can, and that's what they're doing
."
He then went on to explain
how Democratic governors ratcheted up the unhappiness by "
banning citizens from visiting
their own weekend homes,
" for example, while in New Jersey people were "
arrested
for going to the beach.
"
Needless to say, those are
not talking points one would ever hear on CNN or MSNBC. Indeed, Tucker Carlson is a one-man information wrecking crew
challenging, night after night, the combined efforts of the mainstream media to keep the average American viewer strapped into
a form-fitting straitjacket of 'acceptable opinion'. Billions of dollars have been spent purchasing that outfit, and the
owners will not relinquish control without a major fight, which usually happens behind the scenes.
Therefore, was it any
coincidence that, smack in the middle of Carlson's record-smashing ratings, with the US presidential elections quickly
approaching (in case it wasn't clear by now, Carlson is a serious Trump supporter), his top writer Blake Neff was forced to
resign after it was revealed he had a habit of posting racist and sexist remarks pseudonymously in online chat rooms? Any
guesses as to the name of the outfit that undertook that impressive bit of investigative journalism at such a convenient time
to bust Neff? If you guessed
CNN
,
you already understand the situation that Carlson is facing.
While being popular isn't
necessarily a bad thing – especially for the talk show circuit, where ratings are watched like the stock market – it can
become extremely problematic in the United States, where the mainstream media is so far left its capital could be San
Francisco. In fact, just this week, Carlson told his viewers that the New York Times was planning to reveal his address in an
article.
Although the Times denied they had plans to reveal such information, the fact that such accusations are flying between major
news organizations speaks to the level of hostility and mistrust now rampant across the country.
Tucker Carlson is caught
in a Catch-22 where the public, as well as his myriad competitors and enemies, have become just as interested in his life as
the stories he covers night after night. This popularity shines a powerful light on his controversial topics, which, in the
most consequential presidential election to come along in many years, explains why he is so loathed. Perhaps it is time for
Tucker Carlson to get out of the media business while he still can, and try his hand at politics, as many of his ardent
supporters have suggested. Who knows, he might even make an outstanding vice president.
Like this story? Share it
with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
The American Revolution was a catastrophe for its economy, which had to endure decades of
reconstruction. In order to neutralize the threat of the British Empire, it stroke multiple
trade deals with it.
The USA is home to the father of protectionism: Alexander Hamilton. He stated that a
national industry in its infancy should be protected from its more mature competition. The
USA followed his advice and protected its nascent industry from the British threat.
When the British Empire begun to degenerate, the Americans used the cheap British capital
in excess in the financial markets to build up their infrastructure, specially their
railways. Australia did the same.
The Founding Fathers did what they had to do in order to protect their country and make it
flourish. When the ideology of the time stated they shouldn't, they invented a new ideology
that stated they should. And the could: when the British and French tried to destroy the USA
through a sea embargo, they responded in kind (Embargo Act of 1807) and prevailed; they did
not cave in to the then imperial powers.
So, I don't understand why so many Americans are offended with China. The capitalist world
tried to keep China poor and as a raw material exporter, sweatshop conglomeration. China
didn't accept this, and decided to fight back. The result is here for all of us to see.
When I heard about this, I began to pray for Tucker and his family's safety and protection. This hit me hard and
actually broke my heart. I will continue to intercede for this family and pray God keeps an open door for his (and
everyone's) freedom of speech.
Well said Tucker. It's a shame that "professionals" don't tend to own accountability for their actions. It's
un-American for them to do that to your family.
Tucker, I have never commented on any show ever and I'm almost 70 years old. But I am ashamed of my country and
astounded by how the law allows this kind of behavior to happen. You're good people, and your reporting is very
important and excellent. I will be praying for your family for protection. And for someway for retribution. God bless
you.
"Much of the focus of the Trump administration's trade dispute with China has centered on
the size of the U.S. bilateral trade deficit. Most economists agree that this focus is
misdirected, and that the existence or size of bilateral trade deficits should not generally
be a matter of concern or a target of public policy. Instead, there is bipartisan agreement
regarding a different problem at the core of trade issues with China: China's persistent
misappropriation of foreign technology. Forced technology transfer occurs when foreign
multinational companies have to provide strategically significant technology to an indigenous
entity they do not control in order to gain access to the massive Chinese market." https://econofact.org/what-is-the-problem-of-forced-technology-transfer-in-china
The western oligarchs want the Chinese oligarchs to be more fair, in particular Huawei to
transfer their tech the other way in order to play in western markets.
"The global business community would generally prefer that business with Huawei could just go
on as usual. Huawei and its affiliates are the acclaimed leaders in 5G technology, and the
rest of the commercial world wants to have access to that technology, and also to be able to
interoperate with it. In other words, to the extent that western companies agree with the US
administration the risks, they have decided that the rewards outweigh those risks and are
willing to accept them -- as most recently evidenced by the news yesterday relating to how
many US components are finding their way into Chinese handsets." https://www.zdnet.com/article/huawei-changes-its-patent-story/
Furthermore, Houston is one the main cities where total 5g tech is being implemented first
along with L.A and Chicago.
Forced Tech Transfers Are on the Rise in China, European Firms Say
The practice has become more widespread despite official assurances from Beijing it would be
stopped
Is the US right to cry foul about forced technology transfer to do business in China
– and what is Beijing's position?
Foreign companies' concerns about having to share their tech secrets are among the matters
being discussed in ongoing US-China trade talks
Beijing's draft foreign investment law could legislate against the practice, but businesses
are sceptical about enforcement
Over
the past 10 years, several main theses of the agenda of globalism in its new form have been
formed. This is not an official doctrine, but rather a marker of the definition of "friend-foe"
for an ideology sometimes called "GloboHomo". It stands for "globalized, homogenous", not what
you thought. If you do not like this term, it is possible to use a more euphonious expression
of "Fucking Scum". So, among the most important components are the following:
"Global warming", often replaced by "climate change" in cases where it is associated
with abnormal cold or flooding. This can only be discussed in disastrous terms. Humanity
faces a terrible future if we do not drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the near
future, do not invest trillions of subsidies in "green energy", and do not reduce the
consumption of animal proteins and industrial goods. Any deviation from the genral line -
that the rate of warming may be significantly less than stated, that there may be important
factors other than anthropogenic contributing to climate change, or that funds may be more
effectively invested in coping with the effects of warming rather than preventing it-is
anti-scientific heresy, and should be subject to maximum censorship.
LGBT Rights, maximum gender fluidity. "Tolerance" in the true meaning of this word
is no longer sufficient, and a neutral attitude towards LGBT people is equated with hidden
homophobia and "transphobia". LGBT people only need to be touched and admired, you can not
criticize any aspects of the LGBT lifestyle. Any psychological or social problems specific to
the LGBT community should be explained by homophobia and transphobia on the part of the rest
of society, but not by internal problems of the LGBT community itself.
Refugees and freedom of immigration from poor countries . Rich and
middle-developed countries should not prevent formally illegal migration from underdeveloped
countries. Purely economic migration should be defined as much as possible through political,
religious or national persecution. The own poor (if they are not special minorities) should
not have an advantage over migrants in obtaining social benefits. Middle-class taxpayers are
required to fork out substantial subsidies to migrants, often allowing them to stay out of
work most of the time or even for life. National or racial profiling or the collection of
statistics that may indicate increased problems with crime, dependency or family violence in
a migrant environment should not be encouraged. The desire to preserve the traditional
national culture and national composition must be equated with racism or even fascism.
Migrants should not be forced to integrate quickly into the local culture.
These are General trends, and individual stormy movements like " Me Too "and" Black Lives
Matter " fit into them.
This agenda, with a pronounced left-wing bias, is relatively recent, about 10 years old. The
above theses have existed much longer, but until recently they were not the main mainstream
markers of globalism. And 20 years ago, the globalist agenda was radically different. From
about the early 80's to the mid-noughties, this agenda consisted of theses more generally known
as the"Washington Consensus". It contains about 10 theses, but we can briefly distinguish three
main topics:
Privatization, maximum withdrawal of the state from the economy. Everything
state-owned is inefficient, only an "effective private owner" can make the right economic
decisions.
Reducing social spending. Only "individual responsibility" allows full
disclosure of human potential, state assistance is ineffective and breeds dependency.
Financialization , maximum development of financial markets. Capital markets are the
main or even the only judges of all economic and political decisions. They need to be cajoled
as much as possible as ancient deities, including sacrificing a large part of the population
that "did not fit" into these markets.
This is a very different, clearly right-wing agenda. The
"Washington Consensus" is almost forgotten now. Its collapse actually occurred at the turn of
the 90s and the nineties , in particular after the Russian default of 1998, and especially
after Russia, instead of a complete collapse, experienced rapid growth according to recipes
very different from the "Washington Consensus" of the 90s.
In 2001, in Argentina, which was
considered an "exemplary student" of the "Washington Consensus", an even larger default and
collapse than in Russia (and according to a scenario close to the Russian one), and the
subsequent recovery from the crisis also occurred according to very different recipes. The
"left turn", with the abandonment of the VC in the early nineties occurred almost throughout
Latin America.
After the financial crisis of 1997-8, many Asian countries also changed their
policy towards leaving the VC. Soon, even under the Republican administration of George W.
Bush, protectionist tendencies and rejection of the liberal prescription of the 80-90's
intensified in the United States itself.
Despite radical differences, these groups of three theses have a common goal-to undermine
and dilute the industrial society of Modernism, which reached its highest point around the
1960s and 70s, and to try to create a postmodern society based on the models of globalists.
The
direction of attack changed radically-first to the right, then to the left.
You can explain
these trends by a conspiracy of globalists, but the main reasons are the internal
socio-economic cycles of Western society - what I call the transition from the " bourgeois
"phase to the" Bohemian "(and then "bandit"). But I will write about this separately.
That's the question DB's new tech strategist Apjit Walia asks in a new research report, in
which he looks at the interplay between the Post Covid Tech Rally and the Tech Cold War, which
have emerged as two of the most salient aspects of the current market dynamic. And with
tensions between US and China continuing to rise and spread to other parts of the world, the
strategist conducts a top-down analysis of the impact on the Global Information &
Communications Technology sector from a full-blown cold war.
The report finds that the ensuing demand disruption, supply chain upheaval and resultant
"Tech Wall" that would delineate the world into rivaling tech standards could cost the sector
more than $3.5 Trillion over the next five years .
But before getting into the details, we update on the current state of the DB Tech Cold War
Index. As Walia writes, a nuanced observation of the tariff and geopolitical issues between the
US and China over the past few year suggest they are primarily a smaller strategy that is part
of a larger Global Tech Cold War. To reduce the noise from the subjective geopolitical
commentaries, DB created a systematic measure using machine learning to quantify the intensity
of the cold war at any given point of time. It quantitatively analyzes and tracks the sentiment
of the Tech Cold War globally. Not surprisingly, the DB Tech Cold War Index has been trending
higher since 2016 with peaks coinciding with tit-for-tat measures by US and China on technology
IP protection and counter measures. It made an all-time high in April 2020 with the Covid
crisis fueling tensions and has spiraled higher since then. The political headlines are
matching the sentiment among the populace. Recurrent surveys from April to June show that post
Covid tempers remain at elevated levels with 41%+ of Americans and 35%+ of Chinese stating they
will not buy each other's products. An election year in the US further complicates this
geopolitical dynamic.
US and China have been engaging in an increasing capacity since the 1970s and the level of
integration between the two global tech regimes is unprecedented. The integration is a complex
demand and labyrinthine supply chain network that has taken 40 years to develop. DB uses a top
down approach to ascertain the level of revenues and supply chain links across the global ICT
industries to China. To analyze and quantify this complex co-dependent Tech relationship
between the two countries is a challenging task, the bank surveyed Tech managements, CTOs,
Industry associations and supply chain experts globally. The estimate on the total impact is by
no means a solid target but a reference point that should provide context if the cold war
escalates significantly and decoupling picks up momentum. The bank's strategist quantifies the
downside impact on the sector from a material escalation of the tech cold war, categorized
under the following three broad categories:
Loss of domestic Chinese demand
Costs of shifting global supply chain currently located in China
Higher operating costs due to emergence of two divergent tech standards (the "Tech
Wall")
DB looks at a range of downside scenarios including one of a full-fledged tech cold war and
estimate the total impact on the ICT sector from the three factors over a 5-year period to be
around $3.5 trillion. And while the bank thinks that 5-8 years is an appropriate time period
some supply chain experts believe the time to relocate the cluster of supply chain networks
could take as long as 10 years.
Globally, China has about 13% of revenues of the ICT sector amounting to around $730 Billion
per annum. However, a significant part of this is demand from the Chinese tech sector that is
re-exported after some value-add, assembly and packaging ("re-export demand") - this
constitutes supply chain risk . To analyze domestic end demand from China that could be at risk
if tensions escalate leading to IP restrictions, product bans and export-restrictions, DB looks
at the underlying ICT industry groups and their varied re-export mixes from China. The range
varies widely with Telecom services sectors that have minimal revenue exposure all the way to
software services that have pure domestic Chinese consumption (low or no re-export). For
majority of the ICT sector, the range falls between 25%-75% in re-export mix (semiconductors,
electronic components, computer hardware, computer peripherals, electronic equipment sectors).
The weighted average of the re-export demand mix for the whole ICT sector comes to 45%.
Stripping that out of the total ICT revenues, one gets 55% in current organic Chinese
end-demand or $400 Billion in revenues. In the worst case scenario of a full-fledged tech cold
war, the ICT sector would stand to lose these revenues.
Supply Chain Risk
A transition out of Mainland China could take 5-8 years to achieve successfully. Lack of
infrastructure, clustered networks and skilled labor in other countries versus China are major
obstacles. Vietnam, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines are the primary targets for this
transition but most of them would need significant infrastructure upgrades to catch up with the
Chinese supply chain cluster strength.
In most categories, exports outstrip imports, except for electronic components, where
imports are 3x of exports. Electronic components, such as semiconductors are imported and used
as inputs in consumer goods and communication equipment and exported out of China. While
Electronic component manufacturers have the risk of end demand from China declining –
e.g. semis used in communication equipment, majority of the supply chain costs would fall on
the final goods manufacturers who use China as a manufacturing base. When they shift the supply
chain outside, component manufacturers would simply shift the destination of where they ship
components.
The supply chain risk of the ICT sector is estimated to be the built-up book value that is
exposed to China that would require relocation in the event of disengagement. Although book
value provides a decent lower bound measure for the capital
deployed in hard assets, it does not fully account for the economic value of the supply chain
network, which may be quite costly to rebuild. To arrive at an estimate of the book value that
is exposed to supply chain facilities in China, DB analyzed the revenues and Export/Import
ratio of various categories of Tech goods. The book value of the ICT sector tied to China comes
to approximately $500 billion.
The average cost of rebuilding the supply chain will be approximately 1.5 to 2x of the book
value based on feedback from Tech managements and supply chain experts. Using a sustainable
capex rate, it would take 5-8 years to relocate the supply chains. The cost of a transition
over a five year period would come to around $1 Trillion.
Tech Wall Risk
On top of the demand disruption and supply chain upheaval, it would be unavoidable for Tech
companies to operate efficiently in a large part of the "Non Aligned" world without complying
with the two rivaling global standards that would come up as the cold war heats up. The Tech
Wall would entail rival internet platforms, satellite communication networks, telecom
infrastructure regimes, CPU architectures, operating systems, IOT networks and payment systems
with very little inter-operability or interaction. It would mean having to deploy two different
communication and networking standards across several geographies to ensure inter-operability.
In this new world order, these non-aligned countries would require companies to have dual
standard compliance to operate there.
A divergence in standards could increase costs in multiple ways. Increased R&D, design,
product development and related costs for manufacturers. Increased costs of compliance to
different IP, networking, data privacy/localization regimes for corporates. Loss of
interoperability of devices across geographies for consumer. For example, a high-end smartphone
networking gear makes up ~10%-15% of the bill of materials. If phones had to support dual
standards that cost could increase by ~30-70% and can add close to $100 for the end consumer.
For lower end handsets costs would be high enough that manufacturers would probably choose to
cater to a single standard based on geography. Corporations' compliance to different data
localization, privacy rules as well as supporting multiple networking standards would increase
costs by 2-3%.
The Tech Wall's impact on ICT sector could range between 2-3% in incremental costs (capex,
labor) or $100-$150 Billion per year. After some time, these costs would get absorbed as
economies of scale kick in, but that would take about 5 years to average out.
Second and third order effects:
There are also going to be cross effects and second order effects.
One Belt One Road - Loss of market share for ICT would not only be limited to China but
can extend to China allied OBOR markets. However there is a cross effect here - in markets
adopting US standards, western ICT firms would gain share lost by Chinese firms. The net
effect may be relatively small but would be marginally incremental.
Economic downturn - These potential second order effects with substantial uncertainty and
the actual impact would depend to a large extent on policy response - direct government
spending, sector specific policy incentives and tax policy. While we estimate the potential
impact of a full blown tech cold war at $3.5 Trillion over a five year period, the actual
outcome will obviously be path dependent on how both countries approach the economic and
geopolitical trade-offs.
Second and third order effects : There are also going to be cross effects and second
order effects. One Belt One Road - Loss of market share for ICT would not only be limited to
China but can extend to China allied OBOR markets. However there is a cross effect here - in
markets adopting US standards, western ICT firms would gain share lost by Chinese firms. The
net effect may be relatively small but would be marginally incremental. Economic downturn -
These potential second order effects with substantial uncertainty and the actual impact would
depend to a large extent on policy response - direct government spending, sector specific
policy incentives and tax policy.
In summary, while DB estimates the potential impact of a full blown tech cold war at $3.5
Trillion over a five year period, the actual outcome will obviously be path dependent on how
both countries approach the economic and geopolitical trade-offs.
ICT Sector Correlations to Tech Cold War
The following chart shows ICT industry group's revenues to China, this includes sales of
goods that are re-exported out of China after assembly for end consumption
elsewhere.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
DB measured sensitivities of these industry groups to escalations between US and China.
Using the DB Tech Cold War Index, the bank identified 15 major periods of sustained escalation
in news intensity. These are periods where the geopolitical tech dispute news flow picks up
from low initial levels and continues to grow in intensity until it reaches a peak, often
coinciding with major news events or steps on either side. DB then computed the correlations of
these global ICT industry stock returns with the DB Tech Cold War index over these
episodes.
As the chart shows, the market is quite efficient. Industries in the right bottom quadrant
are the ones with the higher revenue exposure to China and have the most sensitivity or
negative stock price correlation to rising tensions. The hardware industries which
predominantly have both revenue and supply chain dependence on China respond sharply to
escalations. Industries with lower revenue exposure to China display defensive characteristics
during rising tensions, and fall in the top left quadrant. Software and service display
defensive characteristics as they have very limited revenue exposure to China. Telecom service
providers have limited revenue exposure and their returns appear to be uncorrelated to
escalation events.
The one surprising exception to this trend is the Semiconductor sector, standing out in the
top right hand quadrant. Contrary to consensus opinion, the analysis shows that semiconductor
stocks are reacting positively to rising cold war tensions despite the sector being the biggest
point of contention in the conflict and high sales exposure to the Chinese market.
This could be driven by several factors. One of the explanations is inventory build that
occurs when tensions rise and companies over order as they are concerned about supply chains
clogging up . These orders could be viewed by the market as incremental demand.
Another factor could be the market considering the sector as defensive given its long term
secular potential and the structural growth becoming less sensitive to business cycles. With
digitization ramping up globally in the post Covid tech ramp, this structural dynamic of the
sector starts to become self-reinforcing.
Anticipated policy support from governments given the centrality of the sector to nation
states in geopolitical tech relevance is also touted as a driving factor in multiples. Clearly,
Semis are key to retaining tech supremacy and form the backbone of any AI or Software
enhancements to institutions and countries.
However, there remains one tail case scenario and that is in the event of disengagement and
escalation of the cold war, Semiconductors will see significant market share and supply chain
disruption that will be too big to be offset by government policy support and central bank
liquidity. This scenario does not seem to have been factored in the current market.
Our website traffic easily broke all records for the month of June, and these high levels
have now continued into July, suggesting that the huge rise produced by the initial wave of
Black Lives Matters protests may be more than temporary. It appears that many new readers first
discovered our alternative webzine at that point, and quite a few have stayed on as regular
visitors.
A longer-term factor that may be strengthening our position is the unprecedented wave of
ideological purges that have swept our country since early June, with prominent figures in the
intellectual and media firmaments being especially hard hit. When opinion-leaders become
fearful of uttering even slightly controversial words, they either grow silent or only mouth
the most saccharine homilies, thereby forcing many of their erstwhile readers to look elsewhere
for more candid discussions. And our own webzine is about as "elsewhere" as one could possibly
get.
Take, for example, the New York Times , more than ever our national newspaper of
record. For the last few years, one of its top figures had been Editorial Page Editor James
Bennet, who had previously run The Atlantic , and he was widely considered a leading
candidate to assume the same position at the Gray Lady after next year's scheduled retirement
of the current top editor. Indeed, with his brother serving as U.S. Senator from Colorado --
and a serious if second-rank presidential candidate -- the Lifestyle section of the
Washington Post had already hailed
the Bennet brothers as the potential saviors of the American establishment.
But then his paper published an op-ed by an influential Republican senator endorsing
President Trump's call for a harsh crackdown on riots and looting, and a Twitter mob of
outraged junior Times staffers organized a revolt. The mission of the NYT Opinion
Pages is obviously to provide a diversity of opinions, but Bennet
was quickly purged .
A similar fate befell the highly-regarded longtime editor of the Philadelphia
Inquirer after his
paper ran a headline considered insufficiently respectful to black rioters . Michigan State
University researchers had raised doubts about the accepted narrative of black deaths at the
hands of police, and physicist Stephen Hsu, the Senior Vice President who had supported their
work,
was forced to resign his administrative position as a consequence.
Numerous other figures of lesser rank have been purged, their careers and livelihoods
destroyed for Tweeting
out a phrase such as "All Lives Matter," whose current classification as "hate speech"
might have stunned even George Orwell. Or perhaps a spouse or other close relative
had denounced the black rioters . The standards of acceptable discourse are changing so
rapidly that positions which were completely innocuous just a few weeks ago have suddenly
become controversial or even forbidden, with punishments sometimes inflicted on a retroactive
basis.
I am hardly alone in viewing this situation with great concern. Just last week, some 150
prominent American writers, academics, and intellectuals published an open
letter in Harpers expressing their grave concern over protecting our freedom of
speech and thought.
Admittedly, the credentials of some of the names on the list
were rather doubtful . After all, David Frum and various hard-core Neocons had themselves
led the effort to purge from the media all critics of Bush's disastrous Iraq War, and more
recently they have continued to do with same with regard to our irrational hostility towards
Putin's Russia. But the principled histories of other signers such as Noam Chomsky partially
compensated for the inclusion of such unpleasant opportunists.
Although the Harpers statement attracted many stars of our liberal firmament,
apparently few people read Harpers these days, with its website traffic being just a
tenth of our own. Therefore, the reaction in the media itself was a much more important factor,
and this seems to have been decidedly mixed. 150 rather obscure activists soon issued a
contrasting statement, which major outlets such as NYT , CNN , and the Los
Angeles Times seem to have accorded equal or greater weight, hardly suggesting that the
ideological tide has started to turn.
Back a couple of years ago, there was a popular joke going around Chinese social media in
which Chairman Mao came back to life with all sorts of questions about the modern world. Among
other things, he was informed his disastrous Cultural Revolution had shifted to America, a
prescient observation given the events of the last few weeks:
The controversial May 25th death of a black man named George Floyd in Minneapolis police
custody soon set off the greatest nationwide wave of protests, riots, and looting in at least
two generations, and the once-placid hometown of the Mary Tyler Moore Show alone suffered some
five hundred million dollars of damage. Some of the main political reactions have been
especially surprising, as the newly elevated activists of the Black Lives Matter movement have
received massive media support for their demands that local urban police departments be
"defunded," a proposal so bizarre that it had previously been almost unknown.
Statues, monuments, and other symbolic representations of traditional American history
quickly became a leading target. Hubert Humphrey's Minneapolis has long been an extremely
liberal bastion of the heavily Scandinavian Upper Midwest, having no ties to the South or
slavery, but Floyd's death soon launched an unprecedented national effort to eradicate all
remaining Confederate memorials and other Southern cultural traces throughout our society.
Popular country music groups such as the Dixie Chicks
and Lady
Antebellum had freely recorded their songs for decades, but they were now suddenly forced
to change their names in frantic haste.
And although this revolutionary purge began with Confederacy, it soon extended to include
much of our entire national history, with illustrious former occupants of the White House being
the most prominent targets. Woodrow Wilson ranked as Princeton University's most famous alumnus
and its former president, but his name
was quickly scraped off the renowned public policy school , while the Natural History
Museum of New York is similarly
removing a statue of Theodore Roosevelt .
Abraham Lincoln and
Ulysses S. Grant had together won the Civil War and abolished black slavery, but their
statues around the country were vandalized or ordered removed. The same fate befell
Andrew Jackson along with the author of the Star Spangled Banner, our national anthem.
The leading heroes of the American Republic from its birth in 1776 face "cancellation" and
this sudden tidal wave of attacks has clearly gained considerable elite backing. The New
York Times carries enormous weight in such circles, and last Tuesday their lead opinion
piece called for the
Jefferson Memorial to be replaced by a towering statue of a black woman, while one of their
regular columnists has repeatedly demanded that all
monuments honoring George Washington suffer a similar fate . Stacy Abrams, often mentioned
as one of Joe Biden's leading Vice Presidential choices, had previously made
the destruction of Georgia's historic Stone Mountain Memorial part of her campaign
platform, so we now seem only a step or two away from credible political demands that Mount
Rushmore be dynamited Taliban-style.
The original roots of our country were Anglo-Saxon and this heritage remained dominant
during its first century or more, but other strands in our national tapestry are suffering
similar vilification. Christopher Columbus discovered the New World for Spain, but he has
became a hated
and despised figure across our country , so perhaps in the near future his only surviving
North American monument will be the huge statue honoring him in the
heart of Mexico City . Father Junipero Serra founded Hispanic California and a few years
ago was canonized as the first and only Latin American saint, but his
statues have been toppled and his name already removed from Stanford University buildings.
At the time we acquired the sparsely-populated American Southwest, the bulk of our new Hispanic
population was concentrated in New Mexico, but the founding father of that region has now had
his monument attacked and vandalized . Cervantes, author of Don Quixote , is
considered the greatest writer in the Spanish language, and his statue was also
vandalized .
Perhaps these trends will abate and the onrushing tide of cultural destruction may begin to
recede. But at present there seems a serious possibility that the overwhelming majority of
America's leading historical figures prior to the political revolution of the 1930s may be
destined for the scrap heap. A decade ago, President Obama and most prominent Democrats opposed
Gay Marriage, but just a few years later, the CEO of Mozilla
was forced to resign when his past political contribution to a California initiative taking
that same position came to light, and today private individuals might easily lose their jobs at
many corporations for expressing such views. Thus, one might easily imagine that within five or
ten years, any public expressions of admiration for Washington or Jefferson might be considered
by many as bordering on "hate speech," and carry severe social and employment consequences. Our
nation seems to be suffering the sort of fate normally inflicted upon a conquered people, whose
new masters seek to break their spirit and stamp out any notions of future resistance.
A good example of this growing climate of fear came a couple of weeks ago when a longtime
blogger going under the name "Scott Alexander"
deleted his entire website and its millions of words of accumulated archives because the
New York Times was about to run an article revealing his true identity. I had only been
slightly aware of the SlateStarCodex
blogsite and the "rationalist" community it had gradually accumulated, but the development
was apparently significant enough to provoke
a long article in the New Yorker .
The target of the alleged witch-hunt was hardly any sort of right-winger. He was reportedly
a liberal Jewish psychiatrist living in Berkeley, whose most notable piece of writing had been
a massive 30,000 word refutation of neo-reactionary thought. But because he was willing to
entertain ideas and contributors outside the tight envelope of the politically-correct canon,
he believed that his life would be destroyed if his name became known.
Conservative commenter Tucker Carlson has recently attracted the highest ratings in cable
history for populist positions, some of which have influenced President Trump. But just a
couple of days ago, his top writer, a certain Blake Neff, was
forced to resign after CNN revealed his years of pseudonymous remarks on a rightwing
forum, even though the most egregious of these seemed no worse than somewhat crude
racially-charged humor.
Our own website attracts thousands of commenters, many of whom have left remarks vastly more
controversial than anything written by Neff let alone Alexander, and these two incidents
naturally
inspired several posts by blogger Steve Sailer , which attracted many hundreds of worried
comments in the resulting threads. Although I could entirely understood that many members of
our community were fearful of being "doxxed" by the media, I explained why I thought the
possibility quite unlikely.
Although it's been a few years since my name last appeared on the front page of the New
York Times , I am still at least a bit of a public figure, and I would say that many of the
articles I have published under my own name have been at least 100 times as "controversial" as
anything written by the unfortunate "Scott Alexander." The regular monthly traffic to our
website is six or seven times as great as that which flowed to SlateStarCodex prior to its
sudden disappearance, and I suspect that our influence has also been far greater. Any serious
journalist who wanted to get in touch with me could certainly do so, and I have been freely
given many interviews in the past, while hundreds of reasonably prominent writers, academics,
and other intellectuals have spent years on my regular distribution list.
Tracking down the identity of an anonymous commenter who once or twice made doubtful remarks
is extremely hard work, and at the end of the process you will have probably netted yourself a
pretty small fish. Surely any eager scalp-hunter in the media would prefer to casually mine the
hundreds of thousands of words in my articles, which would provide a veritable cornucopia of
exceptionally explosive material, all fully searchable and conveniently organized by particular
taboos. Yet for years the entire journalistic community has scrupulously averted their eyes
from such mammoth potential scandal. And the likely explanation may provide some important
insights into the dynamics of ideological conflict in the media.
Activist organizations often take the lead in locating controversial statements, which they
then pass along to their media allies for ritual denunciation, and much of my own material
would seem especially provocative to the fearsome ADL. Yet oddly enough, that organization
seemed quite reluctant to engage with me, and only after my repeated baiting did
they finally issue a rather short and perfunctory critique in 2018, which lacked any named
author. But even that lackluster effort afforded me an opening to respond with my own
7,300 word essay highlighting the very unsavory origins and activities of that
controversial organization. After that exchange, they went back into hiding and have remained
there ever since.
In my lengthy analysis
of the true history of World War II, I described what I called "the Lord Voldemort Effect,"
explaining why so much of our mainstream source material should be treated with great care:
In the popular Harry Potter series, Lord Voldemort, the great nemesis of the young
magicians, is often identified as "He Who Must Not Be Named," since the mere vocalization of
those few particular syllables might bring doom upon the speaker. Jews have long enjoyed
enormous power and influence over the media and political life, while fanatic Jewish
activists demonstrate hair-trigger eagerness to denounce and vilify all those suspected of
being insufficiently friendly towards their ethnic group. The combination of these two
factors has therefore induced such a "Lord Voldemort Effect" regarding Jewish activities in
most writers and public figures. Once we recognize this reality, we should become very
cautious in analyzing controversial historical issues that might possibly contain a Jewish
dimension, and also be particularly wary of arguments from silence.
However, even dread Lord Voldemorts may shrink from a terrifying Lord Voldemort of their
own, and I think that this website falls into that category. The ADL and various other powerful
organizations may have quietly issued an edict that absolutely forbids the media outlets they
influence from mentioning our existence. I believe there is strong evidence in favor of this
remarkable hypothesis.
Among Trump's surviving advisors, Stephen Miller provokes some of the most intense
hostility, and last November the SPLC and its media allies made a concerted attempt to force
his resignation based upon some of his private emails, which had promoted several controversial
posts by Steve Sailer. The resulting firestorm was discussed on this website, and
I analyzed some of the strange anomalies:
Just as might be expected, the whole SPLC attack is "guilt by association," and Ctrl-F
reveals a full 14 references to VDare, with the website characterized in very harsh terms.
Yet although there are several mentions of Steve and his writings, there is absolutely no
reference to this webzine, despite being Steve's primary venue.
Offhand, this might seem extremely odd. My own guess is that much of the material we
publish is 10x as "controversial" as anything VDare has ever run, and many of my own personal
articles, including those that have spent over a year on the Home page, might be up in the
30x or 40x potency range. Moreover, I think our traffic these days is something like 10x that
of VDare, seemingly making us an extremely juicy target.
Now admittedly, I don't know that Miller fellow, but the horrifying VDare post that Miller
supposedly shared was actually republished by VDare from this website. And that would surely
have made it very, very easy for the SPLC to use the connection as a opening to begin
cataloguing the unspeakingly horrifying list of transgressions we regularly feature, easily
expanding the length of their attack on Miller by adding another 6,000 words. Yet the silence
has been totally deafening. Puzzling
Here's my own hypothesis
As everyone knows, there are certain "powerful groups" in our society that so terrify
members of the media and political worlds that they receive the "Lord Voldemort Treatment,"
with mainstream individuals being terrified that merely speaking the name would result in
destruction. Indeed, the SPLC is one of the primary enforcers of that edict.
However, my theory is that even those dread Lord Voldemorts greatly fear an even more
dreadful Lord Voldemort of their own, namely this webzine. The SPLC writer knew perfectly
well that mere mention of The Unz Review might ensure his destruction. I'd guess that
the ADL/SPLC/AIPAC has made this prohibition absolutely clear to everyone in the
media/political worlds.
Given that Miller's main transgression was his promotion of posts originally published on
this website, the media could have easily associated him with the rest of our material, much of
which was sufficiently explosive to have almost certainly forced his resignation. Yet when the
journalists and activists weighed the likelihood of destroying Trump's most hated advisor
against the danger of mentioning our existence, the latter factor was still judged the
stronger, allowing Miller to survive.
This hypothesis was strongly supported by a second incident later that same month. We had
previously published an article by Prof. Eric Rasmusen of Indiana University, and I read in my
morning Times that he had suddenly
become embroiled in a major Internet controversy , with a chorus of angry critics seeking
to have him removed. According to the article, he had apparently promoted the "vile and stupid"
views of some anti-feminist website in one of his Tweets, which had come to the attention of an
enraged activist. The resulting firestorm of denunciations on Twitter had been viewed 2.5
million times, provoking a major academic controversy in the national media.
Being curious about what had happened, I contacted Rasmusen to see whether he might want to
submit a piece regarding the controversy,
which he did . But to my utter astonishment, I discovered that the website involved had
actually been our own, a fact that I never would never have suspected from the extremely vague
and circuitous discussion provided in the newspaper. Apparently, the old-fashioned
Who-What-Where provisions of the Times style manual had been quietly amended to prohibit
providing any hint of our existence even when we were at the absolute center of one of their
1,000 word news stories.
Highly-controversial ideas backed by strong evidence may prove dangerously contagious, and
the political/media strategy pursued by the ADL, the Times , and numerous other organs
of the elite establishment seems perfectly rational. Since our Bill of Rights still provides
considerable protection for freedom of speech, the next-best alternative is to institute a
strict cordon sanitaire , intended to strictly minimize the number of individuals who
might become infected.
Our webzine and my own articles are hardly the only victims of this sort of strategy -- once
dubbed "the Blackout" by eminent historian Harry Elmer Barnes -- whose other targets often
possess the most respectable of establishmentarian credentials.
Last month marked the 31st anniversary of the notorious 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, and
elite media coverage was especially extensive this year due to our current global confrontation
with China. The New York Times devoted most of two full pages to a photo-laden
recapitulation while the Wall Street Journal gave it front-page treatment, with just
those two publications alone running some six separate articles and columns on those horrifying
events from three decades ago.
Yet back in the 1990s, the former Beijing bureau chief of the Washington Post , who
had personally covered the events, published a long article in the prestigious Columbia
Journalism Review entitled The Myth of Tiananmen
, in which he publicly admitted that the supposed "massacre" was merely a fraudulent concoction
of careless journalists and dishonest propagandists. At least some of our top editors and
journalists must surely be aware of these facts, and feel guilty about promoting a
long-debunked hoax of the late 1980s. But any mention of those widely-known historical facts is
strictly forbidden in the media, lest American readers become confused and begin to consider an
alternative narrative.
Russia possesses a nuclear arsenal at least as powerful as our own, and the total break in
our relations began when Congress passed the Magnitsky Act in 2012, targeting important Russian
leaders. Yet none of our media outlets have ever been willing to admit that the facts used to
justify that very dangerous decision seem to have been entirely fraudulent, as recounted
in
the article we recently published by Prof. John Ryan.
Similarly, our sudden purge from both Google and Facebook came just days after my own
long article presenting the strong evidence that America's ongoing Covid-19 disaster was
the unintentional blowback from our own extremely reckless biowarfare attack against China (and
Iran). Over 130,000 of our citizens have already died and our daily life has been wrecked, so
the American people might grow outraged if they began to suspect that this huge national
disaster was entirely self-inflicted.
And the incident that sparked our current national upheaval includes certain elements that
our media has scrupulously avoided mentioning. The knee-neck hold used against George Floyd was
standard police procedure in Minneapolis and many other cities, and had apparently been
employed thousands of times across our country in recent years with virtually no fatalities.
Meanwhile, Floyd's official autopsy indicated that he had lethal levels
of Fentanyl and other illegal drugs in his system at the time of his demise. Perhaps the
connection between these two facts is more than purely coincidental, and if they became widely
known, popular sentiments might shift.
Finally, our alternative media webzine is pleased to have recently added two additional
columnists together with major portions of their archives, which will help to further broaden
our perspective.
Larry Romanoff has been a regular contributor to the Global Research website, most recently
focusing on the Coronavirus outbreak in China, and earlier this year he published an
article pointed to the considerable evidence that the virus had originated in the U.S.,
which was cited by Chinese officials and
soon became a flashpoint in American-Chinese relations . After having been viewed millions
of times, that piece and several others seem to have disappeared from their original venue, but
along with the rest of his writings, they are now conveniently available on our own
website .
For the last quarter-century, Jared Taylor has probably been America's most prominent White
Nationalist writer. Although Black Nationalists such as Al Sharpton have cable television shows
and boast of many dozens of visits to the White House, the growing climate of ideological
repression has caused Taylor and his American Renaissance organization to be
deplatformed from YouTube, Twitter, and numerous other Internet services. One of his main
writers is Gregory Hood, whom we have now added as a regular columnist , together with dozens of
his pieces over the last few years.
That is correct. Backdoors were baked into every piece of equipment and random number
generator the US and friends are able to influence. Hardware and software.
Read up on how cisco networking equipments were/are intercepted enroute for 'extra'
attention by US Intel depending on where they're going to. With full assistance from cisco.
Other manufacturer also play the same game.
This was the genesis of Huawei, to cut reliance on US network gear and it is also why
China is doing its own silicon. Huawei with the Kirin which is an ARM based processor and
also x86 via the AMD JV and VIA/Cyrix.
Fabs aside the Kirin can cut it with the best and the x86 are about 2-6 years behind but
rapidly improving depending on who you ask.
Their achilles heel is the Fabs where China is about 2-3 generations behind. Today Huawei
is relying on Taiwanese Fabs to produce its cutting edge chips to Huawei's design.
However, these are just a function of investment in research and time, China is well past
the tipping point for self reliance and they'll get to parity and beyond soon enough. So the
west's game is already lost.
Reading between the lines, when China is cut out of the west's networks who then could the
5 peeping Tom's look at? Yup, the serfs, and that's the game plan all along.
"Today the Department of State is updating the public guidance for CAATSA authorities
to include Nord Stream 2 and the second line of TurkStream 2. This action puts investments or
other activities that are related to these Russian energy export pipelines at risk of US
sanctions. It's a clear warning to companies aiding and abetting Russia's malign influence
projects and will not be tolerated. Get out now or risk the consequences".
Pompeo speaking at a press conference today.
CAATSA -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act
So Russia and Turkey are "adversaries" of the USA?
In what way?
Do these states wish to wage war against the USA?
Is it adversarial to United States interest to compete economically with the hegemon?
Who cares? Really, is Pompeo still scary? If he has a functioning brain, he should realize
that all these blatant efforts to reserve markets for America by sanctioning all its
competitors out of the picture is having the opposite effect, and frightening customers away
from becoming dependent on American products which might be withheld on a whim when America
wants political concessions. 'Will not be tolerated' – what a pompous ass. Sanction
away. The consequence is well-known to be seizure of assets held in the United States or an
inability to do business in the United States. That will frighten some into submission
– like the UK, which was threatened with the cessation of intelligence-sharing with the
USA (sure you can spare it?) if it did not drop Huawei from its 5G networks. But others will
take prudent steps to limit their exposure to such threats, in the certain knowledge that if
they work, they will encourage the USA to use the technique again.
Instead of trying to improve failing NYC schools it is easier to claim racism. Some people just do not want to study. The
number of people who barely can read in the is really staggering and can't be explained by racism, which typically just mobilize the
oppressed minority to strive in education. That's probably why children of first generation emigrants (which parent having
poor English and discriminated at jobs) usually do very well educationally.
Although further progress is desirable, the level of racism and xenophobia in the USA is much less than in many countries.
Karl Marx once said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce. Nothing
proved the truth of Marx's claim better than the farcical battle over the statue of St. Louis
in, yes, St. Louis which followed hot on the heels of the tragedy of George Floyd in
Minneapolis.
The battle over the statue began as an exercise in identity politics, and before long it
degenerated into an example of identity theft. The main protagonist in this story is Umar Lee,
who was born Bret Darran Lee in 1974 to a southern Presbyterian family and grew up in
Florissant, Missouri just outside St. Louis. Lee may or may not be Black, which is an
ideological marker based upon but independent of biological fact, because he claims, according
to The Jerusalem Post that he "has two younger siblings who are half African-American."
[1]
On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown Jr., an 18-year-old Black man, was fatally shot by
28-year-old white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the city of Ferguson, Missouri, a
suburb of St. Louis, leading to extensive rioting . After the death of
Michael Brown, Lee got involved with the Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, and was
arrested on two occasions and, in his words, "locked up." After getting fired from his job as
cab driver, Lee became a full-time, but little known activist. In 2015, Lee noticed that
statues started coming down in St. Louis, largely because of agitation on the part of St. Louis
Jews. At some point during this period, Lee made contact with Ben Paremba, an Israeli
restauranteur who was "passionate" about promoting Israel and other Jewish causes. At this
point Paremba was as little known to locals as Lee, but all of that changed after the Jewish
press took notice of their petition to remove the statue of St. Louis and began promoting them
as social justice crusaders, if you'll pardon the term.
In a series of tweets, Lee tried to establish his position as an aggrieved Muslim, bringing
up the Crusades as the cause of his grievance, but the underlying source of his complaint was
inspired by a group of Jews, who were incensed that the city where they had come to study had
erected a statue in honor of a king who had burned the Talmud.
Once Lee mentioned the term "anti-Semitism," the Jewish press began carrying stories which
lionized Lee as a crusader for Jewish rights. Because of his philo-Semitism, Lee soon found
himself lionized in the Jewish press. Writing for the Jewish Telegraph Agency, Ben Sales
described Lee as "a local activist who started the petition and also took part in a
successful drive to remove a nearby Confederate monument in 2017. Lee, Sales continued, "is
not Jewish but started the petition because of Louis IX's anti-Semitism." [2] Because Lee's
petition called St. Louis a "rabid anti-Semite" who "inspired Nazi Germany," it began "drawing
Jewish support" from St. Louis Jews like Rabbi Susan Talve, "the founding rabbi of the city's
Central Reform Congregation, who said taking it down would help advance racial justice in the
United States." According to Talve, St. Louis Jews have "been talking about that statue for a
long time." Talve then added that removing the statue would be "a very important part of
reclaiming history, reclaiming the stories that have created the institutionalized racism that
we are trying to unravel today. If we're not honest about our history we will never be able to
dismantle the systems of oppression that we are living under."
"Susan Talve hated Cardinal Burke," according to one Catholic familiar with the local scene.
He went on to say that Burke told him that Talve had "an animosity toward me for reasons that I
don't understand." Blinded by over 50 years of the failed experiment known as Catholic-Jewish
dialogue, his eminence was evidently incapable of seeing that Talve's animosity toward him was
based on her ancestral animosity toward the Catholic Church, which he led in St. Louis at the
time. Unsurprisingly, Rabbi Talve's animosity toward the Catholic Church has turned her into an
advocate of Lee's attack on the statue.
St. Louis Catholics were determined to ignore the ethnic animosity behind the struggle.
America Needs Fatima, a front group for the Brazilian cult Tradition, Family, and Property
joined the fray, criticizing "limp-wristed politicians" who were giving in to "revolutionary
extremists." ANF Protest Coordinator Jose Ferraz, claimed that "American Catholics" who were
"strong in their faith" were being "pushed around by anarchist revolutionaries," but without
identifying any of the actual players in the dispute.
After local activist Jim Hoft announced that a group of Catholics associated with his
website Gateway Pundit was going to defend the statue, Lee issued a statement describing what
he clearly knew to be a group of Catholics as "White Nationalists" along with "those on the
alt-right such as those who held the infamous and tragic rally in Charlottesville."
Hoft then responded by claiming that Lee deliberately misrepresented the Gateway Pundit
rosary group as white racists: "We are Christians and Christian allies who believe we still
have the freedom to practice our religion in America. We are organizing a prayer rally with
Catholic and Christian men. And now we are being threatened -- In America. We will not
apologize for our Christianity. Not in St. Louis."
The leader of a local rosary group, taken in by Lee's propaganda, began to suspect that
local Catholic activists at the rosary protest "might be backed by white supremacists" and
warned his group off. He then retracted his first tweet after he learned that the Rosary rally
was being sponsored by local activist Jim Hoft's Gateway Pundit and TFP-America Needs Fatima.
Neither group talked about the Jews. As a result, neither group was able to discuss the
conflict's most significant player. Both groups as a result became proxy warriors in an
exercise in street theater which kept the true dynamics of the conflict hidden.
In his article, Sales found a local Catholic who made a valiant attempt to defend the city's
eponymous saint, only to be shot down later by Talve, who opined that "Asserting that your way
is the only way I think is always wrong" with no sense that this was precisely the gist of what
the local Jews and their Muslim front man were imposing on the citizens of St. Louis.
Hoft called Lee's claim that "those on the alt-right such as those who held the infamous and
tragic rally in Charlottesville," were responsible for the demonstration defending the statue
"a lie," and added "There is no one from the Charlottesville rally or linked to the
Charlottesville rally or who promoted the Charlottesville rally who will be at the prayer rally
(that we know about)."
Lee's determination to turn the statue battle into a racial conflict began to generate
opposition from the Black community on Twitter, inspiring one observer to write "Fuck Umar
Lee's Bitch ass. He got fired for taking a company video to start racial tension. He's white.
Not Black. Sorry POS."
Activist, Author and Ex-Cabbie Umar Lee
By now it was obvious that the Black population of St. Louis, in spite of being dragged into
Lee's ad hoc coalition, had no dog in this fight. St. Louis, it turns out, never owned slaves.
Once the racial element disappeared from the conflict, its religious dimensions began to
emerge. The battle over the statue was a religious war between Catholics and Jews, in which
both sides were eager to cover over the conflict's true ethnic configuration. Both Lee and Hoft
were determined to obscure the identity of their opponents as well as the identity of their
backers. As one local observer put it, "Jews end up being in a win-win situation. Either Lee
succeeds in toppling the statue or Hoft succeeds and becomes the gay-married, pro-Zionist hero
to the local bishopless Catholics who are too fearful to organize on their own. Nowhere do
Catholics, or Blacks, or Muslims get a win out of this. Being pro-Zionist on some level
probably gives Hoft permission to misbehave sexually, since Jews are the authors of gay rights
as a movement. It's his way of paying them back, even though he is deeply conservative, like a
typical Iowa farm boy, raised Catholic, in all other areas."
Even after the Catholic-Jewish nature of the conflict became apparent, Lee continued to
portray the pro-statue crowd as white racists. In the days leading up to the Saturday rally,
Lee tweeted a picture of the blonde-haired Hoft with this text by way of explanation. "This is
the guy behind the White Nationalist rally on Saturday at noon on Art Hill. This is why it's
important for us to show up at eleven. . . . Jim Hoft and the Gateway Pundit were absurdly
wrong." [3]
A few hours later, Lee tweeted: "I will never allow Nazis, racists, and White Nationalists
to hold rallies in St. Louis without a response even if it's just me." [4] Hours later, Christine
Eidson Christlieb tried to set the record straight when she tweeted "The people praying the
rosary every night at the statue aren't white nationalists. That's just false. They are
Catholics." [5]
Ignoring Christlieb's tweet, Lee continued to promote identity theft, tweeting on June 24
that "White Christian Nationalists and the alt-right have announced a rally on Saturday at the
Louis IX statue. Please RT and share. We need to counter. Calling all Catholic and Christian
Men and their Allies." The bogus request for Catholic support when Lee knew it was Catholics
who were on the other side of the protest saying their rosaries exposed the hidden grammar of
Lee's strategy, which involved denying his opponents their actual identity and turning them
instead into "white nationalists," a group which could then be deprived of their constitutional
right to free speech and assembly. I discussed this ploy in my article comparing the Arbaeen
march in Dearborn, which was considered legitimate because of its religious sponsorship, and
the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, which was illegitimate precisely because the
protesters were "white," a designation which deprived them of any constitutional protection.
Lee knew he was dealing with Catholics, but he insisted on calling them white supremacists
because that was the category that would demonize them.
Lee's tweets throughout the period leading up to the June 27 protest gave a clear indication
that his real animus was against St. Louis's Catholics, not white supremacists or nationalists.
Lee tweeted "Mel Gibson is probably the most prominent traditional Catholic and critic of the
modern church known to most Americans. He is also a raging anti-Semite who beat his wife. The
Twitter army defending Louis IX I'm sure are huge fans of his."
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-6&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1275341953585090561&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Fejones%2Ficonoclasm-in-st-louis%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=9066bb2%3A1593540614199&width=500px
Umar Lee Leading a Protest at the St. Louis Statue
Umar Lee is not your typical Muslim. He said nothing about the plight of the Palestinians
who were about to lose control over the West Bank. He failed to mention the connection between
the knee hold which presumably killed George Floyd and ADL sponsored seminars which introduced
Minneapolis police officers to Israeli instructors in Chicago in 2012. Instead he claimed that
"Bringing down the Louis IX statue won't be the [first] time Muslims and Jews coordinated in
St. Louis to stamp out evil." Then combining two contradictory tropes, Lee described his
opponents as "alt-right Catholic fascists," whose "favorite hobbies" were "burning and looting
Jews and impaling heretics." Instead of defending the statue of St. Louis IX, Lee felt that his
Catholic foes could better spend their time studying Jewish history and volunteering "to help
the many thousands of sex crimes victims in the church."
Statues are a sign of hegemony. They help you identify the ruler, and if not the real ruler,
the man those in power would like to have as their ruler. In a revolutionary era, the statues
of the former ruling class must come down. The most striking instance of this was the statue of
Stalin in Prague, which came down as soon as Communism collapsed in the period from 1989 to
1990. The removal of Stalin's statue left an empty pedestal in its place, but just as nature
abhors a vacuum, so pedestals will not remain empty. The first occupant of the empty Stalin
pedestal was a statue of Michael Jackson, who brought his own statue to Prague when he played a
concert there. He was the hegemon of the 1990s. The last time I was in Prague that pedestal was
occupied by a weird crane-liked gnomon which moved in sync with some unheard rhythm of the
spheres, making it seem like a metronome keeping time to an unknown melody.
The battle in Charlottesville in 2017 was ultimately a conflict over a statue, in this case
a statue of Robert E. Lee, which celebrated the "redemption" of the South which occurred a
generation after the Civil War, when the South drove the last remnant of Yankee soldiers from
their soil. The Lee statue was erected, as were many others celebrating Confederate soldiers,
to celebrate the new regime.
During the revolutionary spring of 2020, numerous statues were deposed. Not surprisingly,
the statue of Lenin in Seattle escaped the mayhem which visited that city unscathed, as did the
most recent addition to statuary in South Bend, Indiana, the statue of Rev. Theodore Hesburgh,
CSC, president of Notre Dame University and civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr. The
latter statue expresses better than any other the system of control which it symbolizes. The
short-hand explanation of that system of control is the civil rights movement, which celebrates
breaking laws with some higher purpose in mind. A recent article noted that 60 percent of
people in their 20s believe it is okay to break the law for a good cause. Of course, who gets
to determine whether the cause is good did not get mentioned in that article. That is why the
Hesburgh-King statue is important. It was based on a photo taken in Chicago in 1966 (most often
erroneously stated as 1964). When Martin Luther King arrived in Marquette Park, one of
Chicago's many ethnic neighborhoods, the Lithuanians living there greeted him with a hail of
rocks and bottles, one of which staggered King as he got out of his car. Needing help to
prosecute the ethnic cleansing of Catholic neighborhoods in Chicago, King gave Hesburgh a call
and together the two icons sang "We shall overcome" at a rally at Soldier Field that
summer.
The statue is, in other words, a celebration of two of American history's most famous proxy
warriors. As a pawn of Jewish money and Quaker organizing, King obliterated the traditional
Black power structure in Chicago, symbolized by Bronzeville, which was the Black ethnic
neighborhood. As a pawn of the Rockefellers, Hesburgh betrayed fellow Catholics in Chicago in
order to get funding from their foundations, especially the Population Council run by John D.
Rockefeller, 3rd. So the South Bend statue is in no danger of coming down because the
descendants of the oligarchs which turned King and Hesburgh into political icons have found a
new set of proxy warriors in Antifa and Black Lives Matter, who have arrogated the civil rights
mantle to themselves in a bid to stamp out the last remnants of representative government in
the United States. Pedestals will not remain empty. Prepare yourself for a Jeff Bezos statue.
Just as King and Hesburgh were proxy warriors of the oligarchs in collaboration with each
other, so Lee and Hoft are proxy warriors of the oligarchs in opposition to each other.
In the spring of 2015, the iconoclasts of St. Louis succeeded in getting the Jesuit-run St.
Louis University to remove its statue of Pere Pierre-Jean De Smet, a Belgian Catholic priest
who worked as a missionary to the Indians in the Mid-West and western sections of the United
States of America. [6] The Jesuits caved in to
pressure from "a cohort of students and faculty" who complained that the De Smet sculpture
"symbolized white supremacy, racism, and colonialism," [7] at least according to
this news account, which and alumnus disputes, claiming:
Saint Louis University did not get rid of the statue of Father DeSmet. They moved it to the
newly renovated Saint Louis University Museum of Art (SLUMA). There, the statue is prominently
shown quite beautifully along with other artifacts and artwork from the early founding of St
Louis and its Catholic heritage. One could argue that they removed it from its outside area
because of the pressure that the university faced to remove it, but there was never a "cohort
of faculty and students to remove it." During my four years as a student from 2006 to 2009, I
never heard one comment about the statue. I attended the university with a lot of people from
various ethnicities who never mentioned it once. We would also pass it by on a daily basis. I
personally think that this "cohort" was made up and that no one ever had a problem with it,
whether liberal or not. It was made into a problem by those who would like to destroy
Catholicism. The Jesuits should have left it where it was but at least they had enough sense to
keep it and showcase it prominently in their museum, which I will repeat, is
beautiful.
Protestors Argue at the Statue of St. Louis
Two years later, St. Louis mayor Lyda Krewson caved in to the same sort of pressure when she
removed a Confederate statue from the same Forest Park neighborhood where the statue to St.
Louis is located. [8] The statue of Columbus
was also removed in 2017, largely at the behest of Rachel Sender, a graduate student in
biological anthropology at Washington University who claimed that Columbus "represents racism,
colonialism, slavery and white supremacy and should not be given any honorable remembrance or
be a symbol of Tower Grove Park." [9] In attempt to give some
background on Lee and his petition, local Catholic activist Jim Hoft described Rachel Sender as
"some idiot . . . from New Jersey." Sender, however, was much more forthcoming than Hoft in
describing both her identity and motivation in wrecking that city's statues. Buoyed by the
iconoclasts' success in removing the Columbus statue, Sender jumped on the bandwagon to remove
the St. Louis statue, tweeting that "St. Louis was a crusader known for persecuting Jews. This
is also the only city I've experienced [sic] blatant anti-Semitism. His legacy should not be
honored! Lyda Kewson, City of St. Louis, Change the name of St. Louis. Sign the petition."
[10]
Lee was lionized in the Jewish press because even though Lee calls himself a Muslim, he not
only talks like a Jew, he also got the idea of tearing down the St. Louis statue from Jews. In
a recent interview, Lee told The Jerusalem Post "that he became aware of the statue's
history when Rabbi Hershey Novack of the Chabad on the Campus at St. Louis University held a
Tisha B'Av gathering by the Louis IX statue to remember the atrocities he wrought on Jews in
France." [11] Lee was in effect
only doing what he was told, after Novack and local Israeli restauranteur Ben Parembo said,
"Hey, that statue needs to come down. Jewish kids going out with their parents to [park's]
[sic] art museum don't need to be looking at this anti-Semite."
Lee may be the only Muslim in the world who is not upset about the United States moving its
embassy to Jerusalem, thereby making it the capital of Israel. In fact he's planning a trip to
Jerusalem, where he plans to "do a little dance. . . to commemorate the fact that loser [i.e.,
St. Louis IX] never made it to Jerusalem." In the meantime, Lee "will be drafting a letter to
@Pontifex asking for the decanonization of King Louis IX." On June 21, Lee informed his twitter
followers that he was "working on Lindbergh too. Must go. No Nazi named streets in St. Louis
Couny [sic]!" In addition to being a descendant of Robert E. Lee, Umar Lee did time for some
unspecified crime. It was during his stay in prison that he became aware of Jewish history and
the fact that St. Louis "burned Talmuds and embarked upon two crusades." He also learned that
St. Louis was "a Catholic town," a fact which led him to embark on a career as a reformer of
the Catholic Church, forcing him to oppose "some hateful pre-Vatican II trends that are being
repopularized." At some point during his study of Jewish history, Lee discovered that "a group
of Jewish students from Washington University and a rabbi gathered at the statue [of St. Louis]
on Tisha B'av" [or this ninth of Av, the day on which the temple was destroyed]. [12] From
reading the article, Lee also learned that King Louis "organized the burning of 12,000 Jewish
manuscripts in Paris, reasoning that the Jewish manuscripts might corrupt his good Christian
soldiers." [13] The book burning was
small potatoes compared to the destruction of the Temple, but the statue gave local Jews a
reason to feel aggrieved and test the local political waters to see how much clout they had.
Lee discovered that Jewish clout had increased considerably over the past 11 years, and that,
during the revolutionary spring of 2020, the time was ripe to press the issue.
Knowing that the Jews were itching for a battle with that city's Catholics, Lee engaged in
identity theft by claiming that the Catholic protesters were white because religion was a
category which still afforded constitutional protection. Recognizing that any conflict between
Catholics and Jews, with Muslims and Blacks playing minor roles, was unwinnable, Lee attempted
to drag the mayor into a fight against "white nationalists" knowing full well that enlisting
her in a battle against that city's Catholics, a group which made up 26 percent of the
population would have meant political suicide. Hence, Lee's persistent efforts to turn the
rally into something which it was not, as when he wrote: "Does St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson
have a problem with alt-right White Nationalists having a protest at the Louis IX statue on Art
Hill this Saturday?" Lee's tendentious formulation of the issue bespoke a combination of
identity theft and moral blackmail. The two issues are, of course, related and the link was
America's Civic Religion, otherwise known as the Civil Rights Movement, otherwise known as the
Black-Jewish alliance. Anyone who had the Black-Jewish alliance on his side occupied the high
moral ground and was on his way to winning the argument by default, because his opponents
lacked a moral leg to stand on. Because of Hollywood and public education, support for the
Civil Rights movement had replaced the ten commandments in America's mind as the source of
moral guidance.
But, as Anne Hendershott pointed out in her book The Politics of Deviance , deviance
is constant. That means that for every precept of the moral law you subtract from your
behavior, you have to add a precept of political correctness by way of compensation. Sexual sin
is the usual motivation for subtracting precepts of the moral law from your conscience. The
public school system in America as well as higher education has as one of its main goals the
sexual corruption of every student unfortunate enough to enter its doors. The moral vacuum that
education creates is filled by tales of the Civil Rights Movement, which proposes Martin Luther
King and Rosa Parks as role models. The sense of grievance and contempt for the positive law
which King and Parks stoked found fulfillment in the homosexual movement which invoked their
name to stoke contempt for the natural law.
So one way to calm your conscience because of the abortion you had is by becoming a
fanatical member of Antifa or a supporter of Black Lives Matter. The Civil Rights Movement of
the '60s was in many ways moral compensation for the adoption of contraception among Protestant
sects. Unsurprisingly, 1964 was the year of both the pill and the Civil Rights Act. This is not
a coincidence.
The battle over the statue served as an update on the Triple Melting Pot. Protestants were
nowhere to be found in this conflict. Their place had been taken by Muslims, who were still
negligible in terms of political power or cultural presence, but they could become significant
if they allied themselves with the Jews, the part of the Triple Melting Pot which was still
negligible in terms of numbers but whose cultural and political power had increased enormously
over the past half century. St. Louis is the home to 60,000 Bosnian Muslims, who harbor animus
against Jews that is now common in the Islamic world, largely because of how Israel has treated
Palestinians. Umar Lee is the exception that proves the rule. Thanks to the state of Israel,
Muslim antipathy to Jews is a widespread phenomenon, but it is not the case in the drama
surrounding the state of St. Louis. If Umar had come out in favor of the Boycott Divestment and
Sanction movement holding Israel accountable for its crimes against Palestinians, he'd still be
driving a cab.
What began as an exercise in identity politics soon devolved into a case of identity theft.
After Lee called the Catholics white nationalists, local Catholic activist Jim Hoft responded
by calling Lee's Jewish coalition "Marxists." When it came to the battle of the St. Louis
statue, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was missing in action. Archbishop Robert Carlson,
ordinary of the archdiocese of St. Louis, defended the statue, but his comments had little
effect on public opinion because he is on his way out the door. His appointed successor,
auxiliary bishop Mitchell Rozanski of Springfield, Massachusetts, had nothing to say on the
issue. As a result, Hoft became defensor fidei by default, in spite of the fact that Jim
Hoft's relationship with Catholicism is even more troubled that Umar Lee's relationship with
Islam.
Hoft was born and raised in Iowa, but he got his start in local politics in St. Louis after
he established a national internet presence by founding the Gateway Pundit website, which took
the typically conservative line on issues as other websites began to engage in liberal
waffling. Conservative, at this moment in time, had less to do with the Republican populism of
St. Louis native Phyllis Schlafly, and more to do with the Neoconservatives who took over both
the party and the movement over the course of the 1990s. Specifically, that meant that Hoft was
rabidly pro-Israel, even to the point of posting a picture of him and Bibi Netanyahu on the
Gateway Pundit masthead, and disallowing any criticism of Israel or Jews from its combox.
Hoft's loyalty to Israel has earned him Jewish friends, such as film producer Michael Rudin,
who featured Hoft in a 2019 episode of the TV Series The Conspiracy File s and who is
also featured in Hoft's masthead.
In keeping with an even more recent trend in Republican-style conservatism, Hoft announced
that he was a homosexual after the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando because he "just had
to." Not long after coming out of the closet, Hoft married a gay Filipino in what purported to
be a Catholic ceremony at the rebel St. Stanislaus Church in St. Louis. Not content to keep his
sodomy private, Hoft took out an elaborate wedding announcement complete with picture of him
and the boy, who is about a foot shorter than Hoft.
Hoft's Gateway Pundit has gone on to become a fact-checker's dream, with article after
article in mainstream outlets like the Washington Post describing Hoft and his website
as retailers of conspiracy theories and fake news, but Hoft continues in his role as the Jews'
favorite dumb goy. Hoft's fanatical, pro-Israel chest-thumping Catholicism is a compensation
for homosexuality, and a manifestation of what we might call the Michael Voris syndrome. In
addition to being useful to the Jews whenever they need someone to make the Catholic Church in
St. Louis look ridiculous, Hoft has become defensor fidei by default because in St.
Louis, as elsewhere, nature abhors a vacuum. Archbishop Robert Carlson's defense of the statue
was weakened by his status as a lame duck. [14] The Archdiocese
issued a statement defending St. Louis as "an example of an imperfect man who strived to live a
life modeled after the life of Jesus Christ" and a "model for how we should care for our fellow
citizen." His defense was further weakened by the fact that he did not identify the group
responsible for wanting the statue removed. Catholics, as a result, were once more engaged in
cultural shadow boxing against enemies they could not identify.
That means that the fate of the statue rests in the hands of Carlson's successor,
Archbishop-elect Mitchell Rozanski, who will be installed as St. Louis's new ordinary on August
25, which is, not coincidentally, the feast of St. Louis IX. The fate of the statue rests of
Mayor Lyda Krewson, who is both a Catholic and a liberal Democrat, which means she is pulled in
two opposite directions. She has come out in favor of retaining the statue, but some Catholics
are not sure she can withstand the political pressure pulling her in the opposite direction,
since she has already presided over other acts of public iconoclasm. As a Catholic mayor
presiding over the fate of the statue of a Catholic saint in a city with a large Catholic
population, Krewson finds herself confronted with a revolutionary situation during an
interregnum. The driving force behind that revolution is the Jewish revolutionary spirit.
Because of that fact, the impending arrival of Mitchell Rozanski is not cause for optimism.
Rozanski grew up in Baltimore and is a protégé of Cardinal Keeler, who is the
patron saint of Catholic-Jewish dialogue in the United States and author of a document on
Catholic-Jewish relations that was so heretical that even the notoriously philosemitic United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops refused to publish it. On June 18, 2009, the USCCB took
the unprecedented step of condemning its own document on Catholic-Jewish relations, warning
unsuspecting readers that Keeler's "Reflections on Covenant and Mission should not be taken as
an authoritative presentation of the teaching of the Catholic Church. In order to avoid any
confusion, the USCCB Committee on Doctrine and the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious
Affairs have decided to point out some of these ambiguities and to offer corresponding
clarifications." [15]
Archbishop-Elect
Mitchell Rozanski
In an interview with Rozanski which appeared in the National Catholic Reporter ,
Keeler was described as "a legend in the field of Jewish-Catholic dialogue" and "one of
Rozanski's mentors." [16] Eventually Rozanski
succeeded Keeler as moderator for Catholic-Jewish relations. On February 24, 2017, Rozanski
wrote a response to the shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh in his capacity as
U.S. Bishops' Chairman on Interreligious Affairs, expressing "deep sympathy, solidarity, and
support to our Jewish brothers and sisters who have experienced once again a surge of
anti-Semitic actions in the United States. I wish to offer our deepest concern, as well as our
unequivocal rejection of these hateful actions. The Catholic Church stands in love with the
Jewish community in the current face of anti-Semitism." [17]
In an article which appeared in the Springfield, Massachusetts Republican , Rozanski
was quoted as saying, "I fear that the current level of demonizing anyone of a different
opinion sadly will only lead to even more levels of violence and affronts to our fellow human
beings, created in the likeness and image of God." [18] The article went on
to say that the suspected shooter in the attack referred to Jews as "children of Satan," which
the paper described as an "anti-Semitic social media posting" with no indication that the term
came from Jesus Christ in a confrontation with the Jews portrayed in the Gospel of St. John. I
make the claim that there is a historical continuity between that confrontation in the Gospel
and 2,000 years of revolutionary ferment on the part of the Jews in my book The Jewish
Revolutionary Spirit.
Unlike Justin Rigali and Raymond Burke, "whose legacies remain divisive," Rozanski plans to
deal with the polarized situation in St. Louis by promoting "more dialogue, more understanding,
more study of the way that police deal with different situations. And what happened to George
Floyd in Minneapolis was totally, totally unacceptable, totally beyond the pale of whatever
should be done to anyone who is being taken into police custody."
There are, of course, Catholics in St. Louis who can provide a cogent defense of retaining
the statue, but they are currently in hiding, fearing repercussions from Rozanski, whom one
"local Catholic in a very sensitive position that requires him to remain anonymous" described
as their "new super-ecumenical and politically correct Archbishop." As I have said many times
before, the Church can have good relations with the Jews, or she can have unity, but she can't
have both. Rozanski's good relations with the Jews is a sign that local Catholics are in for a
hard time if they try to contest the anti-Semitism label which has been imposed on them by Umar
Lee and his Jewish backers in their defense of the statue. One such Catholic provided the
following defense of the statue, while at the same time declining to give his name:
Saint Louis IX was a devout follower of Jesus, who was scrupulously honest, humble, a
generous and unfailing lover and benefactor of the poor, and a peacemaker and unifier of
factions within his kingdom. It is for these and other virtues that he was canonized by the
Church. Just as we don't eliminate the name and statues of Martin Luther King because he was
a womanizer and a plagiarist, nor should we dishonor St. Louis because of his policies toward
Jews and his crusading ventures. These need to be understood in their historical context of
medieval Christendom – very different from today's secularized world. We're told his
statue is "offensive" to Jews and Muslims. Tearing it down would be deeply offensive to
hundreds of thousands of Catholics in this area, and to quite a few others as well.
As the intensity of the conflict surrounding the rosary vigils increased, the author of the
above statement began to wonder if it had been strong enough in stating the case for St. Louis.
When a local priest attempted to debate with the protestors, a shouting match ensued with no
conclusive outcome. The author then brought up the issue of the Crusades by contexualizing it
with a discussion of Zionism:
It's a pity the priest leading the rosary and the other Catholics there didn't defend St.
Louis from the charge of being "genocidal" and a "murderer." The Crusades were basically a
defensive movement against constant Muslim encroachment on the west and Christendom, which
they vowed to conquer and destroy, and to regain the Holy Places in Palestine which they had
seized after the Holy Land had been under Christian control for over three centuries before
the Muslim invasions of the 7th century. What prompted King Louis to embark on a crusade was
that in 1244 Muslim forces invaded Jerusalem, massacred many Christians there and desecrated
churches and holy places. So it wasn't "Islamophobic" or "genocidal" for a Christian king to
want to defend them! How can Jews condemn Christians for seeking to reclaim lands formerly
under Christian control when they themselves (or at least the great majority, who are
Zionists) justified their takeover of Palestine in 1948 for the same reason, namely, that it
belonged to their ancestors until foreigners (the Romans) conquered it and dispersed
them?
He then addressed the issue of burning the Talmud:
St. Louis was following the precepts of Lateran Council IV and the popes of his time in
having copies of the Talmud banned and burned after it was found out that this volume (only
then recently translated from Hebrew) contained repulsive blasphemies against Jesus and the
Blessed Mother. Regarding Mary, "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played
the harlot with carpenters" (Sanhedrin, 106a). As regards Our Lord himself, he is said to be
now in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement" (Gittin, 57a). Why? "Jesus the Nazarene . . .
and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, [and] led Jews astray into idolatry"
(Sanhedrin, 43a). "He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone. . . was cut off from
the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent" (Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah, 47a). He
"learned witchcraft in Egypt" (Shabbos, 104b). [19]
Jonathan Greenblatt
Missing from this discussion is the role Jews play in getting people they don't like
de-platformed from social media, which is the modern day equivalent of burning the Talmud. On
the same Saturday as the protests at the St. Louis statue, all of my books were removed from
Amazon at the behest of the ADL, the main organization promoting Jewish censorship of the
media. Unlike the ADL, the Inquisition gave the books it burned a fair hearing. Now, because of
Jewish concepts like "hate speech," anyone can lose his livelihood without trial or explanation
at the hands of the same people who take umbrage at burning the Talmud. The only thing
necessary is mention of the magic word "anti-Semitism," which ends all discussion and leaves
the accused person guilty without any possibility of clearing his name. St. Louis, according to
our author:
was no "anti-Semite" (which properly speaking is a racial prejudice, like that of
Hitler); but he was indeed anti-Jewish, i.e., against Judaism as a religion, for the reason
that Jews bitterly hated Christianity (as the Talmud demonstrated) and often worked to
undermine the faith of Louis' Christian subjects, whose eternal salvation he sought to
protect. The consistent position taken by the medieval popes was the Jews were not to be
molested, and their worship was to be tolerated, provided they didn't work to oppose or
undermine the faith of the Christian majority. When punitive measures were implemented or
authorized by the Church, it was because the Church judged that Jews were not abiding by that
condition.
As his final point, our author points out that if the Jews had power over Christians to
implement the Talmud which St. Louis ordered burned, Christians would have died. That's because
Jews only believe in tolerance when they are a powerless minority, and they believe in it only
as a strategy to undermine the coherence and unity of the dominant culture until they get the
upper hand, at which point they become ruthless persecutors of those who are weaker than they
are. Israeli treatment of Palestinians is a good indication of how Jews act when they get the
upper hand. Bolshevism in Russia is another example. Once the Bolsheviks seized power in
Russia, the Jews who controlled that movement turned the instruments of state power against the
Russian Christians whom they saw as their ancestral foes by creating instruments of terror like
the Cheka, which was invariably a Jewish-run operation because Russians were reluctant to
torture and murder other Russians, whereas the Jews who made up the majority of that
organization had no such compunction. "St. Louis's medieval methods," our author continues:
were not such as we would find acceptable today, when a much greater degree of religious
toleration and emphasis on individual rights has been a part of Western culture now for
centuries; but we have to understand St. Louis and other great figures of Christendom and
U.S. history in their own historical context. The idea of a religiously "neutral" or secular
state was unheard of anywhere in the world until after the French and American Revolutions
more than 500 years after St. Louis lived. No religion in those days gave much
emphasis to religious toleration. The Jews themselves (never mind the Muslims!) would have
been very oppressive to Christians if they had been in power, as the Jewish laws set out in
the Babylonian Talmud make clear, even though most of them couldn't be implemented. For
instance, "If a gentile hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed" (Sanhedrin, 58b); "When a Jew
murders a gentile there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may
keep" (Sanhedrin, 57a). Indeed, gentiles are dehumanized: "All gentile children are animals"
(Yebamoth 98a); "Gentile girls are in a state of niddah [filth] from birth" (Abodah
Zarah, 36b). If this, and the vitriolic Talmud slurs against Jesus and Mary cited above, are
not "hate speech," what is?"
As some indication of the parlous state which Catholic-Jewish dialogue has created in the
Catholic Church, America Magazine turned to a Jewish Lesbian convert to Catholicism, who
explained the situation in St. Louis to its readers in the following way: "King Louis IX, whom
Catholics know as St. Louis, ordered the burning [of the Talmud] after a rigged 'disputation'
in which a Jewish convert to Christianity debated a rabbi about whether the Talmud was
blasphemous." [20] So are the above
passages blasphemous? Are they in the Talmud? If the answer to those questions is yes, in what
sense was the disputation rigged? Eve Tushnet, who is the author of this article as well as the
author of Gay and Catholic: Accepting My Sexuality, Finding Community, Living My Faith,
never gets around to answering that question. Nor does she tell us whether the statue should be
taken down or left in place, nor does she tell us in what sense someone who describes herself
as a Jewish lesbian has converted to the Catholic faith.
The fact that the author of this eloquent defense of St. Louis chose to remain anonymous out
of fear of retaliation from that city's incoming bishop is a good indication that the violence
will increase. America is now in the middle of a full-blown revolution because largely Jewish
revolutionaries broke the Motion Picture Production Code in 1965 and inundated the country with
pornography and other forms of sexual subversion, which left subsequent generations weakened,
demoralized, and incapable of sustaining their own culture and institutions. The year 1965
inaugurated the failed experiment known as Catholic-Jewish dialogue as well. More than anything
else, the sort of Catholic-Jewish dialogue which the incoming bishop learned at the knee of his
mentor Cardinal Keeler crippled the Catholic Church's ability to defend the moral order in
American society. Repurposed as our "elder brothers" and friends, Jews qua Jews became
the unopposed sponsors of virtually every subversive movement in American culture from abortion
to gay marriage, from race-baiting political correctness to family destroying feminism, from
warmongering neo-Conservatism to brutal shoot-the-protesters-in-the-back Zionism, alienating
people who should have been America's friends because of Israel's barbarous behavior. The Jews
have never abandoned their ancestral commitment to revolution, and now revolution has arrived
at the gates of the Gateway, as the Black revolutionaries who have always been the Jews' proxy
warriors, from the founding of the NAACP to the infusion of George Soros money into the coffers
of Black Lives Matter, broke down the entrance to a gated community two blocks from the St.
Louis statue and continued the march which began after George Floyd died. Threatened by what
looked like a home invasion and abandoned by the local police, who had been told to stand down
by that city's feminist mayor, Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey stood their ground on the front porch of
their house brandishing the weapons that they were forced to exhibit because the cops refused
to come to their assistance when called.
The rally at the statue ended up being much more violent than anticipated as brass-knuckled
Black Lives Matter thugs beat up elderly Catholics who had come to say the Rosary. [21] Some of
the Black Lives Matter demonstrators arrived with firearms. All of the Catholic demonstrators
were unarmed. According to various reports, Black Lives Matter protesters attacked Catholics
praying near the Apotheosis of St. Louis statue in St. Louis. And why did they do this? Were
the Black thugs who took the cane away from a 60-year-old Catholic praying the Rosary and beat
him with it upset about Louis IX burning the Talmud or his position on Albigensianism? I doubt
it. You can view that attack at the link in this footnote. [22] Umar Lee's portrayal
of Catholics as white supremacists, fresh from Charlottesville, is responsible for that
Catholic's injuries. Lee is guilty of incitement. If he and the man who carried out the attack
go unpunished, we can expect more violence.
In reaction to the violence at the statue on Sunday, the Islamic Foundation of Greater St.
Louis issued a stunning rebuke to Umar Lee in a statement on Tuesday, June 31, saying that
removing the statue of St. Louis "will not erase history." The Islamic group went on to say
that they remained "committed to work on interfaith relationships based on honest dialogue and
mutual respect." It did not recommend taking down the statue of St. Louis. Instead it was
saying there were voices of reason in the Islamic community in St. Louis and that Lee's
campaign had no support among the people who did speak for Islam in that city. As one local
Catholic put it after reading the Islamic group's report, "The Jews have overplayed their
hand."
Mr. Greenblatt's attempt to use the ADL to resurrect the Black/Jewish alliance has created
problems of its own. With Israel's annexation of the West Bank looming, the ADL is concerned
that the backlash that the annexation is sure to cause, might spread to its proxy warriors in
Black Lives Matter, as in fact did happen in England [23] :
The "stakeholders analysis memo," which was issued by the ADL's Government Relations,
Advocacy, and Community Engagement department and marked as a draft, warns that the group
will need to find a way to defend Israel from criticism without alienating other civil rights
organizations, elected officials of color, and Black Lives Matter activists and supporters.
The memo suggests that the group hopes to avoid appearing openly hostile to public criticism
of annexation while it works to block legislation that harshly censures Israel or leads to
material consequences, such as conditioning United States military support. [24]
The ADL was not the only Jewish organization supporting Black Lives Matter. According to a a
report in the Jewish Telegraph Agency, "More than 400 Jewish organizations and synagogues in
the United States have signed on to a letter that asserts 'unequivocally: Black Lives Matter.'"
[25] Those groups
represented a broad spectrum "of religious, political, gender, and racial identities. The list
of signatories -- from small congregations to major Jewish organizations -- represents millions
of Jewish people in the United States, the organizers," according to the statement.
The problem in cities like Seattle, Chicago, and St. Louis can be laid at the feet of those
cities' lesbian and feminist public officials, a group which is incapable of enforcing the law
because they see the law as a manifestation of patriarchal oppression. This encourages anarchy
because it allows Jewish-funded thugs like Antifa and Black Lives Matter to act with impunity.
It also encourages political opportunists like Umar Lee to mount assaults on the social order
because they can blackmail those officials because of the guilty conscience which arises from
abortion and sexual perversion. The Church is complicit as well when it appoints bishops who
are known for their skill in appeasing Christ's enemies.
The video of Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey's confrontation in St. Louis garnered over 16 million
views in less than 24 hours, not because violence ensued, but because violence was averted, at
least for the time being. [26] But the assault on
the McCloskeys continues as a signature petition to disbar them is wending its way to the
Jewish head of the local lawyer's disciplinary board. Planning to fight fire with fire, the
McCloskeys have hired a Jewish lawyer to defend them.
As of this writing, St. Louis Circuit attorney Kim Gardner is considering filing charges
against the McCloskey's for defending their home. Gardner was elected in 2017, with the help of
George Soros money. [27] In addition to
supporting Gardner, Soros also funded the Ferguson riots. [28] During Gardner's
tenure as Circuit Attorney, felony prosecutions dropped dramatically. Of the 7,045 felony cases
which the St. Louis Police Department brought before the circuit attorney in 2019, only 1641
were prosecuted, despite claims of significant evidence to prosecute presented by the police
union. [29] After reducing the
cash bond for numerous offences, or removing it altogether, Gardner announced that she was no
longer going to prosecute "low-level" marijuana possession cases. At this point, Gardner
declared war on the State of Missouri. In February 2018, Gardner indicted Missouri Governor
Eric Greitens. [30] Three months later,
the governor's office filed a suit against William Don Tisaby, the ex-FBI agent Gardner had
hired to investigate Greitens. Gardner then went all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court to
block the appointment of a special prosecute to investigate her handling of the Greitens
investigation but lost. That grand jury also brought charges of misconduct against Gardner but
ultimately failed to hand down any indictments.
In 2019 Gardner pleaded guilty to repeated campaign finance violations dating back to her
time as a Missouri State Legislator, but avoided conviction by reaching "an agreement with the
Missouri Ethics Commission to pay a settlement of $6,314 in lieu of a $63,009 fine." [31]
In January 2020, Gardner filed a civil rights lawsuit against St. Louis City and St. Louis
Metropolitan Police Department on the basis of the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment,
and the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1865 alleging a racist conspiracy. The City of St. Louis called the
case "meritless," and Jeff Roorda of the St. Louis Police Officers Association called it "the
last act of a desperate woman." [32]
On June 3, 2020, Gardner released all 36 of the rioters who had been arrested in the wake of
the George Floyd protests. [33] Gardner is
sympathetic St. Louis's revolutionaries because ever since her election, she has been involved
in her own attempt to overthrow the government. The fate of the McCloskeys, who have been told
that the rioters are planning to return to their house, now rests in the hand of this woman and
the police force she has beaten into submission with the help of George Soros.
Whether violence prevails in the future, no one can say at this point, but the best
indication of its likelihood can be found in the fate of the statue which represents that
city's patron saint, and the fighting spirit it inspires in those who are determined to resist
the Jewish revolutionary spirit, as St. Louis did in Paris eight centuries ago.
[19] The last three
Talmud citations here were accessed 6/26/20 on the Jewish website http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm, where they are quoted
with approval in an article arguing Jesus was a "false prophet".
Great article, I had no idea of the background behind these various incidents. I saw each
clip on various media channels, but never knew that they were all connected.
Couple of comments:
1) Jewish-Catholic dialogue appears to be a one way shouting match. I have yet to hear of
Jews altering the Talmud to remove the anti-gentile and anti-Christian passages from that
turgid tome.
2) "nor does she tell us in what sense someone who describes herself as a Jewish lesbian
has converted to the Catholic faith." She's obviously an infiltrator, like several of the
major participants in Vatican II. I'm no Catholic, so I'm not about to lecture anyone on
Church history, but there are a few volumes out there on the founding of the Jesuit order and
how gentiles and jews battled for control of it over subsequent decades. Infiltration of
Christian churches is as much of a Jewish tradition as Purim.
3) It was from your work that I finally gained a better understanding of Jesus and his
criticism of the Pharisees. Shame to see it disappear from Amazon, but I fear anything that
even remotely offends Jewish sensibilities is going to be hard to find in future. I believe
they even banned Jewish historian Leni Brenner's book on the transfer agreement.
Interesting to know about the fake-negro and fake-Muslim Umar Lee or Talcum XX. There's
already a fake-negro from KY who's known as Talcum X. He's the one who is stationed at
Haaaavaaahd who collects 20K a pop for speeches advocating that all non-black portrayals of
Christ and Mary be destroyed and churches burned. His BLM followers seem to have been busy in
the past week. Perhaps E. Michael Jones should do a follow-up on this noxious clown. This was
a very informative article with a lot of insightful background provided.
Interesting to note that the first ones to show any resistance to this atrocity were some
Brazilian Traditionalist Catholics. Most of the ones from Murika are too busy fellating the
BLM (Black Looming Monster) created and funded by nice folks like George Soros, who isn't
even a fake Nazi but an actual Nazi employee who (along with his father) aided the famous
Adolf Eichmann in the asset-looting of Hungarian Jews in the wake of the Nazi overthrow of
Admiral Horthy's regime.
Horthy's government refused to send the local Jews to Hitler even though they were allied
with the Germans in fighting the USSR. Isn't there a special division of the Juctice Dept.
devoted to hunting down folks who were involved even slightly with the Hitler regime?? Guess
when you buy citizenship in the Rotten Banana Empire (Soros' was via a special act of
Congress – the finest money can buy), the fearless Nazi-hunters shy away.
One of the worst things Giuliani did was bring back urban revival. If DEATH-WISH-style NY
had continued, America would have been far more conservative.
All that urban renewal and wealth made the city slickers more cosmo and snotty.
The USA is now so wracked with immorality, perversion and identity politics – its
difficult to see that it has a future.
And having read about Lee and Holt, Talve and Gardner I was instantly reminded of the thread
from yesterday. 'Who Should be Shot?'.
With the infestation of pure evil which is ripping apart the society and internal peace of
the American people – are there no patriots left .?
When there is no law, no protection for decency, fairness and justice – the time must
come when citizens need to defend themselves.
Obviously in St Louis that time has come ..
But the brainwashing now is so deep seated, so professional and so ugly but well financed
– it seems to me that the USA will be consumed from within, without the white
population even turning off their TV sets until the killing, raping and looting hits their
actual front doors.
And it will.
The barbarians are no longer at the gates – they are destroying and 'cleansing' all the
concept of history and any 'American dream'from inside the very heart of the country.
Karma – perhaps.
Since E. Michael Jones endorses Christianity, it is appropriate to remind him that
Christians destroyed the holy places of their rivals, destroying statues and libraries of
antiquity, bringing down holy oaks of Germanic tribes etc..
And you Americans did it in Germany not too long ago, even destroying completely
unpolitical statues of Arno Breker and other artists.
So it is all a bit hypocritical.
Nota bene: I don't endorse this destruction in America, and I even lament this, because I
see it as a sign of weakness of the White race, and I identify as a White man, and I see
those who are bringing those statues down as my enemies. But a bit more self-reflection would
certainly be appropriate, if you want someone to sympathize with you.
I guess it surprises me less that Jesus Christ is still being persecuted by the old Jewish
remnant than that the remnant has found so many allies at this point in our history. I'm
equally unsurprised that a much more effective coalition is thereby being formed to oppose
the remnant. Satan, being a liar from the beginning, always makes the same mistakes. He/She
turns a series of small victories, like rampant pornography and an army of weak, duped
Christian leaders like Hesburgh, into a conflagration that demands a response from God, like
the Resurrection.
"But the brainwashing now is so deep seated, so professional and so ugly but well financed
– it seems to me that the USA will be consumed from within, without the white
population even turning off their TV sets until the killing, raping and looting hits their
actual front doors."
I see no evidence that you are wrong. And Trump fiddles while America burns.
And you Americans did it in Germany not too long ago, even destroying completely
unpolitical statues of Arno Breker and other artists.
Breker was artist to the Third Reich, which was a political movement and hostile to
Christianity. While Jones thoroughly condemns all aspects of Nazism he does believe the rise
of Hitler and the Third Reich is attributable to Bolshevism.
Fortunately the cultural record of the 20th century is quite full and easy to access. And what
I see is, until the 60s, Catholics getting along just fine.
The Motion Picture Production Code, before that the Hays Code, certainly pre-Lambeth, when
Protestants and Catholics worked together, America was a paradise, compared to today's
Godforsaken mess.
They could have kept things that way. But the Jews gained game-changing power after WWII. And
since you couldnt name them, you couldnt fight them. And since you couldnt fight them, you lost.
Father
Coughlin , says: July 14, 2020 at 2:42 pm
GMT
appropriate to remind him that Christians destroyed the holy places of their rivals,
destroying statues and libraries of antiquity, bringing down holy oaks of Germanic tribes
etc..
Nope. They Christianized them. Pulled out of them what was true, noble and beautiful and
modified what was error.
Jul 12, 2020 Tyrants HATE This 500 Year Old Trick for Ending Tyranny
The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, the 16th century treatise on tyranny and obedience by
Étienne de La Boétie. James and Keith highlight some of the book's key insights
and detail how they apply every much to our situation today as they did when they were
written.
Jun 29, 2020 Armed Couple Facing BLM Mob SPEAK OUT "We Were In FEAR OF OUR LIVES The
Agitators WERE WHITE"!!!
When an angry and unruly BLM mob trespassed onto private property homeowners Mark and
Patricia McCloskey armed themselves to protect their lives and their property after the mob
uttered threats that they would kill them.
August 22, 2017 The racist origin of gun control laws
Congress demolished these racist laws. The Freedmen's Bureau Bill of 1865, Civil Rights Act
of 1866, and Civil Rights Act of 1870 each guaranteed all persons equal rights of self-defense.
Most importantly, the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, made the Second Amendment applicable to
the states.
@Chu N – In a
letter to the American people, Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew today announced plans for the
new $20, $10 and $5 notes, with the portrait of Harriet Tubman to be featured on the front of
the new $20.
Secretary Lew also announced plans for the reverse of the new $10 to feature an image of the
historic march for suffrage that ended on the steps of the Treasury Department and honor the
leaders of the suffrage movement -- Lucretia Mott, Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul. The front of the new $10 note will maintain the portrait of
Alexander Hamilton.
This is a very stupid and uneducated reply. There is so much evidence of wholesale
destruction of "pagan" heritage by Christians. No serious Christian scholar denies this. Read a
bit on the topic.
It is amazing to me how adding that X-factor to the equation seemingly always makes the
incomplete picture make perfect sense. Tucker led his show with the McCloskey story last night,
but he can't say outright many of the hidden variables. He does a better job than anyone in the
MSM by far at leading the horse to water, but will they drink?
though it should be remembered that our Republic was founded upon people saying no to unjust
laws and compacts, hence the Declaration of Independence!
Thus Martin Luther King Jr promotion of non-violent opposition to injustice should not be
condemned, for it is part of the greater important tradition in this country, and it was
precisely the fork-saluting weather underground marxist maoist thugs abetted by funding through
the Ford Foundation, etc to Soros of this day, that wanted to stop King, through murder, to
launch violence and race war as that strategy of divide and conquer is now being deployed once
again.
For it should be remembered that King, like Trump today, was calling out against the Vietnam
war, as Trump was the only antiwar candidate in 2016 against the Obama Bin Bush Bin Clinton Bin
Bush perpetual war machine, where the call for Trump's assassination is by those who want to
stay in Afghanistan, saw nothing wrong with destroying the African nation of Libya by a black
President Obama, the destruction of Syria, etc and are hell bent on stopping cooperation for
world development upon the McKinley American System Model which the Belt and Road and New Silk
Road initiatives were modeled.
Trump unfortunately is in bed with some very poisonous elements, but some of those elements
even understand that no one will survive a nuclear war very much on the table and being
provoked by various elements .
The good news is that the unstoppable juggernaut of globalization has fallen to it's
knees. Countries and societies around the world will have to look at ways they came become
independent and self sufficient,at least to some degree. It's like "War of the Worlds"
really, the best effort of humanity to contain the plague fails, but a random natural
occurrence saves humanity from the brink of destruction. Hopefully some real scientists will
be allowed to mitigate the medical disaster, but one thing is for sure, the grand plan of
turning everyone into a nomad competing for pennies on the international market, for the sole
benefit of the richest among the rich, is dead. Some really hard times are coming for the
international nomads/ parasites, and hopefully humanity will move to some more beneficial
culture, and have a real chance to survive as a species, in the long term.
Again, probably not an urgent problem unless some existing Chinese aircraft in service are
on their last legs and urgently must be replaced. In which case they could go with Airbus if
the situation could not wait. China has options. Boeing does not.
The west loves to portray the Chinese as totally without ethics, and if you have a product
they can't make for themselves, they will buy it from you only until they have figured out
how to make it themselves, and then fuck you, Jack. I don't see any reason to believe the
Chinese value alliances less than the west does, or are any more incapable of grasping the
value of a give-and-take trade policy. The west – especially the United States –
favours establishing a monopoly on markets and then using your inability to get the product
anywhere else as leverage to force concessions you don't want to make; is that ethical? China
must surely see the advantages of a mutually-respectful relationship with Russia, considering
that country not only safeguards a significant length of its border from western probing, but
supplies most of its energy. There remain many unexplored avenues for technical, engineering
and technological cooperation. At the same time, Russia is not in a subordinate position
where it has to endure being taken advantage of.
Trade is hard work, and any partner will maneuver for advantage, because everyone in
commerce likes market share and money. But Washington has essentially forgotten how to
negotiate on mutually-respectful terms, and favours maneuvering its 'partners' into
relationships in which the USA has an overwhelmingly dominant position, and then announcing
it is 'leveling the playing field'. Which means putting its thumb on the scale.
Must. Pass. Foreign. Relations. Policy. Past. USDoS. First. Well that is
unforgiveable for the Masters of the Universe(TM). No-one knows exactly what's in it except
that it is substantial. Still, the USDoS is having a public aneurism tells us that they care
a lot.
Every time you "impose costs" on another country, you make more enemies and inspire more
end-around plays which take you as an economic player out of that loop. And by and by what
you do is of no great consequence, and your ability – your LEGAL ability, I should
interject – to 'impose costs' is gone.
Sooner or later America's allies are going to
refuse to recognize its extraterritorial sanctions, which it has no legal right to impose; it
gets away with it by threatening costs in trade with the USA, which is a huge economy and is
something under its control.
But that practice causes other countries to gradually insulate
themselves against exposure, and one day the cost of obeying will be greater than the
cost of saying "Go fuck yourself".
Tucker Carlson escalated the ongoing war between FOX News and CNN Wednesday, bringing
attention to Don Lemon for breathtaking hypocrisy on issues of black family culture.
TUCKER CARLSON: If you're running a channel like CNN, you want dumb people on tv because
they are compliant. They will say what they are told. They will tell the audience with the
moment demands. They will level stray from the script and that's exactly what Mr. Lemon is
doing. Seven years ago it was a different country and people were kind of a lot to say what
they thought was true. At the time, here's what Don Lemon was saying about black communities.
Watch this.
DON LEMON: More than 72 percent of children in the African-American community are born out of
wedlock. That means absent fathers. And the studies show that lack of a male role model is an
express train right to prison and the cycle continues. So, please, black folks, as I said if
this doesn't apply to you, I'm not talking to you. Pay attention to and think about what has
been presented in recent history as acceptable behavior. Pay close attention to the hip-hop and
rap culture that many of you embrace. A culture that glorifies everything I just mentioned,
thug and reprehensible behavior, a culture that is making a lot of people rich, just not you.
And it's not going to.
TUCKER CARLSON: Wow. Can you imagine what would happen if Don Lemon or his bodybuilding
buddy over there or any of these people said something like that? On CNN tonight or MSNBC? It
would be their last live broadcast ever. They would be fired immediately. You can't express
views like that. So they don't.
"... "People who are actually 'cancelled' don't get their thoughts published and amplified in major outlets," ..."
"... "held accountable" ..."
"... "an entire TV network" ..."
"... "stoking hatred" ..."
"... "white supremacist [with] a popular network show" ..."
"... "in dangerous ways," ..."
"... You and your mob have been destroying careers and reputations and livelihoods on a whim. Now you're being hoist by your own petard. Those of us blacklisted, libeled, and falsely maligned have zero sympathy. You all started it. May you be devoured by it. https://t.co/PGzMzNa0ku ..."
"... "fired from their jobs and have their livelihoods threatened." ..."
"... There was similar disillusionment with the lawmaker's assertion that she is being maliciously smeared by news networks and "white supremacists." "You're not a victim, you're a United States congresswoman," observed an unsympathetic Twitter user. ..."
"... Whether AOC wants to acknowledge it or not, a seemingly endless internet crusade has ruined the lives of countless individuals (many of them private citizens with little or no power) accused of holding politically incorrect views or of expressing insensitive remarks. ..."
"... An open letter published by Harper's Magazine which criticized the "vogue for public shaming and ostracism" among journalists, academics, and other figures ended up backfiring spectacularly after several signatories of the document rescinded their endorsements. They explained that they'd been unaware that 'problematic' people had also signed the letter. ..."
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has denied the existence of cancel culture, suggesting it is an
invention of privileged moaners who can't handle criticism. Her thesis prompted speculation
that the powerful lawmaker has no self-awareness. The rookie New York congresswoman, whose
'woke' Twitter takes have made her a hero to many on the Left, attempted to debunk the concept
of cancel culture in a series of profound posts.
"People who are actually 'cancelled' don't get their thoughts published and amplified in
major outlets," she argued , adding that the whiners who
complain about being 'cancelled' are actually just entitled and hate being "held
accountable" or "unliked."
To prove her point, she claimed that "an entire TV network" is dedicated to
"stoking hatred" of her, and that a "white supremacist [with] a popular network
show" regularly misrepresents her "in dangerous ways," but that she never
complains about it. (The congresswoman may be referring to Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who is
white and undoubtedly not a fan of hers.)
According to Ocasio-Cortez, the people who "actually" get cancelled are
anti-capitalists and even abolitionists – apparently a hat-tip to activists who
campaigned to end slavery, which was formally abolished in the United States in 1865 with the
ratification of the 13th Amendment.
Her airtight dissertation received poor marks from many on social media, however. Countless
comments accused her of being part of the very movement which she claims doesn't exist.
"You and your mob have been destroying careers and reputations and livelihoods on a whim.
Now you're being hoist by your own petard," quipped actor James Woods.
You and your mob have been destroying careers and reputations and livelihoods on a
whim. Now you're being hoist by your own petard. Those of us blacklisted, libeled, and
falsely maligned have zero sympathy. You all started it. May you be devoured by it.
https://t.co/PGzMzNa0ku
Others argued that AOC was technically correct. Instead of having their views broadcast by
mainstream outlets, 'cancelled' individuals are often "fired from their jobs and have their
livelihoods threatened."
Correct. Instead, they are often fired from their jobs, harassed by twitter mobs, &
have their livelihoods threatened. And so since they cannot speak up, we who have a platform
choose to use our power responsibly to speak up on their behalf. You should do the same. Join
us, AOC https://t.co/lQ5yiuKFq6
There was similar disillusionment with the lawmaker's assertion that she is being
maliciously smeared by news networks and "white supremacists." "You're not a victim, you're a
United States congresswoman," observed an unsympathetic Twitter
user.
However, her remarks also garnered applause from social media users, who dismissed cancel
culture as a right-wing talking point.
Cancel culture is fake. It's a right wing framing of social accountability and people need
to stop giving the term any credence.
Whether AOC wants to acknowledge it or not, a seemingly endless internet crusade has
ruined the lives of countless individuals (many of them private citizens with little or no
power) accused of holding politically incorrect views or of expressing insensitive
remarks.
An open letter published by Harper's Magazine which criticized the "vogue for public
shaming and ostracism" among journalists, academics, and other figures ended up backfiring
spectacularly after several signatories of the document rescinded their endorsements. They
explained that they'd been unaware that 'problematic' people had also signed the
letter.
Would CNN's Don Lemon cancel himself over shockingly unwoke 2013 tips to black
community?
A vintage clip of CNN anchor Don Lemon telling black people to act civilized and
disregard "street culture" has the woke pundit's detractors' jaws on the floor, wondering what
happened to him over the intervening seven years. In the 2013 clip, Lemon praises Fox News host
Bill O'Reilly as the Republican pundit decries the " disintegration of the African-American
family ," even arguing O'Reilly " doesn't go far enough " when he denounces "
street culture. " The video was posted to social media by " Panda Tribune " on
Wednesday and quickly circulated among conservatives, who had a hard time reconciling this
Lemon with his painfully-PC modern-day counterpart.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson aired the segment on his show Wednesday night, marveling that
if Lemon or one of his colleagues came out with those lines in 2020, " that would be their
last live broadcast ever - they'd be fired immediately ."
"... Whoever gets elected will certainly affect details of how the ship sinks ..."
"... I have come to hate the Maoist/Jacobin scum today referred to as "The Left". I want Trump to get a second term because it will cause my enemies to suffer. ..."
"... The real question in dire need of asking is: Do the Next 10 Presidential Elections Even Matter? And the answer remains: not a dime's worth of difference. "We the People" will continue to witness the same electoral circus complete with its fake debates as our elite's addiction to war will be craving its habitual fix. "We the People" are too stupefied and mired in our own addictions to cell phones and other mind numbing gadgets while being fed a steady diet of lies by the MSM. Our awakening is too remote for us to take back our country. ..."
"... Once again, talk is cheap. Why would the "deep state" "hate" him so much? Did he investigate 9/11? Did he end any wars, or pull out of NATO, or improve relations with Russia and/or China, or cut aid to Israel, etc.? No. ..."
"... I think there are some key differences here on what could take shape. If Biden wins, the Republicans can put down the Trump saga as a regrettable mistake and go back to being the boring old Jen Bush party moaning about lowering taxes for the rich and abortion. ..."
"... However if Trump wins, the Republicans will have to acknowledge that people support Trumpism and will have to start re orientating the party towards Trumpian Populism in future elections as they will realize that it is a permanent vote winner. ..."
"... One of guys on The Duran said that the politicians on the Left and Right don't care about Black Lives Matter, the statues, history, gender wars, gay this/LGXYZ that, the culture wars. That doesn't really concern them; they'll just let the sheeple fight it out. ..."
"... What they DO care about is their corporate masters, the people they are really beholden to. As long as their masters continue to make money and the culture wars don't disturb that, then all is well. ..."
The fact is that for the past four years the US liberals have waged a total informational war against Trump and it would be absolutely
unthinkable for them to ever accept a Trump re-election, even if he wins by a landslide. For the US Dems and neo-liberals, Trump
is the personification of evil, literally, and that means that "resistance" to him and everything he represents must be total. And
if he is re-elected, then there is only one possible explanation: the Russians stole the election, or the Chinese did. But the notion
that Trump has the support of a majority of people is literally unthinkable for these folks.
Truth be told, Trump has proven to be a fantastically incompetent President, no doubt about that. Was he even worse than Obama?
Maybe, it really all depends on your scoring system. In my personal opinion, and for all his very real sins and failings, Trump,
at least, did not start a major war, which Obama did, and which Hillary would have done (can't prove this, but that is my personal
belief). That by itself, and totally irrespective of anything else, makes me believe that Trump has been a "lesser evil" (even if
far more ridiculous) President than Obama has been or Hillary would have been. This is what I believed four years ago and this is
what I still believe: considering how dangerous for the entire planet "President Hillary" would have been, voting for Trump was not
only the only logical thing to do, it was the only moral one too because giving your voice to a warmongering narcissistic hyena like
Hillary is a profoundly immoral act (yes, I know, Trump is also a narcissist – most politicians are! – but at least his warmongering
has been all hot air and empty threats, at least so far). However, I don't think that this (not having started a major war) will
be enough to get Trump re-elected.
Why?
Because most Americans still like wars. In fact, they absolutely love them. Unless, of course, they lose. What Americans really
want is a President who can win wars, not a President who does not initiate them in the first place. This is also the most likely
reason why Trump did not start any major wars: the US has not won a real war in decades and, instead, it got whipped in every conflict
it started. Americans hate losing wars, and that is why Trump did not launch any wars: it would have been political suicide to start
a real war against, say, the DPRK or Iran. So while I am grateful that Trump did not start any wars, I am not naive to the point
of believing that he did so for pure and noble motives. Give Trump an easy victory and he will do exactly what all US Presidents
have done in the past: attack, beat up the little guy, and then be considered like a "wartime President hero" by most Americans.
The problem is that there are no more "little guys" left out there: only countries who can, and will, defend themselves if attacked.
The ideology of messianic imperialism which permeates the US political culture is still extremely powerful and deep seated and
it will take years, probably decades, to truly flush it down to where it belongs: to the proverbial trash-heaps of history. Besides,
in 2020 Americans have much bigger concerns than war vs. peace – at least that is what most of them believe. Between the Covid19
pandemic and the catastrophic collapse of the economy (of course, while the former certainly has contributed to the latter, it did
not single-handedly cause it) and now the BLM insurgency, most Americans now feel personally threatened – something which no wars
of the past ever did (a war against Russia very much would, but most Americans don't realize that, since nobody explains this to
them; they also tend to believe that nonsense about the US military being the best and most capable in history).
Following four years of uninterrupted flagwaving and MAGA-chanting there is, of course, a hardcore of true believers who believe
that Trump is nothing short of brilliant and that he will "kick ass" everything and everybody: from the spying Russians, to the rioting
Blacks, from the pandemic, to the lying media, etc. The fact that in reality Trump pitifully failed to get anything truly important
done is completely lost on these folks who live in a reality they created for themselves and in which any and all facts contradicting
their certitudes are simply explained away by silly stuff like "Q-anon" or "5d chess". Others, of course, will realize that Trump
"deflated" before those whom he called "the swamp" almost as soon as he got into the White House.
As for the almighty Israel Lobby, it seems to me that it squeezed all it could from Trump who, from the point of view of the Zionists,
was always a "disposable President" anyway. And now that Trump has done everything Israel wanted him to do, he becomes almost useless.
If anything, Pelosi, Schumer and the rest of them will try to outdo Trump's love for everything Israeli anyway.
So how much support is there behind Trump today? I really don't know (don't trust the polls, which have always been deeply wrong
about Trump anyway), but I think that there is definitely a constituency of truly frightened Americans who are freaking out (as they
should, considering the rapid collapse of the country) and who might vote Trump just because they will feel that for all his faults,
he is the only one who can save the country. Conversely, they will see Biden as a pro-BLM geriatric puppet who will hand the keys
of the White House to a toxic coalition of minorities.
So what if Trump does get re-elected?
In truth, the situation is so complex and there are so many variables (including many "unknown unknowns"!) that make predictions
impossible. Still, we can try to make some educated guesses, especially if based on some kind of logic such as the one which says
that "past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior". In other words, if Trump gets elected, we will get more of the same.
Personally, I would characterize this "same" as a further destruction of the US from within by the Democrats and their "coalition
of minorities" combined with a further destruction of the US Empire abroad by delusional Republicans.
I very much doubt that it makes any sense at all to vote for that, really. Better stay at home and do something worthwhile with
your time, no?
Now what about a Biden election?
Remember that Biden is now the de-facto leader of what I would loosely call the "anti-US coalition", that is the "coalition of
minorities" which really have nothing in common except their hatred of the established order (well, and, of course, their hatred
of Trump and of those who voted for him).
These minorities are very good at hating and destroying, but don't count on them to ever come up with constructive solutions –
it ain't gonna happen. For one thing, they are probably too stupid to come up with any constructive ideas, but even more important
is the fact that these folks all have a hyper-narrow agenda and, simply put, they don't care about "constructing" anything. These
folks are all about hatred and the instant gratification of their narrow, one-topic, agenda.
This also begs the question of why the Dems decided to go with Biden in spite of the fact that he is clearly an extremely weak
candidate. In spite? I am not so sure at all. I think that they chose him because he is so weak: the real power behind him will be
in the hands of the Schumer-Pelosi-Obama gang and of the interests these folks represent.
Unlike Trump who prostituted himself only after making it to the White House, the neo-liberal Dems have *already* prostituted
themselves to everybody who wanted to give them something in return, from the Ukie Nazis to the thugs of BLM, to the powerful US
homo-lobby. Don't expect them to show any spine, or even less so, love for the USA, if they get the White House. They hate this country
and most of its people and they are not shy about it.
What would happen to the US if the likes of Bloomberg or Harris took control? First, there would be the comprehensive surrender
to the various minorities which put these folks in power followed by a very strong blowback from all the "deplorables" ranging from
protests and civil disobedience, to local authorities refusing to take orders from the feds. Like it or not, but most Americans still
love their country and loathe the kind of pseudo-liberal ideology which has been imposed upon them by the joint actions of the US
deep state and the corporate world. There is even a strong probability that if Biden gets elected the USA's disintegration would
only accelerate.
On the international front, a Biden Presidency would not solve any of the problems created by Obama and Trump: by now it is way
too late and the damage done to the international reputation of the United States is irreparable. If anything, the Dems will only
make it worse by engaging in even more threats, sanctions and wars. Specifically, the Demolicans hate Russia, China and Iran probably
even more than the Republicrats. Besides, these countries have already concluded a long time ago that the US was "not agreement capable"
anyway (just look at the long list of international treaties and organization from which the US under Trump has withdrawn: what is
the point of negotiating anything with a power which systematically reneges on its promises and obligations?)
The truth is that if Biden gets elected, the US will continue to fall apart internally and externally, if anything, probably even
faster than under a re-elected Trump.
Which brings me to my main conclusion:
Why do we even bother having elections?
First, I don't think that the main role of a democracy is to protect minorities from majorities. A true democracy protects the
majority against the many minorities which typically have a one-issue agenda and which are typically hostile to the values of the
majority . Oh sure, minority rights should be protected, the question is how exactly?
For one thing, most states have some kind of constitution/basic law which sets a number of standards which cannot be violated
as long as this constitution/basic law is in force. Furthermore, in most states which call themselves democratic all citizens have
the same rights and obligations, and a minority status does not give anybody any special rights or privileges. Typically, there are
also fundamental international standards for human rights and fundamental national standards for civil rights. Minority rights (individual
or collective), however, are not typically considered a separate category which somehow trumps or supplements adopted norms for human
and civil rights (if only because it creates a special "minority" category, whereas in true "people power" all citizens are considered
as one entity).
It is quite obvious that neither the Republicrats nor the Demolicans represent the interests of "we the people" and that both
factions of the US plutocracy are under the total control of behind-the-scenes real powers. What happened four years ago was a colossal
miscalculation of these behind-the-scenes real powers who failed to realize how hated they were and how even a guy like Trump would
seem preferable to a nightmare like Hillary (as we know, had the Dems chosen Sanders or even some other halfway lame candidate, Trump
would probably not have prevailed).
This is why I submit that the next election will make absolutely no difference:
The US system is rigged to give all the power to minorities and to completely ignore the will of the people The choice between the
Demolicans and the Republicrats is not a choice at all The systemic crisis of the US is too deep to be affected by who is in power
in the White House
Simply put, and unlike the case of 2016, the outcome of the 2020 election will make no difference at all. Caring about who the
next puppet in the White House will be is tantamount to voting for a new captain while the Titanic is sinking . The major difference
is that the Titanic sank in very deep water whereas the "ship USA" will sink in the shallows, meaning that the US will not completely
disappear: in some form or another, it will survive either as a unitary state or as a number of successor states. The Empire, however,
has no chance of survival at all. Thus, anything which contributes to make the US a "normal" country and which weakens the Empire
is in the interests of the people of the USA. Voting for either one of the candidates this fall will only prolong the agony of the
current political regime in the USA.
The truth is that if Biden gets elected, the US will continue to fall apart internally and externally, if anything, probably
even faster than under a re-elected Trump.
This observation suggests that one should vote for Biden if one votes at all. Perhaps if one is going to the election because
there's a particularly crucial vote for county board of supervisors candidates (very important, by the way) and you happen to
be at the polls anyway, the fastest way to further the process of saying good riddance to the American empire is to vote for Joe
Biden.
Whoever gets elected will certainly affect details of how the ship sinks. Two consecutive elections with Gerontocrats. Neither
of the two nominally different parties has a very deep roster evidenced by the poverty of options they have been putting forward.
Given his decline, I don't expect Biden to have a long presidency if he survives to officially get the nomination.
Unless ur a 100% reprehensible crack head, go vote for Dumbo J Trump.
He is awful, he is beaten, he is an Israel sellout.
But the other side will kill you.
If Biden wins, the emboldened mob will come to your home to kill you. If you call the police, they won't come and they won't
investigate your rape/torture/death. If you defend yourself, you will be arrested and prosecuted. The media will deny it is happening
and also say that you deserved it.
I have come to hate the Maoist/Jacobin scum today referred to as "The Left". I want Trump to get a second term because it will
cause my enemies to suffer.
In rural Counties (Red America) an elected Sheriff is the chief local law officer. Watch for coalitions of Counties,
within or across State lines, demanding secession or limited autonomy. The only way forward for sane Americans is to remove themselves
from Woke jurisdictions. The election won't change that. But I will vote for Orange Man anyway. Just for spite!
The real question in dire need of asking is: Do the Next 10 Presidential Elections Even Matter? And the answer remains: not
a dime's worth of difference. "We the People" will continue to witness the same electoral circus complete with its fake debates
as our elite's addiction to war will be craving its habitual fix. "We the People" are too stupefied and mired in our own addictions
to cell phones and other mind numbing gadgets while being fed a steady diet of lies by the MSM. Our awakening is too remote for
us to take back our country.
"Just by asking the question of whether the next Presidential election matters, I am obviously suggesting that it might
not. To explain my reasons for this opinion, I need to reset the upcoming election in the context of the previous one. So let's
begin here."
Would the U.S. Navy have launched a cruise missile attack against the Shayrat airbase in Syria if Trump didn't order it? Would
Gen. Solemani have been assassinated if Trump didn't order it? Of course the next presidential election "matters" if we have one,
that is.
Now that the constitution and the rule of law are defunct and all power has been de facto consolidated into the office of president,
whether we have WW3 or not (for example) depends almost exclusively on the character of the person in the White House.
"The first thing which, I believe, ought to be self-evident to all by now is that there was no secret operation by any deep
state, not even a Zionist controlled one, to put Donald Trump in power."
Seriously? So why did Comey undermine Clinton's campaign and why didn't Obama fire him for it? And why did Obama attack the
Syrian Army at Deir Ezzor in Sept. 2016, an act that greatly escalated tensions with Russia and apparently scared some Sanders
supporters into Trump's camp, giving Trump a narrow margin of victory in three key states which put him in the White House? Because
shit happens?
"I would even argue that the election of Donald Trump was the biggest slap in the face of US deep state and of the covert
transnational ruling elites this deep state serves. Ever."
I would argue that you've been fooled. If that were actually the case, they would've impeached and removed him, right? Or they
would've deployed a lone nut against him. Or he would've at least encountered some kind of meaningful political or legal opposition.
"My evidence? Simple, look what these ruling 'elites' did both before and after Trump's election: before, they ridiculed
the very idea of 'President Trump' as both utterly impossible and utterly evil."
Talk is cheap. How come they didn't seem to have a problem with his war crimes in Syria; or his moving the embassy to Jerusalem;
or his attempts to start a war with Iran; or his trade war with China; or his attempt to starve Venezuela into submission; or
his arming of Ukraine; or his withdrawal from the INF treaty; etc,?
"As somebody who has had years of experience reading the Soviet press or, in another style, the French press, I can honestly
say that I have never seen a more ridiculously outlandish hate campaign against anybody that would come even close to the kind
of total hate campaign which Trump was subjected to."
Once again, talk is cheap. Why would the "deep state" "hate" him so much? Did he investigate 9/11? Did he end any wars, or
pull out of NATO, or improve relations with Russia and/or China, or cut aid to Israel, etc.? No.
But let's say for the sake of argument that "they" really do "hate" him for some reason. So what? That doesn't mean that they
don't want him as president, right? If they really do hate him then he may be just the person they need.
@Diversity
Heretic ruits of financial empire. The Boomers are still the biggest demographic in the US. Starting in the 1980s onward,
they established portfolio systems that extracted wealth via the US's world reserve currency status.
This marks the unholy covenant made by Wall Street and middle class Boomers. The Boomers are dying off, and taking the US Empire
with it into the afterlife. The younger generation won't receive a nickel, and that's likely a good thing in the long term. But
Trump and Sanders still can't make aggressive economic reform while America is still dominated by "The United States of Boomer."
They can only pave the road for reform and future leaders to lead the charge.
I have come to hate the Maoist/Jacobin scum today referred to as "The Left". I want Trump to get a second term because it
will cause my enemies to suffer.
I agree. MORALE COUNTS. Data geeks don't understand this. Political watchers don't understand this. People who analyze the
number of tanks and guns don't understand this.
Morale wins wars. We need to defy the Left any way we can. A Trump win will be spit in their eyes. It will put some fighting spirit
into our side.
These minorities are very good at hating and destroying, but don't count on them to ever come up with constructive solutions
– it ain't gonna happen. For one thing, they are probably too stupid to come up with any constructive ideas, These folks are
all about hatred and the instant gratification of their narrow, one-topic, agenda.
I don't know about that, I think Alastair Crooke, may be closer to the mark with his conclusion.
The "toy radicals, and Champagne Bolsheviks" – in these terms of dripping disdain from Williamson – are very similar to
those who rushed into the streets in 1917. But before dismissing them so peremptorily and lightly, recall what occurred.
Into that combustible mass of youth – so acultured by their progressive parents to see a Russian past that was imperfect
and darkly stained – a Trotsky and Lenin were inserted. And Stalin ensued. No 'toy radicals'. Soft became hard totalitarianism.
I think there are some key differences here on what could take shape. If Biden wins, the Republicans can put down the Trump
saga as a regrettable mistake and go back to being the boring old Jen Bush party moaning about lowering taxes for the rich and
abortion.
However if Trump wins, the Republicans will have to acknowledge that people support Trumpism and will have to start re orientating
the party towards Trumpian Populism in future elections as they will realize that it is a permanent vote winner. Basically how
they started to change themselves into becoming an evangelical Conservative party due to Reagan where as before, it was the Democrats
who were the Conservatives.
Even if they do this though, the Republicans are still going to remain the good old American majority white party so out right
winning future elections after Trump is going to be very difficult. I think this all potentially bodes for a potential secession
crisis in the future.
However even if Trump wins, the Democrats may start to take notice and try to compete with the Republicans and start to moderate
their policies, shifting away from Identity politics and embracing the populist waves and trying to alternate with a more centrist
position. But considering all the crazy lefties in power within the party structure, this would be an incredibly difficult task,
almost Herculean to achieve.
So we could still be looking at a potential secession down the road.
But we all have to admit one thing – Donald Trump, love him or loathe him, has changed ultimately the political face of politics
for the better. Even though he actually has done very little, just the fact he got elected with his views really does go to show
the people have had enough and want changes.
Debating electoral politics at this point is for autists and morons. The globalists have won. They will be educating your children
while you work your shit job getting felt up by Africans on the way to your meaningless conference in Tempe.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Me too. I too will vote for Trump just out of spite. Saker is so ignorant about America and Americans. That's why I usually
don't read the Saker articles. The average homeless black guy is more informed about America than Saker.
the neo-liberal Dems have *already* prostituted themselves to everybody who wanted to give them something in return, from
the Ukie Nazis to the thugs of BLM, to the powerful US homo-lobby. Don't expect them to show any spine, or even less so, love
for the USA, if they get the White House. They hate this country and most of its people and they are not shy about it.
The Ukie "Nazis", BLM and homo-lobby are just tools. You make it sound like they're in charge. Please stop posting garbage
like that.
Saker – you started out by saying that it was a complete shock to the ruling elite when Trump won. I agree. You then described
how the Left (and most on the Right) have made Trump's presidency a living hell. I agree.
But then you said: "Truth be told, Trump has proven to be a fantastically incompetent President, no doubt about that. Was he
even worse than Obama? Maybe, it really all depends on your scoring system."
Obama was treated with kid gloves because he's an insider, a player. That's the only reason he ended up in the White House;
the elite sanctioned him and put him there.
But Trump is not an insider and he wasn't elite-approved. OF COURSE HE COULDN'T GET MUCH DONE! They didn't let him. They have
fought him every step of the way. After seeing what Trump has had to contend with, no outsider is ever going to attempt it again.
If Obama had gone through what Trump has gone through, his skinny little legs would have folded before his first month was
up.
One of guys on The Duran said that the politicians on the Left and Right don't care about Black Lives Matter, the statues,
history, gender wars, gay this/LGXYZ that, the culture wars. That doesn't really concern them; they'll just let the sheeple fight
it out.
What they DO care about is their corporate masters, the people they are really beholden to. As long as their masters continue
to make money and the culture wars don't disturb that, then all is well.
They just stole $6 trillion and handed it to Wall Street, hedge funds, private equity. Covid, the lock downs and the culture
wars are a great smoke screen to hide the looting going on.
"With Republicans siding with BLM, and wanting to replace Columbus Day with Juneteenth
with friends like that who needs enemies?"
They do what their corporate donors tell them to do, just like the Dems. All that matters on both sides of the aisle are the
corporate campaign donors. Nothing else. Nike, for instance, wants Blacks to continue buying their shoes. If they have to get
down on one knee, so be it. The politicians follow suit.
@anon
n't be a Koch-brothers Speaker Ryan around to undermine Trump's agenda. And, the GOP needs to dump Turtle Man as their Senate
leader, and promote someone who could actually do the job, like the other Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. If those things happen,
real progress could finally be made in saving what's left of the country.
At one point there wasn't a "dime's worth of difference" between the two parties, but, as the D's have gone further and further
White Man-hating crazy Left, that is no longer true today. The election of Biden will guarantee a radical left-wing minority female
sitting in the White House (how much longer will that name last?) within six months.
@ploni almoni
Trump is a mentally and morally defective total moron who's completely unfit for the office he holds. Knowing this, the "deep
state" put him there for one reason and one reason only: because they felt he could be manipulated into taking risks above and
beyond those which their dime-a-dozen political opportunists would take – in the pursuit of their stalled imperial agenda.
As I see it, the following linked statement by the "World Mental Health Coalition" (particularly paragraphs two and five) fully
explains the Trump "presidency."
@mark tapley
roximation of where I'm going with all this).
And as has been attributed to Sinclair Lewis, HL Mencken and several others:
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying the cross."
3. And that's when the first large economically-sustainable states e.g., California or Texas or New York or Pennsylvania or
Georgia will seek to break out of the Union – and take their smaller neighboring states with them in blocs.
4. And in a futile attempt to prevent a dissolution of the Union from happening, Federal troops will be brought in – and that's
when the first shots of the next civil war will be fired.
Twain nailed at the turn of the century, "If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it." Mark Twain
Who's Afraid of an Open Debate? The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates
The Commission on Presidential Debates is a private corporation headed by the former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic
parties. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the major party candidates to draft secret agreements.
"The fact is that for the past four years the US liberals have waged a total informational war against Trump "
No, not a "total informational war against Trump" but a conspicuously partial informational war against Trump.
They have no problem with his various war crimes and endless provocations against Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela. They have
no problem with his withdrawing from the INF treaty and starting an arms race that puts the whole world in great danger. They
choose to focus on his failure to wear a mask in public, for example, while ignoring that he's brought the world to the brink
of WW3. And this should be an important clue as to what's going on here yet it somehow escapes "The Saker" just like it apparently
escapes other pundits e.g. Paul Craig Roberts.
" and it would be absolutely unthinkable for them to ever accept a Trump re-election, even if he wins by a landslide."
If it is so "absolutely unthinkable" then why don't they run somebody against him who's not showing signs of senile dementia,
for example?
In any case it seems Trump's handlers and enablers realize that he will likely not be reelected no matter who they run against
him, so they're pulling out all the stops to get some kind of a major war started before the end of his term. In desperation they
installed him in the White House and in desperation they now seek to force a major war before we go back to government by opportunistic-career-politician-puppet-rulers.
Are there any Republican Senators beside Lankford (OK) and Johnson (WIS), who are supporting this travesty? After Tucker Carlson
skewered them the other night, I wonder how many more will be dumb enough to back it? Don't buck the Tuck if you don't want to
be flooded with calls and emails from constituents who hate you.
@Harold
Smith . President Donald Trump, as a direct response to the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack that occurred on 4 April."
You and everyone knows that there was no "chemical attack," and that Shayrat was empty. The US "missile response" was, on the
one hand, an attempt to "save face" having been outmaneuvered and lost the Isis gambit, and on the other to test Russian missile
defenses for technical purposes, for the upcoming war. In all these cases Trump has to "take responsibility" or admit that all
he controls is what is served for lunch.
Make believe is all fine and good, but you people are the forces of darkness kidding yourselves and the rest of us into oblivion.
@RP1
ump), and the fact that international treaties and agreements to which the United States is a party, demonstrably no longer mean
anything.
And for the icing on the cake (i.e. the consummation of the degenerative process which began before Trump) the fake president
was charged with "abuse of power" and "obstruction of congress" – in a fake impeachment trial – and was acquitted, thus proving
to the rest of the world (if anymore proof was necessary) that the concepts of "separation of powers"/"checks and balances"/"rule
of law" have been replaced by the concept of rule by the psychotic impulses of an unaccountable, politically omnipotent psychopath.
@4 Pete
Saker with economics. Ann Coulters spruiking for Trump was about immigration not economics.
Whether Trump failed on immigration because of a lack of will or a lack of backup by the republican side of The Party is irrelevant.
It just means voting is pointless either way.
It's hard to see much enthusiasm being manufactured on either side of the manufacturerd political divide this election. Biden
is an incoherent clown and Trump is a known quantity now unable to claim future greatness like he did in 2016.
The best vote in 2020 is staying home or going to a gun store and stocking up on election day. Voting just encourages more
bs from the political class.
Elections rarely matter, but this one actually could make a difference. Replacing Trump puppet with Biden puppet won't change
Federal actions, because Federal actions NEVER change. But the replacement WILL change the media. As soon as Biden puppet is in
office, the media will IMMEDIATELY stop creating panic and fear, and the lockdowns and masks will subside if not quite disappear.
It's worth campaigning and voting for Biden.
@ploni almoni
CIA establishment, which is run by Israel, carried out the murder of Soleimani and Trump was told about it after the fact, and
was told 'you own it.'"
For the Nth time: In that case why didn't "the CIA establishment run by Israel" assassinate Soleimani when Obama was president?
Why didn't the embassy get moved to Jerusalem or Syrian land be given to Israel or the INF treaty be repudiated or Venezuela be starved
or self-destructive trade war with China be started, etc.,when Obama was president?
Your "reasoning" has been thoroughly debunked ad nauseum; give it up. (I will likely not waste any more time arguing absurdities
with you). Chris Cosmos
, says: July
3, 2020 at 3:21 pm GMT
Great analysis as usual. However, let me point out some problems with what you've written. First, Americans do love wars but
they don't care about winning. The US military corrupt and incompetent as it is the most popular by a mile of any us institution.
Americans love the military as an idea. That idea is that it represents, theoretically and mythically, the ultimate struggle between
"good guys" and "bad guys" which fully mature military officers use to represent "them" and us. Since military conflicts are out
of sight and out of mind and the mainstream media lies so blatantly and the collective memory is no longer than a few months it
is possible that no matter how obvious the defeat or obvious the corruption to you an me who follow events the vast majority of
Americans only see movies of the glory of the US military and covert operatives and quickly forget war-crimes/massive violations
of the Geneva Conventions on War, defeat, and so on in favor of the fantasy/myth represented in commercials for military recruitment.
Second, the idea that so-called minorities represented by BLM and so on can or will have power in Washington is absurd. These
groups are used and have been used by the corporate oligarchs as a way to divide the working and middle classes–making grand gestures
of "solidarity" with BLM (always a corporate oriented group) means nothing. The grand movement of wealth from the working and
middle classes towards the 0.001% will continue inexorably as it has since the late 70s whether the RP or the DP is in power.
As far as the oligarchs are concerned manipulating popular culture through mind-control techniques (using the smartest human on
Earth) will keep their people in power. Trump was a slight interruption
Trump himself was boxed in a corner very quickly by the purge of Flynn and his refusal to vet staff. He had no choice but to
blunder from one thing to another with ALL of Washington and Hollywood solidly against him. The positives that he brought, however,
to the his Presidency was that he showed in high relief the nature of the Deep State–even the term was largely forbidden (I was
kicked out of a liberal/progressive blog, in part, for using the term "Deep State"). We saw through the Russiagate fiasco the
reality that the US mainstream media is primarily kind of Ministry of Truth not an "objective" institution that sought truth.
Like the American love for the military, most Americans will go along with the media Narrative because all societies need narratives,
myths, and commons frames of reference–so even if most people see (with their lying eyes) the reality of the propaganda organs,
they'll still "believe". Trump, as you said blustered and bloviated on going to war but never really did–he was the dove in the
administration–he hired people like Pompeo and Bolton in order to keep from being eaten by the Deep State. Trump had to spend
all his time in office out-foxing the operatives within his administration from destroying or even killing him. The Deep State
does not play nice.
Trump has absolutely no chance of winning in November. People in this country are just tired of conflict and are ready to give
the Deep State all the power it wants as long as they can rule. It is likely that the Senate will turn blue and we will have one
party rule. The Republican demographic is, at present, neither large nor enthusiastic enough to be of much help. As for the coalition
of minorities, they have no chance to go beyond the ghettos and if they come around here trying to burn anything down they will
be met by a lot of veterans who are armed to the teeth–so I don't see much cultural change outside the coasts and large urban
areas. Meanwhile Covid will continue to disrupt life, drug ODs will increase, access to health-care will be reduced, and we are
headed for a very new dispensation that may involve a dissolution of the country.
While I agree with the author's conclusions I disagree that " most Americans still like wars."
No. I think that we hate them, hate to send our children to die/be ripped apart for a bunch of old scumbags who are in the
pockets of the Defense Industry, hate to see us reviled by the World, hate to see our Blood & Treasure spent on people who despise
us and hate to pay for it all.
Sadly, the author's conclusions are spot-on. There is no remedying this disaster; we are in our final days as a coherent Nation.
This is "Operation Enduring Clusterfuck" writ large. As the acronym goes, "TINVOWOOT."
The best that I can see is Balkanization–with or without preliminary/local & regional shooting–with division along racial lines.
Give blacks the cities that they inhabit now in great numbers, give them a region (with ocean access) and have people move to
"Red" and "Blue" states according to their race/safety/beliefs. Trade–or war–will follow as a natural consequence.
But, Blacks need to know that when THEY riot their cities burn; when Whites riot entire CONTINENTS burn.
I voted for Trump. I was conned. Trump was selected by the .001% as the most effective figurehead to preside over the destruction
of America.
Do you really believe the most wealthy and powerful people in the world would leave the choice of a major leader up to the
unwashed masses? They manipulate everything, absolutely everything.
If voting could actually negatively impact their power and wealth, they would never allow it.
The .001% are just Jeffrey Dahmer cannibals in expensive clothing, and YOU are on the menu.
Trump got elected for two main issues he pledged during his 2016 campaign: ending all foreign wars and greatly reducing immigration.
On ending foreign wars and bringing home the troops, he's failed. Since he took office he's been dialing up the heat to the
verge of war with Iran, NK, China, Russia, Venezuela, and we still have troops everywhere incl. in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Meanwhile all the trade war jabs with China is just Kabuki theater. The intention is not to bring back manufacturing as he claimed
but to blackmail the CCP into handing over control of China's banks to the globalist bankers. His overt pandering to Israel at
every turn is nauseating. I suspect Mossad has him by the balls when they seized all records from his Jewish attorney.
On immigration, again nothing like what he promised. He has drastically reduced asylum seeking, but illegal immigration reached
a record under his watch until he thankfully won an important quick deportation law against those who failed asylum app. His border
wall is still largely not visible. After four long years, he is finally doing something about legal immigration, but his temporary
suspension of H1b visas and green cards until the end of the year may be too little too late to save him, and he still hasn't
done anything to suspend OPT and EB5. I fear this is all just for show. Immediately after he gets reelected, he will feel all
generous and remove all those restrictions.
But the alternative is unthinkable. Biden will immediately resume all ME wars as directed by Israel. He is as compromised as
Trump, Mossad already has him by the balls with his bribery scandals in Ukraine and China through his son. Zionists/deep state
like to have dirty politicians elected, the dirtier the better, as the easier it is for them to be blackmailed.
The question is will his followers feel enthusiastic enough to come out and vote?
Trump's election has proved one thing. His election must have come as a surprise even to him, and he was unprepared with a
list of candidates for the various posts he had to fill to carry out his wishes. He was dependent on others who were not well
disposed towards him.
Even though Foreign Policy supposedly the President's prerogative, in this case his hands were tied behind his back, such that
even low level functionaries were opposing his policies quite openly. The military were running rings around him when he wanted
to reduce military presence in the Occupied countries. In fact he was coerced into bombing some facilities in those countries
based on fake incidents. What Trump had promised his electorate, he could not deliver. He is a failure. The Blob defeated him
at every turn. In fact by appointing the likes of Pompeo he became even less powerful, if that is possible.
If he gets elected a second time somehow, he will not be able to deliver on his promises unless he destroys the Blob completely
Ralph Nader said something that opened my eyes to the true nature of national elections in 2000. The Democrips started that
day's whole "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" nonsense, and a reporter asked him about it. He said "The Republicans have nominated
that worst candidate for US President in history, he's bad on every level. If Al Gore can't run a run a decent enough campaign
to defeat him, what good is he?"
I stopped voting for anything above state representitive in 2012 and will not vote in hat will be either our ultimate or penultimate
presidential election this year.
He will cause the whole world to dump the US Dollar as a reserve currency, because he acts like a bully who ignores his blatant
weakpoints. At that moment, the USA will just become a bankrupt state and will lose its special status: the US power is based
mainly on that.
He will not reverse the tax policies that he implemented HIMSELF He is a zionist elite agent and he will stay like that
You are dreaming too much. How could he do, during his second term, the exact opposite of what he did in the first? It is a
total nonsense
the real power behind him will be in the hands of the Schumer-Pelosi-Obama gang and of the interests these folks represent.
Precisely. Biden will be a ceremonial head of state, much as the president of the USSR was. There are a lot of people saying
that Biden's VP will be the de facto president, but I'm not so sure. I think Pelosi – Schumer – Obama will form the ruling junta,
which is fitting inasmuch as they've been trying really hard to turn the USA into a corrupt banana republic.
He will cause the whole world to dump the US Dollar as a reserve currency, because he acts like a bully who ignores his blatant
weakpoints. At that moment, the USA will just become a bankrupt state and will lose its special status: the US power is based
mainly on that.
He will not reverse the tax policies that he implemented HIMSELF He is a zionist elite agent and he will stay like that
You are dreaming too much. How could he do, during his second term, the exact opposite of what he did in the first? It is a total
nonsense
@Anonymous
y demanding that Russia give back Crimea, for example, something that everyone knew Russia could not do?
"That was a no go w the Establishment and they have engaged in a relentless campaign against him."
Let's see, he's betrayed his supporters on many issues; his health is obviously deteriorating; as you point out he's an "incompetent
narcissist"; there's a "relentless campaign against him" according to you; and polls show him trailing Biden in several key states;
so why is he running for reelection? If LBJ can retire after one term why can't Trump?
@Harold
Smith ls go back before WW1 to Samual Bush who was brought onto the Jew run War Industries Board (what a great racket that
was) by Percy Rockefeller during the puppet actor and syphilitic W. Wilson's catatonic lay about under Col. House (Rothschilds
employee) and Bernard Baruch administration. The Zionists control both phony parties and just use the Jew run MSM to put on a
show. Many commentators such as Patagonia Man believe it is too late but I still maintain the remote possibility that enough people
will wake up to put some decent rep. in the House. Forget about the Presidential baboons.
3. I have outlined, not only the breakup of the US into several geopolitical units (and quite possibly, but hopefully not,
another civil war) but the megaregions in which North America is heading, within say, the next 150 – 250 years.
Just because I believe all of the above doesn't mean I can't observe and comment on the theater that passes for US politics.
Needless to say, I won't be voting in November.
Finally, there's a great saying attributed to Einstein:
"The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result"
@mark tapley
"Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent
impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not
for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. " https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S1537592714001595
You can tell the Saker doesn't live in America, since he believes Americans love war. This has never been true and it is safe
to assume Americans are really sick of American Imperialism in general right now.
War and warmongering do not enjoy any significant support in any major political block in the USA right now. Only the Oligarchs,
NWO, Plutocrats and Neocons are for wars and they are not even collectively close to being a plurality.
"... The cash must be Russian sourced , per the NYT, because a couple of low level Taliban types, who were likely tortured by the Afghan police, have said that it is so. ..."
There is particular danger at the moment that powerful political alignments in the United
States are pushing strongly to exacerbate the developing crisis with Russia. The New York
Times, which broke the story that the Kremlin had been paying the Afghan Taliban bounties to
kill American soldiers, has been particularly assiduous in promoting the tale of perfidious
Moscow. Initial Times coverage, which claimed that the activity had been confirmed by both
intelligence sources and money tracking, was supplemented by
delusional nonsense from former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who asks "Why
does Trump put Russia first?" before calling for a "swift and significant U.S. response." Rice,
who is being mentioned as a possible Biden choice for Vice President, certainly knows about
swift and significant as she was one of the architects of the destruction of Libya and the
escalation of U.S. military and intelligence operations directed against a non-threatening
Syria.
The Times is also titillating
with the tale of a low level drug smuggling Pashto businessman who seemed to have a lot of
cash in dollars lying around, ignoring the fact that Afghanistan is awash with dollars and has
been for years. Many of the dollars come from drug deals, as Afghanistan is now the world's
number one producer of opium and its byproducts.
The cash must be
Russian sourced , per the NYT, because a couple of low level Taliban types, who were likely
tortured by the Afghan police, have said that it is so. The Times also cites anonymous
sources which allege that there were money transfers from an account managed by the Kremlin's
GRU military intelligence to an account opened by the Taliban. Note the "alleged" and consider
for a minute that it would be stupid for any intelligence agency to make bank-to-bank
transfers, which could be identified and tracked by the clever lads at the U.S. Treasury and
NSA. Also try to recall how not so long ago we heard fabricated tales about threatening WMDs to
justify war. Perhaps the story would be more convincing if a chain of custody could be
established that included checks drawn on the Moscow-Narodny Bank and there just might be a
crafty neocon hidden somewhere in the U.S. intelligence community who is right now faking up
that sort of evidence.
Other reliably Democratic Party leaning news outlets, to include CNN, MSNBC and The
Washington Post all jumped on the bounty story, adding details from their presumably
inexhaustible supply of anonymous sources. As Scott Horton
observed the media was reporting a "fact" that there was a rumor.
Inevitably the Democratic Party leadership abandoned its Ghanaian kente cloth scarves, got
up off their knees, and hopped immediately on to their favorite horse, which is to claim loudly
and in unison that when in doubt Russia did it. Joe Biden in particular is "disgusted" by a
"betrayal" of American troops due to Trump's insistence on maintaining "an embarrassing
campaign of deferring and debasing himself before Putin."
The Dems were joined in their outrage by some Republican lawmakers who were equally incensed
but are
advocating delaying punishing Russia until all the facts are known. Meanwhile, the
"circumstantial details" are being invented to make the original tale more credible, including
crediting the Afghan operation to a secret Russian GRU Army intelligence unit that allegedly
was also behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury England in 2018.
Reportedly the Pentagon is looking into the circumstances
around the deaths of three American soldiers by roadside bomb on April 8, 2019 to determine
a possible connection to the NYT report. There are also concerns relating to several deaths in
training where Afghan Army recruits turned on their instructors. As the Taliban would hardly
need an incentive to kill Americans and as
only seventeen U.S. soldiers died in Afghanistan in 2019 as a result of hostile action, the
year that the intelligence allegedly relates to, one might well describe any joint
Taliban-Russian initiative as a bit of a failure since nearly all of those deaths have been
attributed to kinetic activity initiated by U.S. forces.
The actual game that is in play is, of course, all about Donald Trump and the November
election. It is being claimed that the president was briefed on the intelligence but did
nothing. Trump denied being verbally briefed due to the fact that the information had not been
verified. For once America's Chief Executive spoke the truth, confirmed by the "intelligence
community," but that did not stop the media from implying that the disconnect had been caused
by Trump himself. He reportedly does not read the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), where such a
speculative piece might indeed appear on a back page, and is uninterested in intelligence
assessments that contradict what he chooses to believe. The Democrats are suggesting that Trump
is too stupid and even too disinterested to be president of the United States so they are
seeking to replace him with a corrupt 78-year-old man who may be suffering from dementia.
The Democratic Party cannot let Russia go because they see it as their key to future success
and also as an explanation for their dramatic failure in 2016 which in no way holds them
responsible for their ineptness. One does not expect the House Intelligence Committee,
currently headed by the wily Adam Schiff, to actually know anything about intelligence and how
it is collected and analyzed, but the politicization of the product is certainly something that
Schiff and his colleagues know full well how to manipulate. One only has to recall the
Russiagate Mueller Commission investigation and Schiff's later role in cooking the witnesses
that were produced in the subsequent Trump impeachment hearings.
Schiff predictably
opened up on Trump in the wake of the NYT report, saying "I find it inexplicable in light
of these very public allegations that the president hasn't come before the country and assured
the American people that he will get to the bottom of whether Russia is putting bounties on
American troops and that he will do everything in his power to make sure that we protect
American troops."
Schiff and company should know, but clearly do not, that at the ground floor level there is
a lot of lying, cheating and stealing around intelligence collection. Most foreign agents do it
for the money and quickly learn that embroidering the information that is being provided to
their case officer might ultimately produce more cash. Every day the U.S. intelligence
community produces thousands of intelligence reports from those presumed "sources with access,"
which then have to be assessed by analysts. Much of the information reported is either
completely false or cleverly fabricated to mix actual verified intelligence with speculation
and out and out lies to make the package more attractive. The tale of the Russian payment of
bribes to the Taliban for killing Americans is precisely the kind of information that stinks to
high heaven because it doesn't even make any political or tactical sense, except to Nancy
Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and the New York Times. For what it's worth, a number of
former genuine intelligence officers including
Paul Pillar, John Kiriakou , Scott Ritter , and
Ray McGovern
have looked at the evidence so far presented and have walked away unimpressed. The National
Security Agency (NSA) has also declined to confirm the story, meaning that there is no
electronic trail to validate it.
Finally, there is more than a bit of the old hypocrisy at work in the damnation of the
Russians even if they have actually been involved in an improbable operation with the Taliban.
One recalls that in the 1970s and 1980s the United States supported the mujahideen rebels
fighting against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. The assistance consisted of weapons,
training, political support and intelligence used to locate, target and kill Soviet soldiers.
Stinger missiles were provided to bring down helicopters carrying the Russian troops. The
support was pretty much provided openly and was even boasted about, unlike what is currently
being alleged about the Russian assistance. The Soviets were fighting to maintain a secular
regime that was closely allied to Moscow while the mujahideen later morphed into al-Qaeda and
the Islamist militant Taliban subsequently took over the country, meaning that the U.S. effort
was delusional from the start.
So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on American
soldiers intended to accomplish? It is probably intended to keep a "defensive" U.S. presence in
Afghanistan, much desired by the neocons, a majority in Congress and the Military Industrial
Complex (MIC), and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated
incompetence of Donald Trump. The end result could be to secure the election of a pliable
Establishment flunky Joe Biden as president of the United States. How that will turn out is
unpredictable, but America's experience of its presidents since 9/11 has not been very
encouraging.
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.org,address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
.
The Deep State vermin who pulled-off the violent, proxy overthrow of Yanukovych in 2014,
and who are also behind the Arab Spring, Syrian Rebels, ISIS, and the ongoing domestic unrest
Stateside, are the descendants of the vermin who overthrew Christian Russia in 1917 using the
same modus operandi of color revolution and “peaceful protests.”. Putin undid all
their hard work in Russia and kicked them out and seized their ill gotten gains: this,
coupled with their congenital hatred of Russia, is the reason for the non-stop, bipartisan
refrain of “Russia, Russia, Russia.”
It is probably intended to keep a “defensive” U.S. presence in Afghanistan,
much desired by the neocons, a majority in Congress and the Military Industrial Complex
(MIC), and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated
incompetence of Donald Trump.
There are other reasons for wishing to stay in Afghanistan. Generals don’t like
losing wars. It is personally humiliating to retreat. The whole country is also worn down by
lost wars and the psychological blow lasts for over 10 years like during the post-Vietnam
era. Keeping 10,000 troops in Afghanistan permanently won’t win the war but it will
prevent a defeat and potentially humiliating last minute evacuation when the Taliban retake
Kabul.
Also Al-Qaeda is still present in Afghanistan: “Al-Qaeda has 400 to 600 operatives
active in 12 Afghan provinces and is running training camps in the east of the country,
according to the report released Friday. U.N. experts, drawing their research from interviews
with U.N. member states, including their intelligence and security services, plus think tanks
and regional officials, say the Taliban has played a double game with the Trump
Administration, consulting with al-Qaeda senior leaders throughout its 16 months of peace
talks with U.S. officials and reassuring Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri, among others, that
the Taliban would “honour their historical ties” to the terrorist group.”
https://time.com/5844865/afghanistan-peace-deal-taliban-al-qaeda/
While the melodrama about trump=pro Russia and dems=anti Russia makes good political
theater to keep folks running in circles chasing their tails, this is not the main reason for
the continuous attacks on Russia by organs of the zpc/nwo. The main reason is Russia is not
owned by them. Not a colony. The main reason for the psywar is not about trump vs dems, it is
about keeping the Russia=bad guys theme seeded in the propaganda. That was the main reason
behind “Russiagate”, as well. And as with that scam, both “sides”
knowingly played their part hyping the theater to keep that Russia=bad guy propaganda theme
in the mind of americans.
I can’t imagine that any intelligent person believes this bullshit about Russia. I
completely tune it out the same way I tuned out any news about “CHAZ.”
“So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on
American soldiers intended to accomplish? It is probably intended to keep a
“defensive” U.S. presence in Afghanistan, much desired by the neocons, a
majority in Congress and the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), and it will further be
played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated incompetence of Donald Trump.”
Let’s say for the sake of argument that the story is true. So what? I don’t
see how it can be used as justification to double down on a pointless war. (Reasonable people
might see it as another reason to get out of Afghanistan sooner rather than later).
Moreover, I don’t think they’d have to create such drama to get Trump the
imperialist to keep the troops in Afghanistan (if he actually had any intention to withdraw
them in the first place).
This propaganda effort reminds me of the Skripal affair. Perhaps Trump’s handlers
and enablers realize that he’ll lose the election (if we have one) so they’re
trying to manipulate him into escalating tensions with Russia (just as they are with China,
Iran and Venezuela).
The Americans were always very proud and upfront about how they organized, trained,
equipped and financed the Taliban to oust the Russians from Afghanistan. In view of this, why
do they act so surprised should the Russians do something similar on a much smaller
scale?
Obviously, the whole story was concocted in Washington, but so what?
Anyone with half a brain should know that the Americans are in Afghanistan because the
Americans control the world trade in narcotics. Columbia is the cocaine end of the
business.
I do wish some smart chemists would synthesize heroin and cocaine in a laboratory and put
the CIA out of business.
“and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated
incompetence of Donald Trump”
The demonization of a democratically-elected President by the zionist-owned New York
Times , Washington Post and CNN is somewaht reminiscent of the demonization of a
certain Austrian in the Western media after the 1933 World Jewry’s declaration of war
on Nazi Germany.
“He who controls the narrative controls the consciousness”
With Wolf Blitz’s, Bolton’s, and this week’s release of Trump’s
relative’s book discrediting his mental health. How many books is that now???
But, times have moved on. Trump can ride this wave by learning the dark art of playing
the victim using the mantra ‘look how hard I’m trying’ and appealing to
US voters as their ‘law and order’ president.
Geopolitically speaking, if the US Zio-cons were smart, rather than suffering from
‘Groupthink’, they would be trying to entice Russia away from its partner, China,
and draw Russia into playing a greater role in Europe. Recall that Putin had asked if Russia
could join NATO.
But, alas, they’re still making the same mistake they did in 1991 after the collapse
of Central Industrialism in the former USSR.
The Mujahudeen morphing into Al Qaeda is a new one on me that I have never heard before. I
had read and heard countless times that it was Al Qaeda all along in Afghanistan that the
U.S. assisted to fight against the USSR. It does not make sense either, since the MEK (
Mujahudeen ) is a twisted Shiite cult Iranian, and Al Qaeda is Arabic and twisted Sunni cult.
So, the language and religious differences do not make any sense that one became the
other.
I guess that it makes perfect sense to say anything at all, regardless of the facts, to
the Terrible Trio in the DNC, just to keep the focus on themselves, rather than on Biden.
Initial Times coverage, which claimed that the activity had been confirmed by both
intelligence sources and money tracking, was supplemented by delusional nonsense from
former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who asks “Why does Trump put
Russia first?” before calling for a “swift and significant U.S.
response.” Rice, who is being mentioned as a possible Biden choice for Vice
President, certainly knows about swift and significant as she was one of the architects of
the destruction of Libya and the escalation of U.S. military and intelligence operations
directed against a non-threatening Syria.
The pathetic Rice has plenty of company. During a 7/5 CNN puff segment with Dana Bash,
Tammy Duckworth (another potential Biden VP), out of the blue said that the Russians put out
a bounty on US forces. Of course, Bash didn’t challenge Duckworth.
Downplayed in all of this is the fact that Russia was one of the first, if not the first
nation, to console the US on 9/11, followed by Russian assistance to the US military
operation in Afghanistan.
“…the kind of information that stinks to high heaven because it doesn’t
even make any political or tactical sense, except to Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff
and the New York Times.”
Pelosi is the proud daughter of a shabbos goy father; Schumer is “shomer” or
professed guardian of Israel; Schiff is the decendent of the Internationale Banker who
supported Trotsky’s take down of the Czar; the NYT is what happens when Hebrews learn
to write English. The Jews have been trying to rule Russia for almost 200 years as
Solzhenitsyn would have told us if he could have gotten a publisher in the Jewish American
publishing industry. If Stalin hadn’t thrown the Bolshevik Jews out, there might not
have been a cold war. Watch out Gentiles. These people have taken us into 3 wars for their
interests and they NEVER change.
And, of course, the “conservative” maggots are going along with the obvious
liberal lies once again. There has never been a group of more cowardly and worthless
individuals than American “conservatives”.
Russia
The hope of the world.
Edgar Cayce
Famous US psychic.
As the USA continues its path into a political, moral and military cesspit of pure
corruption, lies, violence, mass murder and sheer evil, it is increasingly difficult to argue
with Cayce.
He was certainly on to something, and that something was like, 80 years ago.
One can even put more belief and trust in a psychic these days – than anything being
claimed or reported by the USA alphabets, government or MSM
Sickening and frightening really.
There are other reasons for wishing to stay in Afghanistan. Generals don’t like
losing wars
You would have thought by now the American Generals would have got used to ‘losing
wars’.
They haven’t won one other than Grenada in living memory.
The Russians even had to win WW2 for them….
Russia and China would eat them alive today.
So we are now down to sheer bullying, bluster and illegal economic sabotage.
Venezuela springs to mind.
Yes, but they also hate Putin for liberating Russia from its rapacious oligarchs, nearly
all of whom were Jews. The present artificially created hatred for Russia in the US is in
reality the hatred of the frustrated Jewish Mafia.
“I can’t imagine that any intelligent person believes this bullshit about
Russia”
Lenny is clapping his hands excitedly.
“Oy believe it, George ! I do – I do – I do !”
George grunts, clears his throat & spits with some force & accuracy at a scrunched up
copy of the NYT.
“Let’s say for the sake of argument that the story is true.”
For amusement’s sake, lets wonder what would happen should the Russians offer a bounty
to US & allied troops to kill each other . A kind of cash incentive to bring back
the final years of the Vietnam war.
It sure will be entertaining to watch Joe Biden try to cope with the duties of the
presidency. He makes the fictional President Camacho from the movie “Idiocracy”
look like a statesman with the intellectual skills of a Teddy Roosevelt by comparison. I can
picture his inaugural address in my head, as he inevitably loses his place on the
teleprompter and starts babbling about pony soldiers and you know, the thing. After a grope
fest at his inaugural ball, instead of the Oval Office he will immediately be consigned to
the White House basement for the duration of his term. If you thought an inarticulate
President Donnie made for good reality TV, just wait till a totally incoherent President Joe
has the whole world rollicking with laughter. Plus, Republicans get their turn to amuse with
grid lock of the Congress and the discharge of mass quantities of bog sediment at the
administration every single day for four solid years. It’s a win for comedy no matter
which candidate is elected!
Ann, you’ve got the quote wrong. Here is what he actually wrote:
“So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian
bounties”
I’m going to assume you didn’t mean “forks” but actually
“faux”.
Using “faux” is here is not incorrect. Giraldi could have meant the NYT article
was “not real, but made to look or seem real” — which goes considerably
further than “false”.
However, that does not necessarily mean that other users of “faux” are not
indulging themselves in a “silly fashion”.
@Emily
to consecrate Russia to the heart of Mother Mary – which still hasn’t fully been
fulfilled, btw – is another indication of Russia’s leadership in a community of a
shared future for humanity, aka Community of Common Destiny (CCD), as advocated by the
Russian President’s ‘double-helix’ partner, China’s President Xi
Jinping.
Compare and contrast that with, then President, Obama’s words to Putin: “The
United States has exclusive rights to anywhere in the world.”
@Alfred
family bankruptcy when every pharmacist knows they re-branded and off-shored their loot
several years ago. Their fine was pocket lint to them.
But that fake allowed the corporate-government axis to make ALL serious painkillers
effectively illegal, including the ones being used safely before Purdue Pharma came
along.
Narcotics are safe when used properly, but where’s the CIA’s take there? So
they killed their competitors and made your family doctor an agent. And sell lots of dope.
Because the nation the CIA protects is in terminal debt, agencies need hard cash from
somewhere .
That’s why the democrats and the left fight to keep the southern border open ,the
hordes of third world peasants are just a “bonus”……look at who the
drugs are destroying i.e. the target
The Democrats have predictably been outdone by the anti-Trump Republicans in this matter.
You can’t sink any lower in Russia-baiting than the Lincoln project’s recent
release, “Fellow Traveler”. Beyond stupid and revolting. Gives you a clue of
their very low opinion of the American voter
There is a dangerous illusion – characterized in part by demonizing rivals –
and that is the developing crisis is merely a re-run of the Cold War. After the Napoleonic
wars the Congress system was established to maintain peace in Europe. It worked reasonably
well, interrupted significantly by the Crimean war, but finally buried with the outbreak of
WWI in 1914; it did not prevent that cataclysmic conflict. Then came the League of Nations
for a short time; it did not stop WWII. The United Nations and other post-war institutions
were established in the 1940s. Now we are in the approaches to WWIII. But very few see. The
apocalyptic conflict feared during the Cold War is nearing. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Russia Hoax 2 is supposed to keep our minds off the Uniparty’s anarcho-tyranny, but
it’s awfully hard to fear Putin with orcs and shitlibs running amok wrecking statues of
racist elks.
@Robert
Dolan olostomy Bag, or were able to steal it on election night, Trump would be spending
the rest of his life in prison right now.
And Russia would have acquiesced to, though more likely quietly assisted, the frame-up.
What we don’t know at this point is what generational geopolitical payoff Russia was
promised by Brennan in March 2016, for its participation. My suspicion is that Nord Stream II
was merely a down payment.
I don’t envy Barr or Durham. How do they resolve this greatest political scandal in
American history when at the center of it you have a former CIA Director who is a Russian
mole.
If you review the New York Times editorial page and its oped pieces you will see more half
of the content each day is anti Trump. The Times has also played up the civil rights aspect
of the BLM movement while playing down the hooliganism of Antifa and the looting by Blacks
which has accompanied it. Many neighborhoods in Manhattan were trashed and looted far beyond
what The Times reported. So promoting the “Russian Bounty” lie doesn’t
surprise me at all. Remember also Times employees went absolutely crazy when the paper
printed an oped by Sen. Tom Cotton. What a bunch of lying flakes and chicken shits.
@tyrone
of more and more of the total of products and services produced in the US economy every year
(GDP) goes to capital, i.e., the holders of wealth, rather than workers, which in turn
creates a drag on further GDP – so eventually it becomes self defeating.
Think: Vicious Cycle of Poverty, as opposed to Virtuous Cycle of Prosperity.
But that explains why neither the Dems / Repubs are determined to do anything about the
1,000,000+ illegal immigrants crossing the US-Mexican border every year.
As said many times by many others: ‘The US has one political party – the
business party, with 2 wings.’
The Soviets actually had to stop the Wehrmacht cold (very cold, indeed) and be ready to
start rolling it back before the USA even dared to join the war.
US Ziocons movement is a family affair. They’re into the second and third
generation, who are still following their daddy’s’ or grandpa’s playbook.
Original ideas are hard to come by with this lot.
The Democrats are suggesting that Trump is too stupid and even too disinterested to be
president of the United States so they are seeking to replace him with a corrupt
78-year-old man who may be suffering from dementia.
Good one but what do you mean may be suffering ? (Grin)
Not only replace Trump with Biden but with all the radicals now infesting theDemo’krat
party and manipulating demented, sleepy Joe.
These are all made up stories. By the time one fake story is laboriously dismantled
another one is made up. It’s always a game of playing catch-up. Russia makes a good
boogyman and has served well in that role for three generations now so it’s a tested
formula. It’s a dangerous game since all these idiots could sleepwalk us into an armed
clash with Russia somewhere. Then of course there’ll plenty of problems but perhaps
there’s a calculation that something like that could benefit this band of war
inciters.
I know old liberals have ate up all things Russia, Russia, Russia. Have the POBs (people
of brown)? Have all those post ’67 immigrants? They all vote democrats, and are now the
future demographic of America. Its their kids that have to wanna die for the war machine now.
Has the Yiddish propaganda sheet worked its magic on them? The 1619 Project sure did. My
humble guess is no, despite their voting. Most just want money.
Folks, it is time to get your love ones to stop enlisting and re-enlisting in the US
military. It is the only boycott we can do that will actually hurt.
For what it’s worth, Pillar got shitcanned and rusticated by Cofer Black, Kiriakou
got locked up, Ritter got framed as a pedo, and McGovern got the shit beat out of him by my
DoS goons. So shut the fuck up a little, OK?
So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on American
soldiers intended to accomplish?
To sound like a broken record again , the CABAL hates Russia and specifically Putin
because he re-established Christian Orthodoxy as the de facto state religion of Mother
Russia. They would get The USA into a hot war with Russia if it meant hurting Putin, never
mind what it would do to us. Their hatred is so strong that they could care less what it
would do to America, the snakes that they are.
All Russians would have to do to exploit the current unrest in America would be to knock
out a social media platform or two, or perhaps to leak dirt on the people ginning up war.
Those targets are absolutely hated by the American people outside the Imperial City.
@Zarathustra
and historically illiterate pseudo-intellectual BS about 1619 and Evil America that, because
its evil, should change the names of the military bases where those soldiers trained under
the impression they were going to defend their country!
The Hostile Elite is a rabid dog so totally out of control it needs to be put down
immediately.
Whatever happens, no one should ever take the moral condemnation of psychopaths
seriously.
Battered Wife Syndrome?
I give you Battered Nation Syndrome.
Time to prove to the world it’s possible to recover from it and move into a larger
freedom.
@No
Friend Of The Devil not called al-
Qaeda at this stage but some other name. Apparently the name al-Qaeda was first used by the
FBI to reference this group due to some sort of misunderstanding, but it eventually became
the name they adopted for themselves since that was what everybody was calling them anyway
when they became famous after further adventures.
The above should be taken with a grain of salt since this is only what I have been able to
glean from reading various articles. Presumably what is called al-Qaeda today are the
descendants or associates of personnel from this particular group as opposed to other groups,
but I don’t know.
When Russia was controlled by Marxists, Leftists and Liberals loved Russia, defended
Russia, excused Russia, promoted Russia. Now that Russia has survived Marxist totalitarianism
and begun rediscovering Russian cultural heritage, which features Christianity, Leftists and
Liberals HATE Russia.
Who coulda thunk it possible?
More important is that our Neocons and our old guard Yank ‘conservatives’
– who control foreign policy for both Republicans and Democrats – in the military
and the spy game see Russia today exactly as the Leftists and Liberals see Russia.
Both the Neocons and the Yank WASP Country Club types in the so-called
‘conservative’ arena agree with Leftists and Liberals about Russia.
There’s plenty of meaning there for those with ears to hear and eyes to see.
The Dem’s election strategists are grasping at straws again.
The deplorables they despise the most are flyover Americans who go to church or who serve
in the military. These are the people they think are stupid and easily manipulated by wild
tales and false flags.
The “bounty on American soldiers” is hogwash to gin up what they perceive to
be a voting bloc of gullible whites.
The Dems weakness with working class whites is one they will try to shore up by crassly
fake, flag-waving appeals to bedrock patriotism.
@anonymous
equal, except negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men
are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to
this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty
– to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base
alloy of hypocrisy.”
With Russia abolishing serfdom and slavery at the time – and much later than Western
Europe – something had to be done to not be outdone by the Russians, of course. The
hypocrisy would indeed have been unbearable. It still is.
@Really
No Shit the mass of whites before the post-WW2 era, then you are ignorant. If you think
the current Deep State is entirely Jewish, or even majority Jewish, you are ignorant.
Without any doubt, Jews now, and for decades, have per capita dominated the American Deep
State. But they did not create it, nor did they create its evil. The Mossad did NOT
create MI6 and the CIA. British Secret Service created the CIA and the Mossad.
America has a Deep State that flowed naturally from the British Deep State. The Brit
Empire was the Anglo-Zionist Empire Part 1. America is the Anglo-Zionist Empire Part 2.
US strategy at the end of WWII included letting Germans and Soviets wear each other down
and kill as many of each other as possible, without US forces involvement. Obviously
“we”, various US investors and the US taxpayer still gave the Soviets too much
stuff, that propelled USSR economic success claims for the next 20 years.
Just more Liberal/Dim/Zio/CCP sponsored horsesh*t, to drive US and Russia apart, to drive
Russia toward China, when US would be better off trying to treat Russia neutrally (hang our
CCP paid dems).
The Deep State vermin who pulled-off the violent, proxy overthrow of Yanukovych in 2014,
and who are also behind the Arab Spring, Syrian Rebels, ISIS, and the ongoing domestic
unrest Stateside, are the descendants of the vermin who overthrew Christian Russia in 1917
using the same modus operandi of color revolution and “peaceful protests.”.
Spot on!
But, a more accurate name than The Deep State is Judeocracy Inc.
followed by Russian assistance to the US military operation in Afghanistan.
Few people seem to understand the logistics of the war in Afghanistan. The US and their
allies were hugely dependent on the Russian railway system. It is just so ridiculous to
listen to these monkeys who pretend to be statesmen and women.
Susan Rice clearly uses skin whitener and hair straightener to look as much as possible
like those she hates so much.
Unfortunately, the matter with Russia is settled. And while I did not think there was
evidence to support the matter. The current executive sign an intel report that accused the
Russians and Pres. Putin specifically with sabotaging US election and murder and attempted
murder. Unless our executive can reconcile that matter by extracting some manner of penance
for hat behavior — reconciling with Russia is just a flat water tide.
Their actions constituted acts of war and while I may disagree with the assessment
—
that is the US disposition on which nothing Russia says can be taken further than a
pipe.
That intel report which this executive signed locks our posture in place regarding Russia.
We kill people in this country for being suspects.
I don’t think the US citizen would look to kindly on shaking hands with a saboteur
and murderer.
Whether the signing was a matter of political expediency is irrelevant,. The executive
openly cited Russia as an enemy of the US. For me it was one of the most painful memories of
the executives tenure, because
1. destroyed a large portion of our foreign policy agenda of toning down our presence
anywhere
2. demonstrated the executive was not as string as I believed he needed to be.
If they were willing to interfere in our election and engage in political murder in allied
states —there’s no reason to doubt that they would support the murder of our
troops in a conflict one.
———————-
It was a devastating moment when the executive agreed to that intel report.
@mike99588
r Germany.
And vastly profiting from both sides – shamelessly.
Britain and the Commonwealth faced Germany alone through dark days indeed until Russia became
our ally – before the USA incidently – conveniently overlooked..
The Americans finally came in Dec 1941 after Russia was already standing with us.
It has not been forgotten in Britain to this day.
The USA bled this country for decades, paying for what was so much crap amongst all
else..
Lend lease – what a scam that was!!!!!
Whilst you traded and supported the nazi war machine against us.
When you work that into the British Empire acting to prevent Russia from forcing the Turks
out of Europe and thereby liberating Constantinople, and acting to harm Russia deeply in
order to win ‘The Great Game,’ you perhaps will then see that back to Oliver
Cromwell and the Puritans that WASP Empire is Anglo-Zionist Empire.
Well, unlike the JewSA, Russia isn’t enthralled with the Jews. Putin and company
kicked out Soros and his Open Society as well as the Rothschild bankers. Lastly the four
billionaire Jew oligarchs who were running the Yeltsin economic shitshow were also shown the
door. Perhaps the “Assad must go” flop played into Jewish ire as well.
Amusing to see Democrats so deeply concerned over the “Russian threat”. I was
in the Agency during the Cold War. When the Soviets REALLY were a threat, most of those same
Democrats urged retreat, compromise, submission. It makes my guts churn to see these
“patriots” making hysterical claims against Russia. It is almost as if they
resent the fact that Putin has rejected their entire Globalist plan, re-Christianized Russia,
and locked up at least a few of the so-called “oligarchs” who were looting the
Russian people of their patrimony. The case of Bill Browder deserves some attention. This Red
Diaper baby (his grandfather was Earl Browder, chief of the CPUSA) has been one of the
cheerleaders in the campaign to demonize Russia. Following the family tradition of a lack of
loyalty (he holds British and U.S. passports, just in case!) this weasel used his
granddad’s old Soviet contacts to make hundreds of millions carting off anything of any
value left in the old Soviet Union. Of course, he worked with an equally greasy gang of
former Soviets to do this, including one Sergei Magnitsky, a “tax advisor”
working with Browder who assumed room temperature in a Russian jail after he was nabbed by
the tax police. I really wonder if some of these Democrats and others who so denounce Putin
had visions of sugar plums and hundreds of millions of dollars dancing in their heads, dreams
rudely brought to earth by Putin?
Oct 20, 2009 Taliban Is Getting American Troops Hooked On Heroin
It diminishes the effectiveness of our troops as well as raises money for the Taliban, who
are the ones growing the poppy. How can the US combat this new strategy?
LONDON— Recent news item: 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.
@EliteCommInc.
e accused is served by having his lawyers present. Since the defendants have refused to
appear in person – three of them disputing the Dutch jurisdiction — the defence
lawyers should withdraw.”
@Emily
t was only done to get into a position to share the spoils. Britain was no more than a vassal
state of the US after WW I, and in no position to defeat Germany. Only Russia could, and they
did, and would have done so with or without the Anglo-Americans. Stop whining about suffering
you brought onto yourself. Besides, Britain suffered very little compared to the continent,
including Germany, and European Jewry, and all of them would have suffered less without the
British arrogance that they had to defend their national honour. Hope they stay out of
European affairs now but it doesn’t look good at this fake Brexit moment
Wisely, Agent76 said, “The CIA Drug Connection is as Old as the Agency.”
Re; above, I suggest Grandfathered by Operation Gladio and it’s Vatican Bank money
laundering component???
Am aware how an England bank, USBC, was caught laundering the Afghanistan drug trade
billions and got a “slap on wrist.”
Linked below is an obscure article on President Putin’s special (on scene)
Afghanistan envoy, Zamir Kabulov, who accused US intelligence in Afghanistan of drug
trafficking.
@No
Friend Of The Devil to attack Iran. They are totally despised by ordinary Iranians. They
are a cult with something in common with the Cambodian Pol Pot way of life. Very dangerous
people. They have absolutely nothing in common with the Taliban who are trying to liberate
their country from the Americans.
@Gidoutahere
ld 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, [Vladimir Kryuchkov, head of the KGB] 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.
? Apparently the Rothschilds/Israel Deep State wanted Gorbachev or Yeltsin.
Events are so tangled and interconnected, as Ghislaine is still a Israel Deep State
operative.
Funny, I don’t see White Russians hating themselves or other Whites for being proud
of their heritage.
Funny, I don’t see White Russians tearing down monuments and statues or desecrating
their flag.
Funny, I don’t see White Russians wanting their country to be invaded by hordes of
hostile nonwhite WMD.
Funny, I don’t see White Russians apologizing or backing down from identifying
themselves as a Christian nation.
Oh, I get it. This is why the so-called, “Deep State” and “Neo-Cons aka
Neo-Commies” hate Russia so much. I get it now. It burns (((their))) collective asses
that there are actually some largely homogeneous and traditional White nations still around
who aren’t willingly accepting their own genocide or apologizing for being evil White
racists. My gawd, this is my epiphany, this is MY AWAKENING ( shout out to Dr. Duke’s
EXCELLENT BOOK), now I know why Russia is so vilified by (((our media.))) (((Our media))) is
racist against Whites, and (((they))) hate the idea that a traditional White Christian nation
still exists, especially a powerful nation like Russia. Oh dear, how could I be so gullible
not to see this one. I’m Irish American and I am told I must hate the Russkies to be
patriotic by other patriotic Israel Firsters.
It has to do with two things, and only those two things, all other rubbish about
“human rights”, “international law”, blah blah blah, is propaganda
meant for the common man.
1) Russia is white, that means it can easily be demonized and is demonized.
2) The jews that fled Russia are an especially virulent strain of the jew, their hatred for
Russia has few equal.
Maybe someone has already stated the obvious. Regardless of the validity (or lack of) a
bounty program; it’d be real hard to affect US troops if there were no US troops in
Afghanistan.
@Erzberger
ica and the Balkans.
Fourth, had the Admiral Canaris led traitors not been hiding munitions or sending them to the
wrong place, the Soviets may not have recovered even with the US re-supply.
If there is something to yawn about, it is the WWII narrative is tiresome. Stalin
wasn’t a “good guy”, and neither were Churchill or Roosevelt. The reality
is that it took the “world” to defeat Germany. The Italians were of no help, and
the Japanese were as much a drain as a resource to Germany. Germany was destroyed to allow
the advancement of Marxism, which had already embedded itself in the UK and US.
The zionists are pissed that Russia has saved Syria from the zionist mercenaries aka AL
CIADA aka ISIS, which are creations the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6 and NATO and so the anti
Russian propaganda, pouring out of the zionist owned MSM.
Obviously “we”, various US investors and the US taxpayer still gave the
Soviets too much stuff, that propelled USSR economic success claims for the next 20
years
The Russians paid for all the “giving” with gold. Kindly stop repeating lies.
Even the British went almost bankrupt repaying the Americans for their
“generosity”.
It will be interesting to see how the Russians will treat the Americans when the USA
experiences feudalism. I suspect the Russians will be far more generous than the Americans
deserve.
@neutral
kids.
Hilary Clinton has been a very effective butcher of Libyan and Syrian population at large;
young children and pregnant women were the greatest victims of Clinton’s subhuman
policies.
Susan Rice was good at promoting mass slaughter in Syria, and, along with H. Clinton, S. Rice
should be credited with the slave markets in Libya.
Nuland-Kagan helped to make Ukraine into the poorest country in Europe, where zionists and
neo-nazis found a complete mutual understanding. So much for holobiz squealing.
What’s wrong with the US? How come that the US society produced these
monstrosities?
Being that America kills other countries’ soldiers (and civilians) all the time, why
can’t Russia (or any other country) do the same thing? What goes around comes around,
right?
Some things (Russiagate) are just too silly to bother with.
I agree – except that I’m getting quite a chuckle these days at the sheer,
utter desperation of the “Russia did it”, “Saddam did it”, “Bin
Laden did it”, “Assad did it”, etc. etc. etc. noise from the crowd who DID
do it.
Shlomo is cornered and exposed – and that IS worth the subscription fee to watch,
FINALLY.
“There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states.” General
(((Wesley Clark)))
Obviously a patriotic “American” General like Mr. Clark has no problem with
the racist state of Israel.
Just another COHENcidence? Nah, after finding about “6 million” COHENcidences
you start thinking for yourself, stop dropping the idea that “conspiracy
theories” are “conspiracies” and start realizing you have been fed a load
of horseshit for a century and counting. We don’t have a Russia problem but Houston, we
do have a problem. Wonder what that problem is?
@Tom
Welsh te Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard, at a time when that meant something. He also wrote
(presumably without the assistance a ghost writer) some 40-odd books, as Tucker Carlson
pointed out in a recent monologue.
I think by any standard, these achievements indicate a fairly high level of intellectual
skills.
Whether or not he was a nutcase is another matter, and not mutually exclusive of his
having considerable intellectual skills. A good place to start on this question is to read
what H.L. Mencken wrote about him.
And it is said that Roosevelt is included in the Mt. Rushmore tableau because he was
friends with Borglum the sculptor.
@Trinity
of different nations. But they live in harmony. Their common language is Russian. When Putin
goes to visit the Dagestan, he tells them that their men are brave and their women beautiful.
They love it. And they love Putin for it. Sadly, Google and Youtube seem to have cleaned up
this stuff.
The current news that the Brutish govt has approved new arms sales to Saudia because Saudi
mass killings of Yemeni civilians are all “isolated incidents” so it’s
quite proper to sell them the means seems to prove your point.
“Your decision, Mr President, to grant the Soviet Union an interest-free loan to the
value of $1,000,000,000 to meet deliveries of munitions and raw materials to the Soviet Union
is accepted by the Soviet Government with heartfelt gratitude as vital aid to the Soviet
Union in its tremendous and onerous struggle against our common enemy — bloody
Hitlerism.” (here)
The US is in central Asia for much more than that, it’s about blocking China and
Russia, as well as partially cutting off Iran on it’s eastern flank. Iran is almost
surrounded by US bases. The US wants to have more control point/choke point control over
continental transport routes in Asia. (One such prize would be the Dzungarian Gate, but
that’s a little too ambitious for the moment. ) Afghanistan does have resources, but it
would be a target without them, as it is so valuable as a (potential) transit corridor.
@Emily
ulture/history/item/4691-china-betrayed-into-communism" rel="nofollow"
href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4691-china-betrayed-into-communism">Marshall’s
doing all in his power to ensure the victory of Mao over Nationalist forces in 1949
U.S. civilian leaders seem to swoon over enemy sanctuaries for some strange reason. Kill
U.S. troops in theater. No problemo but pinky swear we won’t go after you if you go
back across the border.
God bless Richard Nixon and his destruction of NVA base areas in Cambodia. Thereafter,
enemy activity ceased around my camp and all through MR IV.
Reading your comment, Wally, I find your name extremely apt.
None so blind as those who refuse to even read.
You can take a horse to water but cannot make him drink.
You can put all the proof necessary but if you refuse to check it out – well –
stay a ‘ Wally’.
I guess you subscribe to the philosophy of ‘Ignorance is bliss’.
@Curmudgeon
Wehrmacht, the Warsaw Rising they so strongly encouraged would not have happened, and not
have led to the disaster it was for the city and its inhabitants
“Stalin wasn’t a “good guy”, and neither were Churchill or
Roosevelt. “ no objections
“The reality is that it took the “world” to defeat Germany. “ Much
of Europe fought on the side of Germany because they realized that Stalin, Churchill and
Roosevelt weren’t good guys, and they had nothing to look forward to but a horrible
peace in case of their victory. Why do you think the EC got together so quickly after the
war?
Also: the sheer idiocy of claiming that poor little “Britain and the
Commonwealth” stood alone against the German monster state! Do you ever look at a map?
at human and natural resources? This should have been a turkey shoot if your side had not
been as lacking in courage as it was, and as incompetent. And if the rest of Europe
wasn’t to a very large extent in the German camp, as it is today
Scott Ritter has a separate article at consortiumnews noting that the Russians have been
giving money to the Taliban (AID) to fight Americans, the CIA and their ISIS proxies since
2014. Surely Obama and/or Biden would have stopped these Russian “bounties” if
they were important.
“Please at least proofread your gibberish. Some of it might even make
sense.”
The executive in the WH has agreed that Russia sabotaged the US election process and
engaged murder and attempted in states of our allies.
There is no turning the clock bank unless Russia makes some gesture of amelioration
— there behavior constitutes an attack on the US. As such they are active enemies of
the US.
Unfortunately anyone seeking some manner of Russian love fest — should probably
forget it. Whether the executive signed for politically expedient reasons simply
doesn’t matter.
“If you believe any of the Skripals nonsense and the MH-17 false flag, you are
either gullible or a troll.”
Uhhhh, wholly irrelevant. My position in opposition to the contend that Russia sabotaged
the US election was vehemently dubious. My comments at the time make my position abundantly
clear. The evidence for the case against Russia in the US simply no there. But at the end of
the day, the executive choose to go the other direction. That is unfortunate. But it was also
a sign of things to come concerning the executives ability to stand.
And my comments today make that very clear. Your knee-jerk response that I believe what
the executive signed onto is incorrect. I knew that his choice destroyed a good deal of his
foreign poliy admonition to reduce tensions.
But that was his choice mistake or not he made that choice and as I expressed at the time
— we would have to live by it.
——————————————–
In fact, if I were on the opposition, I would like nothing better for the executive to
start behaving as though the intel report doesn’t exist. Because I would pull out that
report with his signature and commence calling him a weakling, indecisive, and a danger to
the US — who is to toothless to hold Russia accountable for her acts of terror in the
US and Europe.
I would then commence a campaign explaining why the executive wants to decrease troops ion
Europe — he wants to cede our allies over to Russian domination —
But then I am not on the opposition. It was a mistake on the facts for the executive to
sign that report for which there was little to no evidence supporting it.
Now if you have a response that gives the president some manner of face saving as he makes
nice with a country that overthrew a US election in the US, and engaged in murder and
attempted murder — have at it.
—————
Minus some kind of amelioration by the Russians or an about face by the current executive
(and tat would really be interesting) no peace and love and understanding can move forward. I
can say with certainty
Russia, Pres. Putin has no intention of apologizing for something they most likely did not
do regarding US elections.
Though I am sure he will once again have reason to chuckle.
Those of you angry, frustrated, irritated . . . and yada I suggest you take that up with
the WH They made that choice.
But by all means name call as opposed to deal with the obvious reality.
The US can not make nice with Russia until Russia makes amends for sabotaging the US
election and engage in acts of murder or attempted in murder in the sovereign states of our
allies. So says the executive in the WH. In fact he says that Pres. Putin ordered the
sabotage and murder.
I think you understand.
There is no way for the current executive to move forward with better relations with
Russia without extracting some admission and compensation for sad acts without reaping
serious political damage — I would say a loss of credibility, but that is already in
question – sadly.
Interestingly, whoever invented this lie about Russia and Taliban not only did not know
the realities of Afghanistan, but was stupid enough not to consult someone who knows. There
is no such thing as a bank transfer in Afghanistan. It exists in the Middle Ages (democracy,
my foot!), so the only form of money that functions there is cash, in hand, in a case, or in
a bag, depending on the amount.
The USA is quickly going to find itself in a corner. There is no realistic path away from
a total confrontation with Russia. No politician will dare dissent. I hope Russia is prepared
for this.
“The deplorables they despise the most are flyover Americans who go to church or who
serve in the military. These are the people they think are stupid and easily manipulated by
wild tales and false flags.”
Well let’s face it, they usually are. These are the milch cows the MIC relies on to
keep its funding secure.
Everyone knows that Americans are the most dumbfuck stupid people on the planet. It is
more shocking to think that propaganda would NOT affect most of the population.
Anecdotally, when my family lived in England in a village near London in 1957-58 we were
treated like royalty. I’ve always assumed it’s because we were the beloved Yanks
who saved Britain’s behind in the war. That doesn’t undercut what you say about
the underlying resentment, but my clear impression and that of my parents was that the
post-war Brits loved them some Yanks.
Another anecdote, this one not so feel-good. In 1956 we lived on Lakenheath AFB in the UK.
During the Suez crisis the base was on full stand-by alert in case we had to go to war with
Britain. Seriously.
@Patagonia
Man re in Washington is beyond repair. The despicable sinister schemes, backstabbing,
lies, fake facts in a quest for power has nothing to do with democracy but criminality.
It is time to galvanize support for direct voting…enabled by evolving technology.
That process would eliminate:
@ need for electing deceiving proxies that always betray their promises to represent the
public interest.
@ Washington proxies making decisions…should be reduced to debating issues.
@ the special interest groups, lobbies self-serving agenda.
@ sending our young people dying on far away places in unnecessary wars.
When was Paul Craig Roberts last an insider? Do you think him capable of picking cover
stories generically, that is without relevant particular knowledge of inside stuff?
And you seem to claim to have that ability to pick a cover story. So…. how? What
are the generic indicia?
Oh gee, your point would make one think that no other pagan Christian Church has
produced such mass murderers, or in fact, even greater ones… which would be ludicrous as
per history, yeah?
The real source of such satanic evil should be traced to Whitevil (including their Judevil
cousins of course) supremacy and their in-house “niggas,” such as the witch you
mention.
Looks like a lot of the blonds here except the ones here date thugs and run around til
they’re 24ish from dude to dude til they discover the joys of pills & meth and take
the full bath into the toilet….
@Ann
Nonny Mouse political dancing around and inventing another culprit as criminals always do,
successfully disappeared them. Don’t hope they will ever appear again.
And this is the Brutish government that killed another Russian by polonium poisoning and of
course invented another culprit, again as criminals always do.
And is now selling weapons for mass killing to Saudia says mass killings are merely
incidentals.
Consistently, modern Britain makes Nazi Germany look angelic. Consistently.
These are not Christian moral values. What religion or ritual system or control system acts
like this once it takes charge?
@Wizard
of Oz The same person also fuzzes up threads by pretending to be more than one commenter,
the technique known as “sock puppetry.” See under Mr. Derbyshire’s February
15, 2019, article comment ## 28, 42, 43, 44, 68, 122, where he/she/they got sloppy also posting
as “Anon[436].”
Over time, Wizard has emerged as sympathetic to the international bureaucracy of the
Establishment of which he may even be a (former?) part, the type of “diplomat”
exemplified by Mrs. Nuland’s Ivy League cookie caddy in Ukraine. He broke character a
while back, showing emotional hostility to China. But who can be sure? Among this
website’s oddest, sophisticatedly trollish commenters.
You will find that Roosevelt privately was giving both the UK & France assurances that
if either were attacked, the US would come to their aid well before 1938 – even
tho’ US multinational corporations were still trading with the NSDAP in Germany well into
1941.
As you can’t even get the Julian Assange bit right I don’t suppose it’s
any use asking you to justify your bald assertions or even flesh them our with detail. Let
alone explain when Britain became “modern” and ceased to be the country which is
rightly credited with ending theslave trade and led the way in abolition of slavery.
Yes, several governments have treated Assange contemptibly but he is remanded without bail
pending the resumption of the extradition hearing, not imprisoned for life in cruel or any
conditions. How can you waste readers time with such garbage?
How much credit do you give to someone who sloppily uses the term “terrorist in that
context referring to the equovalent of precision bombing in contrast to area bombing without
precise aiming?
I am really not qualified to comment on the internal wrangling of the various factions in
the USA. I look at their foreign policy actions, not proclamations, with much greater
interest.
@Erzberger
ut down war industry was started by Germany, arguably in Belgium in August 1814 but certainly
in December 1914 when German cruisers indiscriminately shelled three North East England towns.
An aberration? No. It was followed by Zepellin raids on London and the use of Big Bertha
against Paris. Then, what message and implicit set of rules do you find in the destruction of
Guernica? And many civilians were killed in the bombing of Warsaw. Even the virtually symbolic
bombing of Berlin was a response to bombs dropped on London, the only point in your favour
there being the fact that those bombs were probably not meant to be dropped on London.
How intriguing. Not having your obsessive interest in warning about Wizard of Oz I have
failed, at my level of diligence, to find any evidence at all of emotional hostility to China
or indeed, about anything much except perhaps the hypocritical mistreatment of individuals like
Julian Assange by governments. Can you help?
The Germans couldn’t believe how inept the average French, American, and British
soldier really were, even British described how frightened many of the America soldiers, most
barely old enough to shave, appeared. The German was appalled at the physical fitness of the
British soldier as well, describing them as weak and frail for the most part. Here is the
truth, Western Europe and America fought the German B team at best, often these Germans were
little more than schoolboys in some cases. Everyone knows that the bulk of the serious fighting
was done on the Eastern Front. Think if tiny Germany hadn’t had to fight on two fronts
against what must have seemed like half the world. It doesn’t speak well that it took so
many years to defeat a country as small as Germany, a country that was at an extreme
disadvantage. The average Western soldier, be it a Frenchmen, a Brit or an American was nothing
special to say the least. This isn’t a I hate America thing, but merely the truth. The
average German soldier was head and shoulders above the average Brit or America G.I.
Finally, seven days after its ‘scoop’, the NYT ran another story on the
subject, entitled ‘New Administration Memo Seeks to Foster Doubts About Suspected
Russian Bounties’, which was published on July 3 and buried in the bowels of the
paper.
Its opening paragraphs sought to back up the original story, claiming that an intelligence
memo had said the “… CIA and the National Counterterrorism Centre had
assessed with medium confidence – meaning creditable sources and plausible, but falling
short of near certainty – that a unit of the Russian military service, known as the
GRU, offered the bounties.”
It was only in the last paragraph that the real story – that there was no story
– was revealed: “The agency did intercept data of financial transactions that
provide circumstantial support for the detainee’s account, but the agency does not
have explicit evidence that the money was bounty payments.”
So the blood libel lasted a week!
One of the greatest things about the Trump Presidency was to carve the ‘Fake
News’ meme on the MSM’s forehead.
Mister/Miss, since when the zionized Congress of the US serves the citizenship of the US?
Thank you for reminding (and you do this regularly) of the unfortunate fact that the US is an
occupied territory and the US Congress is a nest of liars, war profiteers, and rabid
zionists.
Les Wexler, Ben Cardin, Chuck Schumer, and Clintons have inflicted more harm to the US than
any Maria Butin and such. And don’t forget Dick Cheney and Co, the committed traitors and
profiteers by any means.
In my experience people who are sloppy with language are sloppy with thinking. I thought you
might have had similar relevant experience unlike most commenters here. For example, if you
were employing a director of research or even just a junior researcher for a committee of
inquiry would you not rate their careful use of language as a qualification? You want to be
able to rely on the facts they turn up and their reasoning underlying proposed conclusions do
you not?
I am content to know that you don’t read my comments and are as sloppy and inaccurate
in calling me hasbara as the person who called destroying an Iranian nuclear facility
“terrorist”. To extend my last comment, you wouldn’t even be on the long list
for assisting any inquiry I chaired.
Do you know at least, what were you fighting for in Vietnam? How Vietnam threatened US
shores?
Do not tell me fighting communist ideology, because the same Nixon and Kissinger that bombed
Cambodia civilians embraced that communist ideology in China with grave consequences. We have
lunatics in Washington and it is time for direct voting – majority rules.
@Wizard
of Oz as right in the sense that despite the British and French declaration of war, not
much happened – other than the naval blockade and the lame French invasion of the Saar
region. Neither Britain nor France had the courage to follow up on their war declaration, for
fear of unpopular casualties or further destruction of land and people (France), and both hoped
to gain a cheap victory by starving out the German war effort. Had they actually opened a
second front in the fall of 39, the Germans would have collapsed, and the war would have been
over before Christmas.
The GErman victory over FRance surprised everyone, including the Germans
I think the EC got together so quickly because the US wanted to impose their economic model
on Europe with the illusion of control. The Marshall Plan was unraveling as the swindle it was,
and the EC was the answer to keep up the illusion. While the UK was in on the scam, they were
the front for the Americans, as the idiot Churchill had pissed away the Empire to buy his 15
minutes of fame.
Once the shooting starts there are no good guys. Like all wars, WWII was an economic war. The
German economic system could not be allowed to succeed, it was catching on.
You must must have quite a deteriorated mind when Russia can influence your vote. Tell me
the logistics of the process. You must have equally deteriorated mind believing what CNN,
MSNBC, WP or NYT and others dishonest outfits tell you – they are a propaganda machine
for a small unpatriotic parasitic group.
There is a hierarchy in the blame game . Trump isn’t on the top . If he were, the vile
Democrats would be asking review and discussion by broader media ,Dept of Justice and Treasury
either to discredit or confirm the following story
in–“Venezuela’s interim government wants access to funds confiscated in
the US from corrupt officials, saying it belongs to the Venezuelan people. But US officials
appear to have other plans. The Treasury Department diverted $601 million last year from its
forfeiture fund to help build President Trump’s border wall. (Leer en español)
https://www.univision.com/univision-news/latin-america/legal-battle-over-venezuelas-looted-billions-heats-up
Since the United States initiated a coup attempt against Venezuela’s elected leftist
government in January 2019, up to $24 billion worth of Venezuelan public assets have been
seized by foreign countries, primarily by Washington and member states of the European Union.
President Donald Trump’s administration has used at least $601 million of that looted
Venezuelan money to fund construction of its border wall with Mexico, according to government
documents first reviewed by Univision Univision reviewed US congressional records and court
documents and found that the Trump administration tapped into $601 million of the Treasury
Department’s “forfeiture fund” to supplement the wall constructio https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/29/trump-stolen-venezuelan-money-border-wall-mexico/
Reason no-one is doing it is because hating Trump could always be swapped for worshipping
something more sinister and idiotic .
We would have heard a similar story only if Russia extracted something like this from
Ukraine or Libya .
I suggest you seek treatment for you pathological hate. Russia want to be a friend in
peaceful coexistence but it is sinister players in Washington that constantly need/create
enemies to build military industrial complexes instead of consumer goods which are supplied
from China.
I have been a supported of the current executive before he considered running. And his
choice to agree with the intel report and more was a fairly tough pill to swallow. As it turns
it was but one of many.
No I found the intel dubious. And I think the executive could have challenged in a manner
that did not call the CIA and other agencies DIA, etc. or damage his ability to curtail his
policy agenda. But having signed — he essentially states Pres Putin and the Russians are
active enemies of the US given that scenario
one would draw on our behavior in Afghanistan hen we supported the Taliban with weapons to
kill Russian soldiers —-
@Trinity
fought more effectively and efficiently than the novice American soldiers. Then there were
technical factors which were naturally advantageous to the more experienced military. For
example the famous 88mm anti-aircraft gin turned anti-tsnk gun was never matched by the Allies
(I thin) and the German tactics for its use were also superior. Germany, though less than the
Soviet Union had another advantage over Britain and France. It’s population went on
growing fast for a generations beyond the end of high growth in Britain and, especially,
France. For example there were 2 million Germans born in 1913 to provide young men for the army
in the 30s.
Yes, as I’ve said repeatedly, the ‘sinister players’, the Judaic NEOCON
cabal want to keep America and Russia apart mainly for their hate of Christianity and gentiles,
and try to destroy them both.
@Curmudgeon
uld be a return to what was indeed Hitler’s scheme of continental autarky and a more even
distribution of wealth, and a democratic model much more in line with the Prussian model, the
latter bearing significant resemblance with the Chinese Mandarin system. The Chinese Communists
are really doing nothing different than the old emperors running a meritocracy rather than an
idiocracy. Western democracies, esp the US, with their insane and horrendously expensive
election circuses tend to achieve the latter. I hear Kanye West is running for president now.
The problem with China is not Communism but their adoption of Western state-capitalism.
I am sure President Putin would be delighted to draw international attention to this new
symbol of a Christian resurgence in Russia. President Trump would appreciate the splendor of
such a backdrop for his meeting with another major head of state. Many of the Evangelicals
among Trumps’s base would be gobsmacked to learn that Mr. Putin is not running a godless,
soulless Communist hellstate. And many of people in the US State Department and the rest of the
Swamp would utterly sh*t their pants.
True dat. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the exceptionals.
And Cheney’s daughter burns the midnight oil in order to keep the pot boiling in
Afghanistan. MUST have U.S. troops there to oppose “terrorists” with AKs.
NYT is a rental rag that always favored Soviets and now CCP, why cite it anymore?
The Russia distraction distracts from Piglosi, Feinstein, Biden, Bushes, congress and corps
etc etc being in bed$ with China. With the side benefit of Russian alienation from the US
driving Russian goods into the China slaughter house on the cheap.
@Derer
pants over Assad’s or Gaddafi’s purported authoritarianisms like they’re
skunk pie. Eeeww!
You’re right that we have lunatics in Washington but I don’t think “direct
voting” is the answer. Devolution plus draconian anti-trust enforcement. crucifixion of
the Antifa filth, massive deportations, ending black privilege, brutally honest debate over
black failure, draconian anti-vote fraud operations, and naming and neutralizing the role and
power of organized Jewry and its wealth seem more likely to get us back on track. Please be
more creative then “majority rule.”
Jesus. “Choke points” can be dealt with from afar. It takes a while to rebuild
railroad bridges. The concept of the Russian and Iranian enemies has worn a little thin these
last few days. It’s just assumed that Russia is a malignant force just as it’s
universally assumed that “special sauce” is the way to go on McDonalds’
hamburgers. I accept neither proposition.
I want troops on the U.S. southern border not on the “flanks” of Iran or
policing “transit corridors” here and there but that’s just me.
@Wizard
of Oz a refuses to extradite a woman to Britain for actual homicide. Zero grounds to hold
him.
From their political standpoint the safest way out is for Assange to simply die in the
maximum-security prison, so the extradition proceedings can simply be dropped. All problems
solved.
So, he is in actual fact in prison for life.
Never mind that Britain did something virtuous in the distant past. Today is today. And
notice that serial murderers can be friendly and courteous between murders but that nice
behaviour doesn’t exonerate them for the murders. Nazi Germany looks angelic relative to
the Britain of today.
“The Gulf of Tonkin “event” was a lie, so there’s that.”
No. It in reality, it was a series of confused messages from the patrol boat. But was used
to support a defense of S. Vietnam — the matter is of no consequence. The US was going to
defend S. Vietnamese sovereignty regardless of the Tonkin event.
Today on TruNews Rick interviews Andrew Torba, the founder of Gab, a free speech
alternative to the tyrants at Twitter. They discuss how the Silicon Valley elite use their
satanic bias to silence opposition and have a mission to purge Christianity from their
platforms.
FYI while BLM and RG draw our attention and now RABAS have made all other conspiracies
recede into Corona graveyard
( Russia gate and Russia Afghan Bounty American Solider )
Kushner stoke and his DNA repaired the monetary damages back at home of origin .
Israel lobby organizations such as the Zionist Organization of America ($2-5 million),
Friends of the IDF ($2-5 million) and the Israeli American Council ($1-2 million) are grabbing
huge 100% forgivable loans from the CARES Act PPP program.
According to SBA data released on Monday, Israeli’s Bank Leumi has doled out a quarter to
a half billion dollars under the PPP program, despite being called out for operating in the
occupied West Bank.
Leumi has given sweetheart deals to fellow Israeli companies Oran Safety Glass (which defrauded
the US Army on bulletproof glass contracts) and Energix, which operates power plants in the
occupied Golan Heights and West Bank.
This exchange took place today on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal.
This video clip with additional information is available on IRmep’s YouTube
Channel.
Grant F. Smith is the author of the new book The Israel Lobby Enters State Government. He is
director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy IRmep in Washington, D.C. which
co-organizes IsraelLobbyCon each year at the National Press Club.
@geokat62
– colonial expansion,
– rolling genocide of the Palestinian people, witness 2014 Operation Protective Edge,
– terrorist attacks of neighboring Arab/Muslim states – Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq,
Occupied Territories, Iran & Syria;
– terrorist attacks on Western nations, incl. the UK, the US, & France (since its
Parliament voted to recognize Palestine as a state in 2014), and
– sponsoring of terror organizations e.g, ISIS, to continue its proxy war on
Syria.
– etc, etc
In addition to Constantinople, years later defending Ottoman remnants in Bosnia and Kosovo
against the Christians by “cigar” Clinton and warmonger Blair that introduced the
Islamization of Europe.
@Erzberger
e lines of making distinctions e.g. between deliberate murder of harmless civilians and forcing
choices on them (starve Russian prisoners and ration food to mothers and children e.g.). Of
course the choice to get rid of their government and stop the war is unrealistic even in the
post Cold War world. What did sanctions on Iran produce?? Just civilian deaths.
** it is only recently that I discovered that it made a big contribution to diverting German
effort from the Eastern Front though it is not surprising that Stalin thought the absence of a
Second Front in France was meant to help the Germans savage the USSR.
@Patagonia
Man he approx dozen Israeli dual citizens he alleges are in the Australian Parliament
contrary to the provisions of the Australian constitution.
So, don’t encourage him Geo, by thanking him. That Israeli nonsense is enough to brand
him as a nutter.
As to Quadrant, what does it matter that, in the 50s, and maybe till about 1970, it was
given some financial support by the CIA? Really, what is the point in the 21st century? Does it
matter to current affairs that Robert Maxwell owned the Daily Mirror till the 90s?
If I don’t reply to all the rubbish no one should infer the truth of anything
Patagonia Man alleges.
He takes various commandments of God and distills it into a silly… Debt = Sin.
Indeed, it is true that one can take anything and make it fit their delusional way of thought.
E.g. the 3 in 1, of the pagan Trinity.
Of course, that does not mean, Usury (extortionate moneylending) ≠ Sin, which it most
certainly is.
The Ten Commandments were about debt? A silly interpretation. They are primarily about
Monotheism and a righteous way-of-life, and refraining from usury is just one aspect of it.
Christianity got perverted? Yes, it most certainly is a pagan perversion of True
Monotheism.
“Sure, Poland bears major responsibility for WW 2, and lending themselves to now
hosting US nukes and troops to be moved over from Germany signals that they once again have not
learned a thing from their past.”
— Stepping on rakes as a national pastime.
@Ann
Nonny Mouse an associated organisation whose stated objective is to ‘maximise support
for the State of Israel within the British Liberal Democrat Party’…
Spaight claims that drawing the war to the British isles was done in solidarity with the
Soviets. This is nonsense but a timely propaganda move at a time when German defeat was
assured. Stalin did no fall into that trap. He lknew about Operation Pike and Operation
Impossible, and had zero reason to trust the British. Wikipedia has a page on either
Operation
Denialist? A careful textual analysis tells me you are saying WoZ denies what you assert,
which is that there are about a dozen Israeli dual citizens in the Australian Parliament,
contrary to law. Instead of coyly dancing around the issue what about meeting the challenge to
name at least some?
@Erzberger
Thanks. Mind you I think the Blitz was pretty indiscriminate bombing before Britain was in a
position to inflict much damage on Germany. I gather attacks on London from the start were a
strategic error by Hitler because the Liluftwaffe should have kept up its attacks on Britisk
airfields. Interesting that Albert Speer, in the “World at War” series, said that
four more raids like the 1000 bomber raid on Hamburg (or maybe it was Cologne) would have
finished the war. Why couldn’t Bomber Command do I it? Maybe it was because Eisenhower
won the battle to have bombers diverted to bombing the Pas we Calais (mostly) and Normandie.
“Mind you I think the Blitz was pretty indiscriminate bombing before Britain was in a
position to inflict much damage on Germany.”
Wrong.
BTW, the Blitz is a misnomer. Blitzkrieg is tactical air support for ground troops. Neither
applies to the air attacks on German cities in May 1940, or the German retaliation, several
months later, that we know as the Blitz.
Richard Overy though has argued that the German Blitz showed the British how it was done
efficiently, so they improved their bombing strategy accordingly afterwards. Whatever
Today statues, tomorrow mass firings... or even worse. There's a history here.
I'm ambivalent about statues and J.K. Rowling being torn down, but terrified of the thought
process behind the destruction. Decisions should never be made by mobs.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.393.1_en.html#goog_104228712 NOW
PLAYING
The Coronavirus Pandemic Is Throwing A Wrench Into The Lives Of High School Juniors
Shanghai To Reopen Schools
Harvard and MIT Sue Trump Administration Over Foreign Student Visa Rule
Rugged Individualism: ICE To Deport International Students If Universities Shift Online
Tokyo May Keep Schools Closed Through May
Virginia Bans Natural Hair Discrimination In Workplaces and Schools
Five Tweets From Parents Appreciating Teachers During The Coronavirus Quarantine
USC To Offer Free Tuition For Families Making Less Than 80K Per Year
Is America on the edge of a cultural revolution?
The historical namesake and obvious parallel is the Cultural
Revolution in China, which lasted from 1966 to 1976. Its stated goal was to purge
capitalist and traditional elements from society, and to substitute a new way of thinking based
on Mao's own beliefs. The epic struggle for control and power waged war against anybody on the
wrong side of an idea.
To set the mobs on somebody, one needed only to tie him to an official blacklist like the
Four Olds (old customs, culture, habits, and ideas). China's young people and urban workers
formed Red Guard units to go after whomever was outed. Violence? Yes, please. When Mao launched
the movement in May 1966, he told his mobs to "bombard the headquarters" and made clear that
"to rebel is justified." He said "revisionists should be removed through violent class
struggle." The old thinkers were everywhere and were systematically trying to preserve their
power and subjugate the people.
Whetted, the mobs took the task to heart: Red Guards destroyed historical relics, statues,
and artifacts, and ransacked cultural and religious sites. Libraries were burned. Religion was
considered a tool of capitalists and so churches were destroyed -- even the Temple of Confucius
was wrecked. Eventually the Red Guards moved on to openly killing people who did not think as
they did. Where were the police? The cops were told not to intervene in Red Guard activities,
and if they did, the national police chief pardoned the Guards for any crimes.
Education was singled out, as it was the way the old values were preserved and transmitted.
Teachers, particularly those at universities, were considered the "Stinking Old Ninth" and were
widely persecuted. The lucky ones just suffered the public humiliation of shaved heads, while
others were tortured. Many were slaughtered or harassed into suicide. Schools and universities
eventually closed down and over 10 million former students were sent to the countryside to
labor under the Down to the Countryside Movement. A lost generation was abandoned to fester,
uneducated. Red Guard pogroms eventually came to include the cannibalization
of revisionists. After all, as Mao said, a revolution is not a dinner party.
The Cultural Revolution destroyed China's economy and traditional culture, leaving behind a
possible death toll ranging from one to 20 million. Nobody really knows. It
was a war on the way people think. And it failed. One immediate consequence of the
Revolution's failure was the rise in power of the military after regular people decided they'd
had enough and wanted order restored. China then became even more of a capitalist society than
it had ever imagined in pre-Revolution days. Oh well.
I spoke with an elderly Chinese academic who had been forced from her classroom and made to
sleep outside with the animals during the Revolution. She recalled forced self-criticism
sessions that required her to guess at her crimes, as she'd done nothing more than teach
literature, a kind of systematic revisionism in that it espoused beliefs her tormentors thought
contributed to the rotten society. She also had to write out long apologies for being who she
was. She was personally held responsible for 4,000 years of oppression of the masses. Our
meeting was last year, before
white guilt became a whole category on Netflix, but I wonder if she'd see now how similar
it all is.
That's probably a longer version of events than a column like this would usually feature. A
tragedy on the scale of the Holocaust in terms of human lives, an attempt to destroy culture on
a level that would embarrass the Taliban -- this topic is not widely taught in American
colleges, never mind in China.
It should be taught, because history
rhymes . Chinese students are again outing teachers, sometimes via cellphone videos, for "
improper
speech ," teaching hurtful things from the past using the wrong vocabulary. Other Chinese
intellectuals are harassed online for holding outlier positions, or lose their jobs for
teaching novels with the wrong values. Once abhorred as anti-free speech, most UC Berkeley
students would likely now agree that such steps are proper. In Minnesota, To Kill A Mockingbird
and Huckleberry Finn are
banned because fictional characters use a racial slur.
There are no statues to the Cultural Revolution here or in China. Nobody builds monuments to
chaos. But it's never really about the statues anyway. In America, we moved quickly from
demands to tear down the statues of Robert E. Lee to Thomas Jefferson to basically any
Caucasian, including "
White Jesus. "
Of course, it was never going to stop with Confederate generals because it was not really
about racism any more than the Cultural Revolution was really about capitalism. This is about
rewriting history for political ends , both short-term power grabs (Not Trump 2020!) and longer
term societal changes that one critic calls the " successor ideology ," the melange
of academic radicalism now seeking hegemony throughout American institutions. Douglas Murray is more succinct. The purpose "is to
embed a new metaphysics into our societies: a new religion." The ideas -- centered on there
being only one accepted way of thought -- are a tool of control.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT
MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
It remains to be seen where America goes next in its own nascent cultural revolution. Like
slow dancing in eighth grade, maybe nothing will come of it. These early stages, where the
victims are Uncle Ben, Aunt Jemima, someone losing her temper while walking a dog in Central
Park, and canceled celebrities, are a far cry from the millions murdered for the same goals in
China. Much of what appears revolutionary is just Internet pranking and common looting
amplified by an agendaized media. One writer
sees "cancel culture as a game, the point of which is to impose unemployment on people as a
form of recreation." B-list celebs
and Karens in the parking lot are easy enough targets. Ask the Red Guards: it's fun to break
things.
Still, the intellectual roots of our revolution and China's seem similar: the hate of the
old, the need for unacceptable ideas to be disappeared in the name of social progress,
intolerance toward dissent, violence to enforce conformity.
In America these are spreading outward from our universities so that everywhere today --
movies, TV, publishing, news, ads, sports -- is an Oberlin where in the name of free speech
"hate speech" is banned, and in the name of safety dangerous ideas and the people who hold them
are not only not discussed but canceled, shot down via the projectile of the heckler's veto,
unfriended, demonetized, deleted, de-platformed, demeaned, chased after by mobs both real and
online in a horrible blend of self-righteousness and cyber bullying. They don't believe in a
marketplace of ideas. Ideas to the mob are either right or wrong and the "wrong" ones must be
banished. The choices to survive the mobs are conformity or silence. In China, you showed
conformity by carrying around Mao's Little Red Book .
In America, you wear a soiled surgical mask to the supermarket.
The philosophical spadework for an American Cultural Revolution is done. Switch the terms
capitalism and revisionism with racism and white supremacy in some of Mao's speeches and you
have a decent speech draft for a Black Lives Matter rally. Actually, you can keep Mao's
references to destroying capitalism, as they track pretty closely with progressive thought in
2020 America.
History is not there to make anyone feel safe or justify current theories about policing.
History exists so we can learn from it, and for us to learn from it, it has to exist for us to
study it, to be offended and uncomfortable with it, to bathe in it, to taste it bitter or
sweet. When you wash your hands of an idea, you lose all the other ideas that grew to challenge
it. Think of those as antibodies fighting a disease. What happens when they are no longer at
the ready? What happens when a body forgets how to fight an illness? What happens when a
society forgets how to challenge a bad idea with a better one?
Someone finally noticed. History doesn't just rhyme, sometimes it repeats.
These people so closely following the leftist agenda ignore the fact the the security law
being jammed down the throats of semi-British people (used to a degree of freedom) in Hong
Kong is coming from a leftist group know as China. When I first went to China, in moments
away from my handlers (now "minders") new middle-class professionals told me that China would
survive as a society as long as simple freedoms were advanced. The children of those people
are now growing up in a new kind of totalitarian system,where you are "disappeared" if you
cause trouble.
Socialism does not need to be like this, but it is the way it always ends up. The people
who are burning and looting are even harder to control when they disagree with a pure
democratic government. The alternative is a representative democracy. Sound familiar?
Theosebes Goodfellow , 9 minutes ago
what is happening in the USA today is due directly to the fact that we did not teach our
children about the "Lost Generation", (how the Chinese themseves describe it), i.e., the
Chinese "Cultural Revolution".
But the Marxist-Leninist tachers, especially in colleges and universities, DO NOT want to
have to teach anything that shows Communism in a bad light. So it di not get taught.
Fortunately we have the lessons prepared for our little tykes by the late, detested Hugo
Chavez. Nothing says "Socialism/Communism Sucks". The ex-bus driver turned narco-trafficker
Maduro is just icing on the cake. You can't hide that disaster. And if you think it's bad in
Venezuela now, what until those stuck there start starvig to death. That's coming to
Venezuela next. It will, by the way, be the first time in modern history that a famine will
have struck the New World.
Now there's an accolade to lay at the feet of the collectivists.
TrustbutVerify , 10 minutes ago
The American Cultural Revolutionaries (BLM, Antifa, NFAC, etc.)...Democratic Party voters
all.
cjones1 , 10 minutes ago
Chinese families had to throw their antique furniture into the street to escape
condemnation. Many people starved if they were not given a ration ticket.
I was told that even today unmarried, pregnant woman are unable to obtain obstetric
services to deliver their baby. Their babies are not officially recognized and are often left
on street. Childless couples may adopt them or they are left for orphanages
The Democratic party has sanctioned the violent mobs in their politically correct
condemnations. It is a great irony that tge Democratic party is a Confederate memorial. The
Democratic party's legacy is slavery, racism, bigotry, segregation, lynch mobs, and the KKK
hoodlums. They have new hoodlums in Antifa, BLM, and the TDS afflicted that paint bigoted
slogans on city streets and elsewhere.
I was listening to an interview with Tucker Carlson by The Federalist last week. Great
interview, by the way. He said, and I am paraphrasing:
'During the Cultural Revolution in China, Confucius and his entire family's graves were
all dug up and desecrated. The message was clear: If they come for him, they will come for
YOU and have no problems in doing so'.
So, these statues are just objects to them. And, if you get in their way, you will just be
an object to be removed. This is all very surreal to me.....and quite frightening. I am not
one to post bravado. I am only a man. I want to harm no one and want no one to harm me.
However, the time is coming when I will be tested. It seems it will be sooner rather than
later. I hope that with my faith well grounded in God that I will endure what comes to
me.
SDShack , 8 minutes ago
Statues are monuments to history to stimulate debate among future generations what those
monuments represent. Violently erasing statues by one side, means that side admits they
cannot win the future debate. Hence they must eliminate what they perceive is the "history"
that is preventing them from winning. Violent action is almost always due to hidden
insecurity from the known inability to intellectually win an argument. It's their moment to
crap all over the chessboard and leave.
"... In 2013, the national outcry over Trayvon Martin's death and George Zimmerman's acquittal sparked a national outcry over racial injustice. Amid this controversy, three activists, Patrisse Cullors , Alicia Garza , and Opal Tometi , started a hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter, which soon went viral. They then founded the national Black Lives Matter organization. ..."
"... No doubt, the organization itself was quite radical from the very beginning. Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors described herself and fellow co-founder Alicia Garza as "trained Marxists" in a recently resurfaced video from 2015. ..."
"... The official Black Lives Matter organization is Marxist ..."
"... Such a divisive ideology only fuels perpetual conflict, not progress toward reconciliation. By failing to drive this toxic extremism out loudly and clearly from their side of the issue, the large majority of Black Lives Matter supporters -- who simply seek reform, justice, and reconciliation -- take a chainsaw to any chance of achieving common ground and consensus. ..."
n Monday night, Terry Crews was grilled over his criticism of Black Lives Matter by CNN host
Don Lemon. As Gina Bontempo pointed out on Twitter : "Don
Lemon did everything he could to talk over Terry and silence him as soon as they started
approaching what the BLM organization is *really* about."
So what is Black Lives Matter really about?
Many conservatives insist Black Lives Matter is a Marxist, anti-police, radical organization
that wants to tear down America . Meanwhile, most liberals simply view Black Lives Matter as a
heroic movement and powerful slogan signaling support for racial justice and opposition to
police brutality.
Both are right.
There is Black Lives Matter™️, and there is "black lives matter."
Black Lives Matter as a broad sentiment and movement then gained national attention and name
recognition after the 2014 deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. Meanwhile, the official
group expanded and many more local chapters formed.
No doubt, the organization itself was quite radical from the very beginning. Black Lives
Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors described herself and fellow co-founder Alicia Garza as
"trained Marxists" in a recently
resurfaced video from 2015.
"We actually do have an ideological frame[work]," Cullors said
of her organization. "We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological
theories."
Meanwhile, the national organization's official
platform , published in 2015, contained a specific call to "[disrupt] the
Western-prescribed nuclear family structure."
At the local level, official Black Lives Matter chapters are essentially far-left front
groups that use racial justice as a Trojan horse for leftist policy and ideology. For example,
the official organization Black Lives Matter DC openly dedicates itself to "creating the conditions
for Black Liberation through the abolition of systems and institutions of white supremacy,
capitalism, patriarchy and colonialism."
Image credit: Johnny Silvercloud, Flickr
Unsurprisingly, conservatives have bashed the radical group en masse.
"Black Lives Matter is an openly Marxist, anti-America n group," conservative commentator
Mark Levin said . "There's no denying
it. And it is fully embraced by the Democrat Party and its media and cultural
surrogates."
"Black Lives Matter is a Marxist movement," Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz tweeted . "Black Lives
Matter is not about police, it's not about race, it's not about justice. It's about making us
hate America so they can replace America."
"You know, I know plenty of people who are for Black Lives Matter. A lot of them are nice
people," Fox News Host Tucker Carlson
recently said . "I'm not mad at them. I disagree I think Black Lives Matter is
poison."
These kinds of conservative criticisms of Black Lives Matter are widespread. And on one
hand, they're right : The official Black Lives Matter organization is Marxist, is anti-American
in its values, and its views are rightfully alarming to anyone who believes in the
Constitution, capitalism, and civil society as we know it.
But in applying their reflexive response to all Black Lives Matter supporters, conservative
critics are failing to see the forest for the trees.
Most of these people, I suspect, don't even know that there is an official Black Lives
Matter organization. And I'm sure hardly any of them could name Patrisse Cullors or Alicia
Garza.
Whether it's where I'm from in deep-blue Massachusetts or where I live now in Washington
D.C., walking by a Black Lives Matter sign sticking out from someone's yard is just about an
everyday occurrence. After the death of George Floyd, more of my acquaintances, friends, and
relatives than I could count posted #BlackLivesMatter.
Many others changed their picture to a black square or otherwise signaled their support for
the movement.
I can personally guarantee you that the vast majority of these people, while liberal, do not
support ending capitalism or dismantling the family. Conservatives are led astray as soon as
they apply their (valid) criticisms of Black Lives Matter™️ the organization to
the Black Lives Matter movement and its supporters broadly.
Image Credit: John Lucia, Flickr
Just look at the way some on the Right responded to Sen. Mitt Romney after he attended a
Washington, D.C. protest against police brutality, telling reporters he did so "to make sure
that people understand that Black Lives Matter."
Here's a sampling of how hostile the response was from some conservative pundits on
Twitter:
Even President Trump attacked Romney over it:
No matter how you feel about the conservative Mormon senator politically (and I'm far from a
fan), no one can credibly argue that Romney supports destroying the nuclear family, ending
capitalism, or abolishing the police.
Meanwhile, Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana faced a similar unfair backlash when he announced his
support for Black Lives Matter and
unveiled a modest police reform proposal :
It may well be true that in particular conservative circles, everyone is well aware of the
obscure history of the Black Lives Matter founders' Marxist roots. But the average person on
the street and the average person who shares the hashtag are most certainly not. And the
movement itself has become something much bigger, broader, and more benevolent than the
original organization.
However, it's by no means just conservatives who err in their approach to Black Lives
Matter. For one, many on the Left fail to acknowledge at all the Marxist roots of the official
Black Lives Matter organization, and thus, paint anyone who objects to the organization as
racist, unthinkingly inveighing: "How could anyone not support black lives?" This kind of
clever naming of a controversial movement, similar to "Antifa" supposedly standing for
"anti-fascist," makes it easy to baselessly paint critics as extreme and immoral. Yet this is a
reductive oversimplification that serves only to divide.
So, too, much of the blame for the Black Lives Matter perception gap lies with liberals,
Democrats, and others who support the movement for failing to adequately distance themselves
from the radical organization.
For example, I visited one of my favorite coffee shops in Arlington, Virginia over the
weekend. Like many a hipster coffee shop, it had a Black Lives Matter sign in the window and
had a fundraiser going on for the cause as well. But I was dismayed to read the flyer and
notice that the proceeds of the fundraiser were going to the official Black Lives Matter DC
organization -- yes, the same one that openly wants to abolish capitalism.
Now, I highly doubt that the owners of this coffee shop, even if they are progressives or
Democrats, actually support Marxism. More importantly, I'm certain that most customers who
donated, even in the liberal-leaning neighborhood, do not realize they are donating to a
Marxist, anti-American revolutionary organization by participating in the fundraiser. But they
are.
Many a mainstream liberal has signaled support for the generic "black lives matter" cause by
sharing fundraisers that, if you look closely, go to official Black Lives Matter organizations
that do not actually represent their views. Meanwhile, liberal-leaning media outlets such as MSNBC
regularly platform official members of the Marxist Black Lives Matter movement and pass the
radical activists off as within the mainstream.
From corporations to politicians to random Facebook users, Black Lives Matter supporters
need to do a much better job distancing themselves from the radical organization at the root of
their slogan. (Or, alternatively, they should come up with a new and different slogan that
doesn't have such malign associations.)
This lack of due diligence is lazy and irresponsible, but more importantly, it's
dangerous.
Marxism is a vicious ideology, and it's one that is rooted in a divisive vision of
irreconcilable class conflict. As important economist Ludwig von Mises
noted ,
"According to the Marxian view... human society is organized into classes whose interests stand
in irreconcilable opposition." Moreover, as Mises explains ,
Marxists believe that people's very thoughts ought to be determined by their class and that
those who differ from the prescribed worldview are class traitors.
Such a divisive ideology only fuels perpetual conflict, not progress toward reconciliation.
By failing to drive this toxic extremism out loudly and clearly from their side of the issue,
the large majority of Black Lives Matter supporters -- who simply seek reform, justice, and
reconciliation -- take a chainsaw to any chance of achieving common ground and consensus.
When Don Lemon took issue with Terry Crews's take on Black Lives Matter, Crews was
crystal clear , saying, "This is the
thing. It's a great mantra. It's a true mantra. Black lives do matter. But, when you're talking
about an organization, you're talking about the leaders, you're talking about the people who
are responsible for putting these things together. It's two different things."
We need more of that kind of clarity in our discourse. Right now, the debate over "Black
Lives Matter" is muddled and confused. Liberals and conservatives alike need to make an effort
to listen and understand the other side's perspective, not the strawman caricature of it used
as a punching bag in partisan echo chambers. Until both sides take the time to understand each
other, we will keep talking past each other -- and any real progress or harmony will remain a
fantasy.
I have searched the Internet and cannot find the alleged second autopsy -- the so-called
"independent autopsy" hired by "George Floyd's family." I have no difficulty finding the
official medical examiner's report, but there is no sign of a second autopsy. Those of you who
are convinced it exists please send me the URL. It will prove that you are a better Internet
searcher than I am.
Based on the available information, the "second autopsy" consists of an assertion by CNN, a
collection of liars that other presstitutes echo. Thus, the presstitutes created a non-existent
"second autopsy" just as they created Russiagate and Russian bounties to the Taliban to kill
American troops in Afganistan that President Trump allegedly refuses to do anything about.
Precisely how does Trump do something about something that does not exist? Try to imagine
people so stupid that the morons think the Taliban has to be paid by Russia to kill the
American troops who are trying to occupy Afghanistan. The Taliban have been killing the US
occupying troops for two decades! Why suddenly are Russian bounties necessary for the Taliban
to kill US troops? It is just more concocted anti-Trump propaganda.
Similarly, how can a second autopsy that allegedly concludes that officer Chauvin murdered
Floyd be refuted when no such autopsy exists?
What does exist is a twice fired former medical examiner, first fired by New York City and
then by Suffold County, who serves as a hired gun to give inflamatory statements to the media
in support of civil lawsuits for money. His name is Michael Baden.
Baden did no second autopsy. He viewed the video of officer Chauvin and gave his opinion
that Chauvin killed Floyd by cutting off oxygen and blood to the brain. In this rhetorical
footwork, he was aided by the rightwing idiot Sean Hannity on Fox News.
Nowhere in the media is there any mention of Floyd's existing serious health conditions, his
drug addiction, or the level of fentanyl in his blood that was in excess of a fatal dose. The
medical examiner's report has been ignored by the presstitute media and by public authorities
including the prosecutor who indicted officer Chauvin.
"Can you overdose on fentanyl? Yes, a person can overdose on fentanyl. An overdose occurs
when a drug produces serious adverse effects and life-threatening symptoms. When people
overdose on fentanyl, their breathing can slow or stop. This can decrease the amount of oxygen
that reaches the brain, a condition called hypoxia. Hypoxia can lead to a coma and permanent
brain damage, and even death."
"Synthetic opioids, including fentanyl, are now the most common drugs involved in drug
overdose deaths in the United States. In 2017, 59.8 percent of opioid-related deaths involved
fentanyl compared to 14.3 percent in 2010" -- https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/fentanyl
"Among an estimated 70,200 drug overdose deaths in 2017, the largest increase was related to
fentanyl and its analogs with more than 28,400 overdose deaths. However, these numbers are
likely underreported." -- https://www.drugs.com/illicit/fentanyl.html
According to harmreductionohio.org, 700 micrograms (less than one milligram) is an overdose
from which death is likely. One milligram (1000 micrograms) carries the risk of "death near
certain." Two milligrams and death is certain and unavoidable. A dose of 250 micrograms
(one-fourth of one milligram) can kill a non-tolerant user. "Conventional medical wisdom is
that 2,000 micrograms is the 'minimum lethal dose' -- in other words, the smallest amount that
can be fatal. This estimate is far too high. Two thousand micrograms (2 milligrams) of pure
fentanyl injected into a vein would cause even most heavy heroin users to overdose --
especially if fentanyl is mixed with any other substance, such as heroin, alcohol or Xanax."
https://www.harmreductionohio.org/how-much-fentanyl-will-kill-you-2/
Don't write to me what you think. What you think is not the issue. The facts are the issue.
If you don't now the facts, you simply do not know. Ignorant and manipulated emotion is not a
basis for arriving at truth.
There is no mention in the media of Floyd's bloodwork showing the high level of fentanyl or
by Hannity in his enabling interview of a hired gun, Michael Baden, who intends to make himself
and Floyd's "family" multimillionaires with a civil lawsuit. No doubt but that Baden is
grateful to Hannity for giving him the public forum for his clients.
With no mention that Floyd had a fatal dose of a dangerous opioid that is known to stop
breathing and cause a heart attack, the hired gun, Michael Baden, can pronounce officer Chavin
guilty.
That is what the media want to hear. That is what the politicians are invested in. That is
what Hannity in his stupidity has given to the leftwing as a weapon.
Here I am trying to defend the truth. There is no second autopsy, but everyone has been
convinced that there is. What reach can one naysaying voice have when an irresponsible media
has enthroned a lie?
Why was a "second autopsy" needed? According to CNN for no reason at all. According to CNN
the official medical examiner's report supports that Floyd's death was homicide by police. If
so, why did the "Floyd family" have to hire someone to say the same thing?
But this is just another CNN lie. There is no mention of homicide in the medical examiner's
report. There is no blame attributed to the police, The title of the medical examiner's report
has been intentionally misrepresented by the presstitute media to imply that the police at
least had a small part in Floyd's death.
The report states: "No life-threatening injuries identified." The title in the medical
examiner's report is nothing but a list of the factors investigated. The Amerian presstitute
media has falsified the meaning of the use of the word "restraint" in the title of the medical
examiner's report to mean that police restraint contributed to Floyd's death.
To summarize: Michael Baden did not do an autopsy. He provided his self-serving
interpretation of the video everyone has seen. CNN turned this into a "second autopsy." Other
media picked up the CNN misrepresentation of a video interpretation as an autopsy, and the
"fact" of a second autopsy was created. The medical examiner's report does not mention homicide
or use the word, and there is no mention of police restraint as a "confluence factor"
contributing to Floyd's breathing problem and death. Police or no police, the overdose of
fentanyl was sufficient to kill him. Note that no media has mentioned the fatal concentration
of fentanyl in Floyd's blood. That Floyd was murdered by police is very important to many
people, and this emotional response overwhelms facts. The media rushed us to judgment on an
emotional response to a video without any examination of the facts.
Consider also that the "peaceful protests" were not spontaneous outbreaks in multiple
cities. There were pre-delivered stacks of bricks present in protest locations. "Peaceful
protesters" arrived with knapsacks filled with concrete chunks. Antifa was on hand to initiate
the looting, burning, and violence. The presstitutes have tried to cover up these facts, but
Black Agenda Report affirms that the "spontaneous protests" were planned in advance:
There was nothing spontaneous about the breadth and scope of the protests that rocked the
nation last month, said veteran activist Monifa Bandele , a member of the policy table of the
Movement for Black Lives. "It really came off of six years of tough, exciting and inspiring
mass organizing," said Bandele. The unprecedented level of white participation was the result
of "half a decade of telling non-white activists, 'This is what it looks like, so follow the
lead of Black organizations.'"
Americans are the world's most gullible people. They have fallen for every transparent lie
of the 21st century from 9/11 through alleged Russian bounties to the Taliban to kill US
troops. Each time the truth eventually comes out. Controlled demolition brought down World
Trade Center Building Seven. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Saddam Hussein
had no al Qaeda connections. There were no Iranian nukes. Assad did not use chemical weapons.
Russia did not invade Ukraine. Yet the knowledge that they have been lied to and deceived does
not shield Americans from falling for the next lie.
A people unable to catch on to their constant manipulation has no future.
"Don't write to me what you think. What you think is not the issue. The facts are the
issue."
Let's get real. A big man put his weight on a handcuffed man's neck and kept up the
pressure despite pleas that he was causing distress. That constitutes "the facts". There is
no excuse for this.
Americans are the world's most gullible people. They have fallen for every transparent
lie of the 21st century from 9/11 through alleged Russian bounties to the Taliban to kill
US troops.
Second, there is clearly some sort of Journo-list type agreement among the MSM to suppress
and censor any mention of "fentanyl" in connection with George Floyd's death. None of the
write-ups of his death even mentioned the issue -- even though it is sitting there in plain
site.
Finally, I tried to post a comment at the WSJ that mentioned Floyd's fentanyl level and
took exception to the casual assertion that Floyd was definitively "killed" by police. The
mods denied the comment. I asked why, and they gave me this response:
Dear Sir,
We are declining to publish comments that question the official medical examiner's
ruling re: George Floyd's death.
Marc Baden also did the autopsy on Jeffrey Epstein which he ruked as a suicide, that nobdy
belueves, and did the autopsy for the O.J. Simpson trial.
Opioids are highly addictive, meaning that addicts must take increasingly hogher doses of
opioids in order to feel any effects, whether for pain relief, or simply for a high. What
would kill someone that is not an addict, may not kill a long time addict at all. It may, or
it may not, depending on the individual and their history of using that particular drug.
Considering that Floyd had to be dragged away after his neck was kneeled on for nearly
eight minutes, which definitely would prevent one from breathing, I do not understand how it
is that anyone can argue that he was not murdered in cold blood by Chauvin and aided and
abetted by the three other police officers that watched, and did nothing to intervene. They
just watched him being murdered.
How can anyone reasonably claim that kneeling on someone's neck for eight minutes would
not kill them? Chauvin and Floyd used to work together at a Mexican restaraunt, so they had a
previous history together, that appears to be not the greatest relationship. Floyd was a
terrible person that broke into a pregnant woman's house and brutally raped and robbed her,
causing miscarriage. He was not a hero in any way. He was a monster!!!
Oh, it's not about George Floyd. People are tired of being manhandled and threatened and
scared to death by dangerous ex-soldier killers. Not to mention outrageous tickets. And
they're unemployed. It's a fucking police state. When I think of the things you could do 50
years ago that you would be murdered for today. Makes me nostalgic.
Kneeling on a neck does NOT interfere with the airway. Floyd did not die from a lack of
air, he died from the drugs he ingested and his blocked arteries. Floyd did NOT rape anyone,
he did threaten with a gun and he did steal jewelry and a cell phone. There is no record of a
victim's miscarriage. Dr. Irwin Golden conducted the autopsies on Nicole Simpson and Ronald
Goldman. You need to get your facts straight.
In addition to the fatal dose of fentanyl, plus the meth and weed that were present in Mr.
Floyd's system, there was also evidence he had contracted Corona virus. So under the rules
that have prevailed since March or April of this year, his certificate of death should have
attributed his demise to Covid-19. Strangely, the media never mention this detail although
they usually can yammer of nothing else.
In addition to the fatal dose of fentanyl, plus the meth and weed that were present in
Mr. Floyd's system, there was also evidence he had contracted Corona virus.
Several good reasons not to hold the convict down with bare hands.
@Hypnotoad666 ly. And his was not just run-of-the-mill fried-chicken-induced hypertrophy.
Rather, both his ventricles were dilated, meaning he probably had both hypertrophic and
dilated cardiomyopathy, either one serious risk factors for sudden cardiac death even for a
teetotaler. This is not to mention the 70 to 90 percent occlusions in three of St. Fentanyl's
coronary arteries, blockages severe enough to virtually guarantee perfusion issues.
St. Fentanyl's ticker was a time bomb.
Most doctors afaik wouldn't recommend that someone with St. Fentanyl's clinical picture
gorge on cocktails of the most dangerous drugs on earth then do felonies and fight with the
cops when they show up.
@BeB e the first thing they see, and any later contravening evidence they have trouble
accepting. People saw the evidence and heard narrative from news-speakers.
This is why good propaganda rushes narrative. The first neurons to be myelin sheathed take
priority in the human brain.
A people unable to catch on to their constant manipulation has no future.
Propaganda works because first info myelin sheaths, and to overcome first info is many
orders more difficult.
Maybe we can be a little more sympathetic to Hitler's concentration camps, which were a
way of deprogramming the population from communist propaganda?
@Hypnotoad666 taki said, "There is no newspaper in the U.S. more supportive of Israel
than the [Murdoch's] New York Post." ).
I believe Murdoch's family and even the Fox Media have donated to BLM.
Every mainstream media outlet for the most part is against whites and Western
Civilization. ( Fox news does put up a bit of fight with Tucker Carlson). They want emptied
headed guilt ridden dim witted whites to do their bidding and they have won. Once the media
whether it's WSJ or an individual like Drew Brees takes the knee you should just remain there
because you know what you will be doing next. There is no going back once you become a
"Politcal Suckulator."
Floyd had a potentially (usually) fatal dose of fentanyl in his bloodstream and about 8x
as much morphine. He must have recently used heroin laced with fentanyl. The arrest and his
resisting it stressed him and raised the demands on his respiratory system, which failed
under the depressant effects of the opioids. He probably would have lived without the arrest,
but that doesn't mean the cops did anything wrong. He complained he couldn't breathe before
the infamous knee was applied and the cops called for an ambulance. Everyone involved knew
that what was happening was a medical emergency. That's why one of the cops said, "Don't do
drugs, kids." Floyd had just been fighting them, so he had to be restrained as the ambulance
was en route. The technique with the knee did not choke him to death.
But no one paid attention. The NPCs just fit it into the false narrative of police racism
the dinosaur media have been hawking for years.
One of the articles I read said that a second independent autopsy was conducted by Dr.
Allecia M. Wilson, pathologist from the University of Michigan, and by Dr. Michael Baden.
Allecia Wilson, MD
Assistant Professor, Forensic Pathology, Pediatric Pathology
Director, Autopsy and Forensic Services
Director, Residency Training Program
Department of Pathology
Michigan Medicine
University of Michigan
Wikipedia on Michael Baden re his testimony in the O.J. Simpson trial:
"Baden testified in the Simpson trial on August 10 and 11, 1995 and made two claims that
he later disowned.[30][31] First he claimed that Nicole Brown was still standing and
conscious when her throat was slashed.[32] The purpose of this claim was to dispute the
theory that Brown was the intended target. The prosecution argued that Brown was murdered
first and the intended target because the soles of her feet didn't have any blood on them
despite the large amount of blood at the crime scene and that she was unconscious when her
throat was cut because she had very few defensive wounds.[33][34] At the subsequent civil
trial the following year he disowned that claim and admitted it was absurd to think that
someone would stand still without moving their feet while their throat is being slashed and
not fight back.[35][36][37]
Baden then claimed that Ron Goldman remained conscious[38] and fought with his assailant
for at least ten minutes[39] with a severed jugular vein.[31][30] The purpose of this
testimony was to extend the length of time it took the murders to happen to the point where
Simpson had an alibi.[40] At the subsequent civil trial he initially denied making that claim
and then after being confronted with a video clip of him saying it at the criminal trial, he
disowned it. Baden claimed he misunderstood the question but the Goldman's attorney allege he
said it because the defense paid him to do so. He also alleged that Baden knowingly gave
false testimony because he knew that Ron Goldman's blood was found inside Simpson's Bronco
despite Goldman never having an opportunity within his lifetime to be in Simpson's car."
He said his reputation and credibility never recovered after the Simpson trial (for good
reason!) and in subsequent trials when he was called as an expert witness, he continued to be
discredited because of this testimony. The jury actually believed this guy!
Then in the Phil Spector case he was asked if he had any conflicts of interest, he said
no, but then it was later discovered that his wife was one of Spector's lead attorneys.
Aaaaagh! You can't make this stuff up.
Defense counsel is going to have a field day with this guy!
I first saw Michael Baden in action in the late 1990'a during the trial of a stripper and
her boyfriend for the murder of casino owner Ted Binion. Binion was found dead in his house
and the question was did he die of an drug overdose or was he murdered. Baden was the
prosecutions 'expert' who insisted Binion had been murdered via a technique called 'burking'
in which a helpless victim is smothered by holding his mouth and nose shut while sitting on
his chest.
It was quite a sensational trial and it was televised. There was no doubt Binion used
drugs but he did not use needles and the defense said he died from smoking heroin and
ingesting xanax. The problem was Binion was a rich and famous casino owner and the defendants
were seedy low lifes who tried to steal $6 million in silver Binion had put in a vault out in
the desert.
The defendants were convicted but their conviction was overturned and they were acquited (
of murder) in a new trial. They were convicted of stealing the silver however.
Michael Baden would have been in his early 60's during this trial. Today he is 85. I doubt
he will be as impressive an expert witness today as he was back then. I doubt the prosecution
or the "Floyd fanily" would dare let him testify.
I have no problem imagining a competent lawyer could make the case that Floyd died from a
massive drug overdose as there is plenty of evidence for that. What I see is a replay of the
Rodney King trial in which the police were exonerated, which was immediately followed by the
'92 riots in LA, except this time the riots will be all over the country and include whites.
Then the feds will step in and charge Chauvin with civil rights crimes in order to get him
behind bars for a couple years just to calm everybody down.
A google search finds multiple studies that all put the median level of fent overdose over
thousands of cases at around 9 or 10 ng/ml. As you said Floyd's was higher. Ng/ml is
independent of the persons size as it gives the concentration in the blood. This doesn't take
into account (as mentioned) the other drugs in his system. Nor does it also factor in his
extreme heart condition with passages blocked 90-75-50% according to the autopsy.
Paul your following references though correct, however, brutally twisted just like CNN or
Washington Compost and likes..
"Black Agenda Report affirms that the "spontaneous protests" were planned in advance"
AND
"There was nothing spontaneous about the breadth and scope of the protests that rocked the
nation last month, said veteran activist Monifa Bandele, a member of the policy table of the
Movement for Black Lives. "It really came off of six years of tough, exciting and inspiring
mass organizing"
If one listens to her radio interview one gets a different view than what you tried to
present. She was referring to her organization's effort for protest after Ferguson killing in
2014. In my opinion, nothing wrong with that.
On top of that you did not bother to provide any link for to support your spin. Thanks to the
internet, I was able to find the link and listened to half of the program. Entirely different
perspective than what I got from your write up. Here is the link:
Thanks I used to be surprised that Murdoch wasn't Jewish since he looked so much like Alan
Greenspan, Larry king, Larry Silverstein – a Jewish physiognomic category. Well now
that's sorted.
Americans are gullible, apathetic people who swallow any story no matter how absurd. Iraq,
a much smaller third world country, was going to come get us with it's WMD. Despite all the
self-flattery they're mostly a bunch of cowards, cringing with their snot-rag masks attached.
Not all of course, but way too many. Americans can be sold anything.
Why does the media, the entire width and breadth of that enormous machine, lie to us? Why
would they do such a thing?
The idea that the news media exists to inform you of objective facts about which you may
be unaware, is just silly and childish.
Paul Reuter: Reuter was born as Israel Beer Josaphat in Kassel, Germany.[4]. His father,
Samuel Levi Josaphat, was a rabbi ..
Moses Yale Beach: (January 7, 1800 – July 18, 1868) was an American inventor and
publisher who started the Associated Press, and is credited with originating print
syndication ..
And there you have just the tippy tip tip of the largest iceberg in this universe.
@BeB e separated from the ongoing effort to get rid of POTUS Trump. The Democrats and
their Allied Media have exploited these incidents for partisan political gain since 2010.
It's now a feature of our politics, just like primaries and Election Day in November.
There are a number of elements that drove and continue to drive the instant context. But
the essential one is that Trump was headed toward reelection in a landslide with Game Over
support from blacks of 20% or more. They're desperate to derail that trend. Though, as with
the previous efforts, various frame-up gambits and goading him into a war, he's refused to
take the bait.
My father (born 1923) was a doctor at the NYU Medical Center and knew Dr. Baden well. My
father was mild mannered and almost always saw the good in people. The one exception I recall
was his antipathy towards Dr. Baden who he considered a presstitute fraud of the first
order.
The New York Times publishes a report (June 2, 2020) by Frances Robles and Audra D. S.
Burch titled: "How Did George Floyd Die? Here's What We Know," with the
subheading: "A private autopsy commissioned by the family concluded that his death was a homicide,
brought about by compression of his neck and back by Minneapolis police officers."
The report appears compelling with expert testimony by both Dr. Michael Baden and Dr.
Allecia M. Wilson (of the University of Michigan). The NYT states:
"The findings by the family's private medical examiners directly contradict the [official
Hennepin County medical examiner's preliminary findings] report that there was no asphyxia,
said Dr. Allecia M. Wilson, of the University of Michigan, one of the doctors who examined
his body. The physical evidence showed that the pressure applied led to his death, she said.
In an interview, Dr. Michael Baden, who also participated in the private autopsy, said there
was also some hemorrhaging around the right carotid area."
So, here you go, if you believe the "newspaper of record."
"... The US is too indulged in using geopolitical means to cope with challenges and pursuing its own interests. Following the disintegration of the former Soviet Union, Russia hoped to integrate into the Western world, but the US pulled geopolitical levers and imposed the most intense strategic pressure on Russia. As NATO expanded eastward, it not only incorporated all countries of the Warsaw Pact and the Baltic states, but also extended its hand to the Commonwealth of Independent States, such as Georgia and Ukraine, eventually prompting Russia to have no other options but to take countermeasures. ..."
"... The world has to pay for Washington's ambition to strengthen its hegemony. What the US advocates is not simply decoupling from China, but urging the Western world and more countries to side with the US amid its clashes with China, and to contain China. China is the largest trading partner of more than 100 countries, and has a market almost as big as that of the US. The US not only stabbed China, but the current global cooperative system as well. ..."
"... Unfortunately, those geopolitical maniacs in the US are ending the "good old days" since the end of the Cold War. We are likely to enter a new era with more hatred and the menace of war. Major countries would become more nervous, and the prosperity of small countries would become fragile. The US political elite behind such changes are bound to be shamed by history. ..."
Washington has almost destroyed the cooperation-centered major-power relations and is
pushing the world back to confrontation between major powers.
The global geopolitical struggle has apparently become an irreversible trend. This will have
a profound influence on the nature of international relations, fundamentally disturb
globalization, and lead to undesirable consequences.
The US is too indulged in using geopolitical means to cope with challenges and pursuing its
own interests. Following the disintegration of the former Soviet Union, Russia hoped to
integrate into the Western world, but the US pulled geopolitical levers and imposed the most
intense strategic pressure on Russia. As NATO expanded eastward, it not only incorporated all
countries of the Warsaw Pact and the Baltic states, but also extended its hand to the
Commonwealth of Independent States, such as Georgia and Ukraine, eventually prompting Russia to
have no other options but to take countermeasures.
Now, the US is using its extreme geopolitical tools on China. It is making the ideological
conflict with China more extreme, because it is the cheapest means to mobilize its allies
against China. It supports all countries that have territorial disputes with China, incites
them to adopt a hard-line approach toward China, and smears China's foreign cooperation to
overthrow the world order. It aims to worsen China's external environment, and make people in
other countries less willing to cooperate with China.
The world has to pay for Washington's ambition to strengthen its hegemony. What the US
advocates is not simply decoupling from China, but urging the Western world and more countries
to side with the US amid its clashes with China, and to contain China. China is the largest
trading partner of more than 100 countries, and has a market almost as big as that of the US.
The US not only stabbed China, but the current global cooperative system as well.
The world will suffer long-lasting costs. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is just the first
wave. In the face of the raging pandemic, the US has blocked international cooperation. It has
only two perspectives on the anti-virus fight - one from the upcoming presidential elections,
and the other from international geopolitics. Its lack of a scientific perspective has become
the biggest obstacle to international cooperation.
It is not hard to imagine that if China and the US, together with all major powers, join
hands and coordinate strategies, the COVID-19 pandemic could have been much less severe than it
is now, and the global economy could resume in a more orderly manner.
The US policy that favors major-power confrontation will surely drag down global economic
growth, which will force countries to consume their own resources. Coupled with the destructive
impact of the pandemic, global economic prosperity after the Cold War is, perhaps, coming to an
end. The world will lose huge employment. The global economy will become politicized, and the
concept of national security would play a leading role in irrelevant sectors such as the
economy.
An arms race and intimidation will return to international relations. Age-old contradictions
will be reinforced in the loss of a world order. Favorable opinions toward each other's society
will be reduced. The passion for studying and traveling abroad will cool down. The lives of
many people will change.
Unfortunately, those geopolitical maniacs in the US are ending the "good old days" since the
end of the Cold War. We are likely to enter a new era with more hatred and the menace of war.
Major countries would become more nervous, and the prosperity of small countries would become
fragile. The US political elite behind such changes are bound to be shamed by history.
You can be fired for criticizing BLM, because in essence this is apolitical movement run by regular Dem NGOs careerists.
Immunity from criticism is a sign of totalitarism.
My take on Tucker and Maddow: both serve those who write their paychecks, but one of the
two bosses is a better businessman.
Tucker does not duplicate Hannity which lets them serve different (if overlapping)
segments of the audience. Showing Paralimpil and Gabbard to the viewers did not lead to any
major perturbation in American politics, but it lets his viewer feel that they are better
informed than the fools who watch Maddow. And it helps that to a degree they are.
I get that Tucker invites good a reasonable people on his show and gives voice space where
they would not otherwise get it. That is deliberate.
I bet you that the stats show that the demented monotone oozing out of MSNBC and CNN etc
has been a serious turn off for a sector of audience that is well informed and exercise
critical faculties. That is exactly what Tucker needs to pay for his program as I would be
fairly sure these people are Consumers of a desirable degree and advertisers like Tucker's
formula and Fox Bosses like Tuckers income generator.
I don't think it is more complex than that and his bosses will entertain most heresies as
long as the program generates advertiser demand for that time slot.
So Tucker is OK and he is reasonable and he will interview a broad spectrum. Good for him.
But he smooths the pillow and caresses the establishment arse.
Wrong. Tucker has admitted that he is not in favor of populist government. He does not
advocate any kind of socialism or class unity. He wants a tentative balance between the
classes which can only be brought back via curbing neoliberalism and government regulation.
He has admitted that the problem then is both in the private and public spheres of life.
Tucker is merely pointing this out and I say kudos to him.
There is a recent push in the internet sphere being leveled against Tucker. It is the same
kind of preemptive strike that was leveled at the "alt-right" back when terms like
neoliberalism and globalism and duopoly were reemerging in the public lexicon. In short, amy
type of nationalist sentiment being floated anywhere is to be crushed and obfuscated on
sight.
Similarily, the poster vk seems to pipe in every time I mention America must bring back
its manufacturing sector. This line is always greeted by vk as, "it will never happen."
Market and economic fundamentals says that it MUST happen and it will as neoliberalism's
reign is curbed in the coming decades.
The push against Tucker is because of two reasons: 1) his growing popularity and his 2)
speaking truth to power.
...
I remember back in the day during the height of John Stewart's tenure as maestro of
liberal infotainment, he went on Tucker's show saying he was "hurting America."
Since then, Tucker has come a long way and I would say has come further in spirit towards
truth. Stewart has sunken into making appearances on The View. Kudos to Tucker. The
globalists in our country should be worried about him.
"... The interesting point of the Christianization of the USA here is not in Christianity itself, but in the socioeconomic process it represents (on the right; on the left, we already have the "wokeist" phenomenon). The USA is degenerating as a world empire and, if the USG chooses an escape route through the right end of the political spectrum, it could potentially result in a Fascist USA - an extremely virulent, fundamentalist and nihilist (and thus very dangerous) empire. ..."
"... That said, the influence of religious organizations in politics is overweight, because few other institutions that can turn out large blocs of voters. Unions used to, once. ..."
"... Nationalists claiming to represent "Judeo-Christian values" (a euphemism if ever) have been disproportionately visible in media for years. This is hardly new. Certainly as of the Bush administration. ..."
Christianity has transformed into a business, an industry even. Since the Cold War,
everything has become an opportunity to exploit for maximum gain and religion is not an
exception.
Christianism can surive in a political form. Indeed, that was when it was at its best:
using the Roman State machinery to force conversion from paganism and exterminating pagans.
That's its greatest strength in comparison to, e.g. its Jewish fathers: the Jews were (still
are) outright imperialists - the Chosen People - who wanted to destroy the Roman Empire from
the outside; the Christians were Jews who wanted to take control of Rome from within.
For Christianism to survive, you don't need every of its followers to be an expert of
Christian faith: it only needs a strong Church with direct access and control of the
State.
The rehabilitation of Christianity from the High Cold War in the USA as a weapon against
communism is a known fact. What I hypothesize here is that this process didn't stop: either
it continues today with full-fledged support from the USG (as seen in George W. Bush's reign)
and/or it got out of control (i.e. the new rapturist churches gained a life of their own, as
seen by the ones funded by billionaires with the aim of aligning American Christianity with
the geopolitical interests of Israel).
What I'm speculating here is that this process will suffer another metamorphosis, thanks
to the rise of the so-called "woke leftism" which are allegedly commanding the Floyd revolts.
This metamorphosis - I'm betting - will result in the far-rightification of the US Army and
police forces (or accelerate it). Since the far-right in the USA is blatantly Christian (as
we can read by their manifestos), this would result in the Christianization of the USG - even
if, ultimately, it serves the more immediate interests of the Zionists (in the case of the
rapturists).
The interesting point of the Christianization of the USA here is not in Christianity
itself, but in the socioeconomic process it represents (on the right; on the left, we already
have the "wokeist" phenomenon). The USA is degenerating as a world empire and, if the USG
chooses an escape route through the right end of the political spectrum, it could potentially
result in a Fascist USA - an extremely virulent, fundamentalist and nihilist (and thus very
dangerous) empire.
That said, the influence of religious organizations in politics is overweight, because few
other institutions that can turn out large blocs of voters. Unions used to, once.
Nationalists claiming to represent "Judeo-Christian values" (a euphemism if ever) have
been disproportionately visible in media for years. This is hardly new. Certainly as of the
Bush administration.
"Today, America's tumbrils are clattering about, carrying toppled statues, ruined careers,
unwoke brands. Over their sides peer those deemed racist by left-wing identitarians and
sentenced to cancelation, even as the evidentiary standard for that crime falls through the
floor But who are these cultural revolutionaries? The conventional wisdom goes that this is
the inner-cities erupting, economically disadvantaged victims of racism enraged over the
murder of George Floyd. The reality is something more bourgeoisie. As Kevin Williamson
observed last week, "These are the idiot children of the American ruling class, toy radicals
and Champagne Bolsheviks, playing Jacobin for a while, until they go back to graduate
school".
Is that so? I well recall listening in the Middle East to other angry young men who, too,
wanted to 'topple the statues'; to burn down everything. 'You really believed that Washington
would allow you in', they taunted and tortured their leaders: "No, we must burn it all down.
Start from scratch".
Did they have a blueprint for the future? No. They simply believed that Islam would
organically inflate, and expand to fill the void. It would happen by itself – of its own
accord: Faith.
Professor John Gray has noted "that in
The God that failed, Gide says: 'My faith in communism is like my faith in religion. It is a
promise of salvation for mankind'' . "Here Gide acknowledged", Gray continues, "that communism
was an atheist version of monotheism. But so is liberalism, and when Gide and others gave up
faith in communism to become liberals, they were not renouncing the concepts and values that
both ideologies had inherited from western religion. They continued to believe that history was
a directional process in which humankind was advancing towards universal freedom ".
So too with the wokes. The emphasis is on Redemption; on a Truth catharsis; on their own
Virtue as sufficient agency to stand-in for the lack of plan for the future. All are clear
signals: A secularised 'illusion' is metamorphosing back into 'religion'. Not as Islam, of
course, but as angry Man, burning at the deep and dark moral stain of the past. And acting now
as purifying 'fire' to bring about the uplifting and shining future ahead.
Tucker Carlson, a leading American conservative commentator known for plain speaking,
frames the movement a little differently:
"This is not a momentary civil disturbance. This is a serious, and highly organized
political movement It is deep and profound and has vast political ambitions. It is insidious,
it will grow. Its goal is to end liberal democracy and challenge western civilization itself
We're too literal and good-hearted to understand what's happening We have no idea what we are
up against These are not protests. This is a totalitarian political movement" .
Again, nothing needs to be done by this new generation to bring into being a new world,
apart from destroying the old one. This vision is a relic – albeit secularised – of
western Christianity. Apocalypse and redemption, these wokes believe, have their own path;
their own internal logic.
Mill's 'ghost' is arrived at the table. And with its return, America's exceptionalism has
its re-birth. Redemption for humankind's dark stains. A narrative in which the history of
mankind is reduced to the history of racial struggle. Yet Americans, young or old, now lack the
power to project it as a universal vision.
'Virtue', however deeply felt, on its own, is insufficient. Might President Trump try
nevertheless to sustain the old illusion by hard power? The U.S. is deeply fractured and
dysfunctional – but if desperate, this is possible.
The "toy radicals, and Champagne Bolsheviks" – in these terms of dripping disdain from
Williamson – are very similar to those who rushed into the streets in 1917. But before
dismissing them so peremptorily and lightly, recall what occurred.
Into that combustible mass of youth – so acultured by their progressive parents to see
a Russian past that was imperfect and darkly stained – a Trotsky and Lenin were inserted.
And Stalin ensued. No 'toy radicals'. Soft became hard totalitarianism.
play_arrow
N2M , 22 minutes ago
Vision? What vision that might be?
"'Freedom' is being torn down from within"
What freedom? Could be "Freedom" they decide how, when and where you can express your
thoughts? There is only one true freedom that exists and that is human free will to tell the
truth.
Today vision of Freedom is a joke, this game was never about freedom for in a world of
ideology, there is always lurking a deceits of lies and control.
There are 3 types of Americans.
A sharp ones and well tune to what has been going on and those I had a chance to talk
to and become friends when I was in U.S.A
The imbeciles of totally clueless generation of people who will listen to any wave of
information in propaganda as true and must be and their government is so beloved, no others
can even compete and they only have good intentions /s /c
And there is this group, shrewd, conniving, self-moral, warmongering, evil to a core
psychopaths who only follow different orders to impose their will on other nations to makes
sure they follow what? USD.
So when author speaks about vision it must separate few things!
Washington is running around imposing sanctions, destroying relationship/interest with
nations, trying all this regime changes at a cost of death of millions of people and then
dropping "Freedom bombs' almost every 8 to 9 minutes somewhere in this world, because these
freaks vision is way different, then some regular people either be in South America or other
continents that these regular people have.
Real vision is based on corporation, and U.S.A had that before, however after being
hijack, now they trying to start a war of unimaginable proportions so few fat bosses in one
Chamber can feel as super masters of the world and everyone as slaves.
I would like to remind some people about vision – Marx had a vision to, and rest is
history.
Becklon , 1 hour ago
It's a lack of shared purpose, I think. Without a common focus, such as an external threat
(as once provided by the USSR) groups tend to fracture and turn on themselves and each
other.
It's got nothing to do with any one religious or political group having more power than
others. It's to do with homo sapiens - and maybe entropy.
1 play_arrow
David Wooten , 1 hour ago
Well, if all this is true, there is far, far more at stake than the US being unable to
"Re-Impose Its Civilisational Worldview" (which I would be fine with).
He should talk about neoliberal ideology not some "universal civilization"
Notable quotes:
"... So, not only was the claim to universal civilisation not supported by evidence, but the very idea of humans sharing a common destination ('End of Times') is nothing more than an apocalyptic remnant of Latin Christianity, and of one minor current in Judaism. Mill's was always a matter of secularized religion – faith – rather than empiricism. A shared human 'destination' does not exist in Orthodox Christianity, Taoism or Buddhism. It could never therefore qualify as universal. ..."
"... But today, with America's soft power collapsed – not even the illusion of universalism can be sustained. Other states are coming forward, offering themselves as separate, equally compelling 'civilisational' states. It is clear that even were the classic liberal Establishment to win in the November U.S. elections, America no longer has claim to path-find a New World Order. ..."
"... 'Freedom' is being torn down from within. Dissidents from the woke ideology , are being 'called out', made to repent on the knee, or face reputational or economic ruin. It is 'soft totalitarianism'. It recalls one of Dostoevsky's characters – at a time when Russian progressives were discrediting traditional institutions – who, in a celebrated line, says: "I got entangled in my data Starting from unlimited freedom, I conclude with unlimited despotism". ..."
"... "This is not a momentary civil disturbance. This is a serious, and highly organized political movement It is deep and profound and has vast political ambitions. It is insidious, it will grow. Its goal is to end liberal democracy and challenge western civilization itself We're too literal and good-hearted to understand what's happening We have no idea what we are up against These are not protests. This is a totalitarian political movement" ..."
"... The "toy radicals, and Champagne Bolsheviks" – in these terms of dripping disdain from Williamson – are very similar to those who rushed into the streets in 1917. But before dismissing them so peremptorily and lightly, recall what occurred. ..."
It was always a paradox: John Stuart Mill, in his seminal (1859), On Liberty , never doubted that a universal civilisation, grounded
in liberal values, was the eventual destination of all of humankind. He looked forward to an 'Exact Science of Human Nature', which
would formulate laws of psychology and society as precise and universal as those of the physical sciences.
Yet, not only did that
science never emerge, in today's world, such social 'laws' are taken as strictly (western) cultural constructs, rather than as laws
or science.
So, not only was the claim to universal civilisation not supported by evidence, but the very idea of humans sharing a common destination
('End of Times') is nothing more than an apocalyptic remnant of Latin Christianity, and of one minor current in Judaism. Mill's was
always a matter of secularized religion – faith – rather than empiricism. A shared human 'destination' does not exist in Orthodox
Christianity, Taoism or Buddhism. It could never therefore qualify as universal.
Liberal core tenets of individual autonomy, freedom, industry, free trade and commerce essentially reflected the triumph of the
Protestant worldview in Europe's 30-years' civil war. It was not fully even a Christian view, but more a Protestant one.
This narrow, sectarian pillar was able to be projected into a universal project – only so long as it was underpinned by power
. In Mill's day, the civilisational claim served Europe's need for
colonial validation . Mill tacitly
acknowledges this when he validates the clearing of the indigenous American populations for not having tamed the wilderness, nor
made the land productive.
However, with America's Cold War triumph – that had by then become a cynical framework for U.S. 'soft power' – acquired a new
potency. The merits of America's culture, and way of life, seemed to acquire practical validation through the implosion of the USSR.
But today, with America's soft power collapsed – not even the illusion of universalism can be sustained. Other states are coming
forward, offering themselves as separate, equally compelling 'civilisational' states. It is clear that even were the classic liberal
Establishment to win in the November U.S. elections, America no longer has claim to path-find a New World Order.
Yet, should this secularised Protestant current be over – beware! Because its subterranean, unconscious religiosity is the 'ghost
at the table' today. It is returning in a new guise.
The 'old illusion' cannot continue, because its core values are being radicalised, stood on their head, and turned into the swords
with which to impale classic American and European liberals (and U.S. Christian Conservatives). It is now the younger generation
of American woke
liberals who are asserting vociferously not merely that the old liberal paradigm is illusory, but that it was never more than
'a cover' hiding oppression – whether domestic, or colonial, racist or imperial; a moral stain that only redemption can cleanse.
It is an attack – which coming from within – forecloses on any U.S. moral, soft power, global leadership aspirations. For with
the illusion exploded, and nothing in its place, a New World Order cannot coherently be formulated.
Not content with exposing the illusion, the woke generation are also tearing down, and shredding, the flags at the masthead: Freedom
and prosperity achieved via the liberal market.
'Freedom' is being torn down from within. Dissidents from the
woke ideology , are being 'called
out', made to repent on the knee, or face reputational or economic ruin. It is 'soft totalitarianism'. It recalls one of Dostoevsky's
characters – at a time when Russian progressives were discrediting traditional institutions – who, in a celebrated line, says: "I
got entangled in my data Starting from unlimited freedom, I conclude with unlimited despotism".
Even 'science' has become a 'God that failed'; instead of being the path to liberty, it has become a dark soulless
path toward unfreedom . From algorithms that 'cost' the value of human lives, versus the 'costing' of lockdown; from secret 'Black
Box' algos that limit distribution of news and thinking, to Bill Gates' vaccination ID project, science now portends
despotic social control , rather than a fluttering standard, hoist as the symbol of freedom.
But the most prominent of these flags, torn down, cannot be blamed on the woke generation . There has been no 'prosperity for
all' – only distortions and warped structures. There are not even free markets. The Fed and the U.S. Treasury simply print new money,
and hand it out to select recipients. There is no means now to attribute 'worth' to financial assets. Their value simply is that
which Central Government is willing to pay for bonds, or grant in bail-outs.
Wow. 'The God who failed' (André Gide's book title) – a crash of idols. One wonders now, what is the point to that huge financial
eco-system known as Wall Street. Why not winnow it down to a couple of entities, say, Blackrock and KKR (hedge funds), and leave
it to them to distribute the Fed's freshly-printed 'boodle' amongst friends? Liberal markets no more – and many fewer jobs.
"Today, America's tumbrils are clattering about, carrying toppled statues, ruined careers, unwoke brands. Over their sides
peer those deemed racist by left-wing identitarians and sentenced to cancelation, even as the evidentiary standard for that crime
falls through the floor But who are these cultural revolutionaries? The conventional wisdom goes that this is the inner-cities
erupting, economically disadvantaged victims of racism enraged over the murder of George Floyd. The reality is something more
bourgeoisie. As Kevin Williamson observed last week, "These are the idiot children of the American ruling class, toy radicals
and Champagne Bolsheviks, playing Jacobin for a while, until they go back to graduate school".
Is that so? I well recall listening in the Middle East to other angry young men who, too, wanted to 'topple the statues'; to burn
down everything. 'You really believed that Washington would allow you in', they taunted and tortured their leaders: "No, we must
burn it all down. Start from scratch".
Did they have a blueprint for the future? No. They simply believed that Islam would organically inflate, and expand to fill the
void. It would happen by itself – of its own accord: Faith.
Professor John Gray has noted
"that in The God that failed, Gide says: 'My faith in communism is like my faith in religion. It is a promise of salvation for mankind''
. "Here Gide acknowledged", Gray continues, "that communism was an atheist version of monotheism. But so is liberalism, and when
Gide and others gave up faith in communism to become liberals, they were not renouncing the concepts and values that both ideologies
had inherited from western religion. They continued to believe that history was a directional process in which humankind was advancing
towards universal freedom".
So too with the wokes. The emphasis is on Redemption; on a Truth catharsis; on their own Virtue as sufficient agency to stand-in
for the lack of plan for the future. All are clear signals: A secularised 'illusion' is metamorphosing back into 'religion'. Not
as Islam, of course, but as angry Man, burning at the deep and dark moral stain of the past. And acting now as purifying 'fire' to
bring about the uplifting and shining future ahead.
Tucker Carlson, a leading American conservative commentator known for plain speaking,
frames the movement a little differently:
"This is not a momentary civil disturbance. This is a serious, and highly organized political movement It is deep and profound
and has vast political ambitions. It is insidious, it will grow. Its goal is to end liberal democracy and challenge western civilization
itself We're too literal and good-hearted to understand what's happening We have no idea what we are up against These are not
protests. This is a totalitarian political movement" .
Again, nothing needs to be done by this new generation to bring into being a new world, apart from destroying the old one. This
vision is a relic – albeit secularised – of western Christianity. Apocalypse and redemption, these wokes believe, have their own
path; their own internal logic.
Mill's 'ghost' is arrived at the table. And with its return, America's exceptionalism has its re-birth. Redemption for humankind's
dark stains. A narrative in which the history of mankind is reduced to the history of racial struggle. Yet Americans, young or old,
now lack the power to project it as a universal vision.
'Virtue', however deeply felt, on its own, is insufficient. Might President Trump try nevertheless to sustain the old illusion
by hard power? The U.S. is deeply fractured and dysfunctional – but if desperate, this is possible.
The "toy radicals, and Champagne Bolsheviks" – in these terms of dripping disdain from Williamson – are very similar to those
who rushed into the streets in 1917. But before dismissing them so peremptorily and lightly, recall what occurred.
Into that combustible mass of youth – so acultured by their progressive parents to see a Russian past that was imperfect and darkly
stained – a Trotsky and Lenin were inserted. And Stalin ensued. No 'toy radicals'. Soft became hard totalitarianism.
"... I agree that globalism is/will be heading into the dumpers, but I see no chance that US-based manufacturing is going to make any significant come-back. ..."
"... What market will there be for US-manufactured goods? US "consumers" are heavily in debt and facing continued downward pressures on income. ..."
"... There will certainly be, especially given the eye-opener of COVID-19, a big push to have medical (which includes associated tech) production capacities reinvigorated in the US. ..."
"... More "disposable" income goes toward medical expenditures. Less money goes toward creating export items; wealth creation only occurs through a positive increase in balance of trade. And on the opposite end of the spectrum, death, the US will likely continue, for the mid-term, to export weaponry; but, don't expect enough growth here to mean much (margins will drop as competition increases, so figure downward pressure on net export $$). ..."
"... the planet cannot comply with our economic model's dependency on perpetual growth: there can NOT be perpetual growth on a finite planet. US manufacturing requires, as it always has, export markets; requires ever-increasing exports: this is really true for all others. Higher standards of living in the US (and add in increasing medical costs which factor into cost of goods sold) means that the price of US-manufactured goods will be less affordable to peoples outside of the US. ..."
"... I'll also note that the notion of there being a cycle, a parabolic curve, in civilizations is well noted/documented in Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival (you can find electronic bootlegged copies on the Internet)- HIGHLY recommended reading! ..."
"... All of this is pretty much reflected in Wall Street companies ramp-ups in stock-buy-backs. That's money that's NOT put in R&D or expansion. I'm pretty sure that the brains in all of this KNOW what the situation is: growth is never coming back. ..."
"... Make no mistake, what we're facing is NOT another recession or depression, it's not part of what we think as a downturn in the "business cycle," as though we'll "pull out of it," it's basically an end to the super-cycle ..."
"... We are at the peak (slightly past peak, but not far enough to realize it yet) and there is no returning. Per-capita income and energy consumption have peaked. There's not enough resources and not enough new demand (younger people, people that have wealth) to keep the perpetual growth machine going. ..."
I agree that globalism is/will be heading into the dumpers, but I see no chance that US-based manufacturing is going to
make any significant come-back.
The world's economy is in contraction. Although capital, what actual capital exists, will have to try and do something "productive,"
it is confronted by this fact, that everything is facing contraction. During times of contraction it's a game of acquisition rather
than expanding capacity: the sum total is STILL contraction; and the contraction WILL be a reduction in excess, excess manufacturing
and labor.
What market will there be for US-manufactured goods? US "consumers" are heavily in debt and facing continued downward pressures
on income. China is self-sufficient (enough) other than energy (which can be acquired outside of US markets). Most every other
country is in a position of declining wealth (per capita income levels peaked and in decline). And manufacturing continues to
increase its automation (less workers means less consumers).
There will certainly be, especially given the eye-opener of COVID-19, a big push to have medical (which includes associated
tech) production capacities reinvigorated in the US. One has to look at this in The Big Picture of what it means, and that's that
the US population is aging (and in poor health).
More "disposable" income goes toward medical expenditures. Less money goes toward
creating export items; wealth creation only occurs through a positive increase in balance of trade. And on the opposite end of
the spectrum, death, the US will likely continue, for the mid-term, to export weaponry; but, don't expect enough growth here to
mean much (margins will drop as competition increases, so figure downward pressure on net export $$).
Lastly, and it's the reason why global trade is being knocked down, is that the planet cannot comply with our economic model's
dependency on perpetual growth: there can NOT be perpetual growth on a finite planet. US manufacturing requires, as it always
has, export markets; requires ever-increasing exports: this is really true for all others. Higher standards of living in the US
(and add in increasing medical costs which factor into cost of goods sold) means that the price of US-manufactured goods will
be less affordable to peoples outside of the US.
And here too is the fact that other countries' populations are also aging. Years
ago I dove into the demographics angle/assessment to find out that ALL countries ramp and age and that you can see countries'
energy consumption rise and their their net trade balance swing negative- there's a direct correlation: go to the CIA's Factbook
and look at demographics and energy and the graphs tell the story.
I'll also note that the notion of there being a cycle, a parabolic
curve, in civilizations is well noted/documented in Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival (you can find
electronic bootlegged copies on the Internet)- HIGHLY recommended reading!
All of this is pretty much reflected in Wall Street companies ramp-ups in stock-buy-backs. That's money that's NOT put in R&D
or expansion. I'm pretty sure that the brains in all of this KNOW what the situation is: growth is never coming back.
MANY years ago I stated that we will one day face "economies of scale in reverse." We NEVER considered that growth couldn't
continue forever. There was never a though about what would happen with the reverse "of economies of scale."
Make no mistake,
what we're facing is NOT another recession or depression, it's not part of what we think as a downturn in the "business cycle,"
as though we'll "pull out of it," it's basically an end to the super-cycle.
We will never be able to replicate the state of things
as they are. We are at the peak (slightly past peak, but not far enough to realize it yet) and there is no returning. Per-capita
income and energy consumption have peaked. There's not enough resources and not enough new demand (younger people, people that
have wealth) to keep the perpetual growth machine going.
Putin has to stay within neoliberal framework because this is a the dominant social framework in existence. But he is determine
to "tame the markets" when necessary which is definitely anathema to neoliberals. So he is kind of mixture of neoliberal and traditional
New Deal style statist. At the same time he definitely deviates from neoliberalism in some major areas, such as labor market and monopolies.
In fact, much of his economic and social policies have a decidedly neoliberal bent. As Tony Wood argues, Putin has reformed
and consolidated the Yeltsin system. There is not as much of a break with Yeltsin as liberals -- or apparently leftists looking
for any hope -- want to believe.
You have no clue. This is a typical left-wing "Infantile Disorder" point of view based on zero understanding of Russia and neoliberalism
as a social system. Not that I am a big specialist, but your level of ignorance and arrogance is really stunning.
Neoliberalism as a social system means internal colonization of population by financial oligarchy and resulting decline of
the standard of living for lower 80% due to the redistribution of wealth up. It also means subservience to international financial
capital and debt slavery for vassal countries (the group to which Russia in views of Washington belongs) .
The classic example is Ukraine where 80% of population are now live on the edge of abject poverty. Russia, although with great
difficulties, follows a different path. This is indisputable.
The neoliberal resolution which happened under alcoholic Yeltsin was stopped or at least drastically slowed down by Putin.
Some issues were even reversed. For example, the USA interference via NGO ended. Direct interference of the USA into internal
affairs of Russia ( Russia was a USA colony under Yeltsin ) also diminished, although was not completely eliminated (and this
is impossible in view of the USA position in the the hegemon of the neoliberal "International" and owner of the world reserve
currency.)
Those attempts to restore the sovereignty of Russia were clearly anti-neoliberal acts of Putin. After all the slogan of neoliberalism
is "financial oligarchy of all countries unite" -- kind of perversion of Trotskyism (or. more correctly, "Trotskyism for the rich.")
In general, Yeltsin's model of neoliberalism in Russia (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semibankirschina )
experienced serious setbacks under Putin's rule, although some of his measures were distinctly neoliberal.
Recent "Medvedev's" pension reform is one (which was partially a necessity due to the state of Russian finances at the time;
although the form that was chosen -- in your face, without some type of carrot -- was really mediocre, like almost anything coming
from Medvedev ); some botched attempt in privatization of electrical networks with Chubais at the helm is another -- later stopped,
etc.
But in reality, considerable if not dominant political power now belongs to corporations, whether you want it or not. And that
creates strong neoliberal fifth column within the country. That's a huge problem for Putin. The alternative is dictatorship which
usually does not end well. So there is not much space for maneuvering anyway. You need to play the anti-neoliberal game very skillfully
as you always have weak cards in hands, the point which people like VK never understand.
BTW, unlike classic neoliberals, Putin is a consistent proponent of indexation of income of lower strata of the population
to inflation, which he even put in the constitution. Unlike Putin, classic neoliberals preach false narrative that "the rising
tide lifts all boats."
All-in-all whenever possible, Putin often behaves more like a New Deal Capitalism adherent, than like a neoliberal. He sincerely
is trying to provide a decent standard of living for lower 80% of the population. He preserves a large share of state capital
in strategically important companies. Some of them are still state-owned (anathema for any neoliberal.)
But he operates in conditions where neoliberalism is the dominant system and when Russia is under constant, unrelenting pressure,
and he needs to play by the rules.
Like any talented politician, he found some issues were he can safely deviate from neoliberal consensus without too hard sanctions.
In other matters, he needs to give up to survive.
Deaths from just *Pneumonia* from Feb1st to June20/20 =*119,174* Deaths from just Covid by
its self for same time period = 109,188 And for this time period 1,232,269 Deaths from all
causes. The numbers Fear game,obviously is being played up large by the DemoTards and we know
why! Funny how the Fake News,never speaks of this.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113051/number-reported-deaths-from-covid-pneumonia-and-flu-us/
Arch_Stanton , 47 minutes ago
Fauci should have had his microphone taken away months ago. A testament to the power of
big pharma.
razorthin , 59 minutes ago
Little Fascist Koxucker.
"Please understand the people who have built this international order reject natural law,
so they do not like sovereign citizens. They do not believe people have inherent rights or
sacred liberties. Most frankly find God anathema and believe in no higher authority than
themselves and the heartless arithmetic they serve. So, while they have happily plundered
America of blood and treasure which we were foolish enough to provide in copious quantities,
they have no love or need of our nation or antiquated concepts such as those enshrined in the
Constitution and Bill of Rights. In their calculation, America needed to be taken down in
order to realize the global project, and as you see the first glimmers of a national effort
in opposition to that, a positive limited effort struggling to overcome the bureaucrats who
betray us all at every opportunity, it becomes clear the Left would rather collapse America
than see us oppose the new world without borders where everyone intermingles under a
controlling network of agencies. No guns, no resistance, no free speech, and no problems is
what they want. Only we stand in the way of the fulfillment of this Orwellian vision, and as
each day's hysteria on the news reveals, the powers that be are working overtime to push the
Left into revolt to topple America into a conflict that will remove us from prominence on the
world scene. Should they win, our rights are gone. Should they fail, the rest of the world
will have consolidated against us, save those few brave nations trying to fight themselves
free of the same entanglements that brought us low. This is where we are today, and it is one
hell of a dilemma for a person who cares about this country and our historic values. No
matter what we choose, any path but submission and surrender only leads to greater conflict,
so this makes us consider the first important question: What are we willing to fight to
preserve? Individuals and families will have to answer this question in the coming months and
years in a much more meaningful way than has been required in generations. The easy days are
coming to an end, and while the economy is booming and we're enjoying an Indian Summer for
our embattled nation, these questions will only become more pressing in the days ahead."
-- The Coming Civil War by Tom Kawczynski
nsurf9 , 1 hour ago
The nasolacrimal duct (also called the tear duct) carries tears from the lacrimal sac of
the eye into the nasal cavity. This virus seems to be able aerosol its particles more readily
than other viruses so as to spread its RNA/DNA in the air - as well as being normally
contracted through fluid droplets.
The eyes are large wet areas, perfect for collecting dust and viruses. If you're a part of
an at-risk demographic or just worried, make sure you cover you eyes. And, upon returning
home, I rinse the eyes out with water along with washing my hands.
Right now, I'm using some tight-fitting fishing glasses with my n99 mask, when I go into
stores or hi-density areas - but, looking for something better.
IvannaHumpalot , 1 hour ago
Rinsing your eyes wont help
yes you can get it through your eyes but that is very difficult via aerosol and
unlikely
far more likely is you touch a contaminated surface after some dirty person without a
facemask has been talking and breathing out their infected droplets earlier
those droplets fall to the surface and you touch it then touch your eyes, nose or
mouth
or you breathe in an infective dose by not wearing a mask to reduce viral load
exposure
or you walk it home on your shoes
IvannaHumpalot , 1 hour ago
Herd immunity at 80%
america has 328 million
That means 262 million must get infected for fantasy herd immunity
US infected is now at 2.7 million infected
let us be generous and say 10x havent been diagnosed but have it
so the US is at 27 million infected
27 out of 262 million
there goes the stupid herd immunity sham
Wear a facemask, avoid catching or spreading it
tranium , 1 hour ago
Dr. HOAX is spreading plandemic.
ZKnight , 1 hour ago
Does anyone even believe this sleazy little man who's corona predictions were 20x off?
He single handedly destroyed the economy and people's jobs over a false alarm all to try
and get his vaccine's in.
WhiteHose , 1 hour ago
Hes been wrong on everything since Jan!
hugin-o-munin , 1 hour ago
We applaud the approval of chemical sweeteners, fluoride, GMOs, antibiotic saturated meat
products and poultry, not to mention the continued use of Glyphosate on just about all food
products. Eat and drink your industrial sugar and chemicals. Now we need a global vaccine
schedule and license linked to passports to make sure everyone on the planet is inoculated
all the time before we can allow them to buy and sell. This is all done out of pure love and
care for all people.
/s
JamcaicanMeAfraid , 1 hour ago
Fauci's ego may start to encroach on the king of all egos, Barry Soreto
Peak Finance , 1 hour ago
This:
"tremendous burden" that the US health care system might face this fall if COVID-19 and
the flu are circulating at the same time.
This man is truly a fool and should be arrested.
Death rates and statistics do not work that way
This coming flu season is going to be the MILDEST EVER because of Covid, as, the people
that WOULD HAVE DIED this season have ALREADY PASSED
Similar to the "Demand-pull" concept in economics
Random ZH posters smarter than people in the upper reaches of government
Fauci and Redfield are complete pieces of s h i t. So much misdirection and lies.
RTP , 2 hours ago
Gallo + Fauci = AIDS swindle
Fauci + Gates = COVID-19 swindle
How much longer will this poisonous dwarf ruin the future of mankind?
k3g , 2 hours ago
Question in March: Doc, you've been a Director at NIH infectious disease unit for 36
years. You're our top virologist. You're in the spotlight, your moment to shine, to show why
we've paid your salary and bene's all these years, we're counting on you. First question:
should we wear masks, would that help?
A: Dunno. Have to study it.
Q: Well, if we want to wear masks, how to we get them? When will the gubmint release masks
from the billions it has in storage?
A: Dunno. Not sure if we have any masks. Have you tried Home Depot?
The government and the FED dumping TRILLIONS of dollars to all these corporations,
meanwhile they can't even provide FREE MASKS for everyone. If they really wanted to help,
they could have given everyone masks. That's how you could have helped prevent it. And MASKS
are expensive why not subsidized it, and maybe we would have this in control and are
re-opening sooner.
@Rev. Spooner bout the Bill of Rights or the Constitution or community. Those are a joke
to people whose money is made transnational.
The lumpens who have never traveled out of their state have no concept of geographic
dimensions. They have never even left home. They think everyone is as patriotic as them and
will fight and die for their country and their community.
I assure none of the elite care a whit. Penthouses look the same from Manhattan to
Tokyo.
Ask the Boers in South Africa or Polish in Detroit who did not "sniff the wind" in
time.
The guy who has a gun loaded in his pocket as an insurance policy has a plan and it does
not end well for the person who hit him.
The elites have two or three passports, own businesses overseas, own houses.
Yes, it all narrows down to complexity now. Complex truth, complex lies, complex
plots,
complex relations between major groups of crooks themselves, and, in addition to
the MSM, an army of alternative media feeding people with filtered visions of reality,
convenient to the group(s) they represent. And even all that is far from complete or
precise model of reality.
Not saying that humanity is doomed, though. Because no matter how evil-smart,
rich, well-organized and self-confident the crooks are, the last word will not be theirs.
And something tells me that in the end it'll be simplicity that will finish them off.
On Monday, Gilead disclosed its pricing plan for Gilead as it prepares to begin charging for
the drug at the beginning of next month (several international governments have already placed
orders). Given the high demand, thanks in part due to the breathless media coverage despite the
drug's still-questionable study data, Gilead apparently feels justified in charging $3,120 for
a patient getting the shorter, more common, treatment course, and $5,720 for the longer course
for more seriously ill patients. These are the prices for patients with commercial insurance in
the US, according to Gilead's official pricing plan.
As per usual, the price charged to those on government plans will be lower, and hospitals
will also receive a slight discount. Additionally, the US is the only developed country where
Gilead will charge two prices, according to Gilead CEO Daniel O'Day. In much of Europe and
Canada, governments negotiate drug prices directly with drugmakers (in the US, laws dictate
that drug makers must "discount" their drugs for Medicare and Medicaid plans).
But according to O'Day, the drug is priced "far below the value it brings" to the
health-care system.
However, we'd argue that this actually isn't true. Remdesivir was developed by Gilead to
treat Ebola, but the drug was never approved by the FDA for this use, which caused Gilead to
shelve the drug until COVID-19 presented another opportunity. Even before the first study had
finished, the company was already pushing propaganda about the promising nature of the drug.
Meanwhile, the CDC, WHO and other organizations were raising doubts about the effectiveness of
steroid medications.
Months later, the only study on the steroid dexomethasone, a cheap steroid that costs less
than $50 for a 100-dose regimen, has shown that dexomethasone is the only drug so far that has
proven effective at lowering COVID-19 related mortality. Remdesivir, despite the fact that it
has been tested in several high quality trials, has not.
So, why is the American government in partnership with Gilead still pushing this
questionable, and staggeringly expensive, medication on the public?
"... Trump's problems among college-educated whites have drawn much attention during his presidency. What's new is declining support among non-college educated whites, where he holds only a 19-point lead. He won that demographic by 37 points in 2016. And his declining support among this key constituency is pronounced in six battleground states, with only 16 percent of non-college educated whites backing him. In October, his lead among them was 24 points. In 2016, Trump won these battleground voters by 26 points. ..."
White voters are turning away from President Trump. That assessment includes his invaluable
working-class white base
. But Trump has only himself and his campaign to blame for the bad news contained in the latest polls. While America burns, his
campaign's only plan seems to be wooing black voters by tweeting that
Joe Biden
is the "real" racist. Trump seems unable to do anything about the riots or the
devastation
wrought by
coronavirus . The latest poll numbers should knock some sense into the president. He seems to be responding a little lately,
but he's going to lose the election if he sticks to
Jared Kushner 's agenda and
doesn't fight like the candidate
we
elected in 2016.
The latest polls from The New York Times poll lay bare the ugly truth.
Trump's problems among
college-educated
whites have drawn much attention during his presidency. What's new is declining support among non-college educated whites,
where he holds only a 19-point lead. He won that demographic
by 37 points in 2016. And his declining support among this
key constituency is pronounced
in six battleground states, with only 16 percent of non-college educated whites backing him. In October, his lead among them was
24 points. In 2016, Trump won these battleground voters by 26 points.
Funny thing is, those voters aren't defecting to Biden's camp, either; their support for him has increased by just 1 since October.
The Times describes them as "
white voters with more
conservative attitudes on racial issues," which likely means they think Trump has not delivered the promised nationalist agenda.
One voter told the Times's Cohn he's disappointed with
Trump
's not cracking down
on the rioters and shutting down the economy because of the
Chinese
Virus pandemic. He'll still vote for Trump, but without much enthusiasm.
Older whites are also jumping ship. In six battleground states, Trump and Biden are about even among whites 65 or older. Trump
won them by nearly 20 points in 2016. The Times
attributes that decline to the president's coronavirus response and his "tone" [
Trump Faces
Mounting Defections From a Once-Loyal Group: Older White Voters , by Alexander Burns and Katie Glueck, June 28, 2020].
That picture of Trump's America hardly inspires confidence.
The only positive for Trump is that Biden has roughly the same non-white support that
Hillary Clinton had in 2016
. But that's not exactly great news, either, given the campaign's focus on painting Biden as the "real" racist. The message is
having zero effect on non-whites. The Times : Biden leads by 74 points among blacks and by 39 points among Hispanics [
Biden
Takes Dominant Lead as Voters Reject Trump on Virus and Race , by Alexander Burns, Jonathan Martin and Matt Stevens, June
24, 2020].
A tweet from Trump campaign manager
Brad
Parscale last week illustrates the idiocy. Parscale attacked Biden for working with
Strom Thurmond to impose harsh sentences
on crack dealers. He claimed this legislation targeted blacks and Trump is fixing the "problem"
Unhappily, Parscale is not alone. Official Republican and Trump campaign accounts regularly tweet cringeworthy statements about
Confederate monuments and criminal justice reform.
Democrats seem to have forgotten that Pres. Trump has led the way on innovative criminal justice reform.
He signed the FIRST STEP Act & established the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement & the Admin. of Justice -- which
aims to improve relations between the public & police.
Who, exactly, are these messages for? If they're intended to win the black vote, they're failing. If they're meant to soothe white
suburbanite concerns about Trump's alleged "racism," they're failing. If they're meant to excite Trump's working class white base,
again, they're failing.
Parscale
set
out the agenda for the Trump campaign in a January interview with Lou Dobbs: the economy and healthcare. When Dobbs asked about
immigration, the campaign manager replied that they didn't need to worry about it because "we already have [immigration patriots
as] voters." Other issues, he claimed, will bring in new voters.
The Son-in-Law
in Chief might wish to consult the polling data to verify that claim.
Parscale is taking a lot of heat lately for the poor messaging and the
Tulsa rally's underwhelming attendance . Reports suggest Parscale is on his way out as part of a major campaign shake-up. Maybe,
but he's not the ultimate problem.
Jared Kushner and the Republican establishment are setting Trump's agenda and message, Parscale merely carries it out. And frighteningly,
as Politico reported, Kushner "who effectively oversees the campaign from the White House, is expected to play an even more
active role" [ Trump admits
it: He's losing , by Alex Isenstadt, June 27, 2020].
Trump recently tweeted an ad that suggests he might ditch the awful messaging. It pins the current chaos on Democrats and the
Left and states they want to burn America to the ground.
It's a powerful, take-no-prisoners video with the same message that helped Trump win in 2016 and might just re-energize his base
in time for Election Day.
Yet tough talk alone won't win back Trump's base. He must act . Signs are improving there, too..
Over the weekend, he tweeted several wanted
pictures of statue vandals. Four leftists were hit with federal charges for attacking the Andrew Jackson statue in DC [
Justice Department Charges 4 Over Attempt to Topple Andrew Jackson Statue In D.C. , by Jason Slotkin, NPR , June
28, 2020]. Putting left-wing criminals behind bars sends the right message and might stifle the unrest. And again, he's helping unemployed
Americans with
the immigration ban for the rest of the year. Nearly two-thirds of Americans support it, according to the latest polling.
Trump must show Americans that the Chinese Virus threat is decreasing, the economy is recovering, and law and order is being restored.
Tweets about money for black colleges, Biden's tough-on-crime bills, and or his long-ago cooperation with "segregationists" won't
do.
Trump must make this election about order versus chaos and put Democrats on the side of the rioters and the radicals in Antifa
and Black Lives Matter.
You guys at VDare are always very hopeful, and I like that. I've read of some of the moves that the President has made, such
as the ones you state here (on immigration and some justice for Cult-Revolutionalists). However, these things never seem to be
part of any coherent, consistent strategy of any sort.
Perhaps President Trump is not a strategist and can't think in that manner. He definitely has no specific principles or moral
compass, or any kind of damn compass. This is why he listens to his son-in-law Kushner, who is out to destroy the country like
the rest of them.
I agree with the one guy you mentioned (who replied to Mr. Cohn). There's no choice on who to vote for anyway, not matter how
much Trump screws up. But then, all this happening is not going to be settled at the voting booth anyway
Yeah, Trump comes off like a used car salesman with high pressure tactics. But who can vote for dugout Joe who hides in his
basement avoiding complex questions? Apples Oranges ?
Trump is done. Kushner is nothing more than an Israeli plant. They know that Biden is just like Pelosi and she and Joe would
kill every white person in America if Israel wanted. The entire Congress is owned by Israel. Trump is done. Obama's "Third Term"
more accurately described as Coup d'etat setup with the Deep State and Obama's Jewish friends left from his administration destroyed
Trump on the first day of his tenure.
Trump can't stop putting his foot in his mouth. He abandoned White America and no matter what he did for the Blacks including
money for their universities made no difference. No matter how many jobs he created it didn't count because these mongrels don't
want jobs they want free stuff. Obama did nothing for blacks except destroying many middle class blacks but it doesn't matter.
Blacks are tribalistic gang bangers and as Obama their Lord taught them only see color.
Trump is done and so is America. The Jews always win no matter who is president. You better start arming yourself because you
are not going to believe what is going to happen when Biden wins. In Washington D.C. today Blacks were rioting against Target
because they call the police when blacks steal stuff. You can't make this up and the Jewish controlled media just laughs at us.
Ok, but what if Trump were to say Dems are the real racists ? Wouldn't that win the Black vote? Forgive me, gallows
humor.
It's truly pathetic the people Trump surrounds himself with. His instincts always seemed good, but apparently he can't implement
a damn thing. At least all this is showing conservatives how rotten the leadership of all their hallowed institutions are (FBI,
military, police, etc).
A person that believe is Russiagate is iether an idiot or a shill
Notable quotes:
"... The bipartisan elite will allow the destruction of the statues as an attempt to ameliorate the frustration of the protestors by giving them a target for their anger. The elite understand while the statues are the release of frustration and the target of the anger, they remain safe. But what happens next week when all the symbols of empire have been eradicated? ..."
Should've included the fact that Tucker himself said that the Republican party won't save us cause they're busy sucking up to
corporate interests instead of stealing it.
The bipartisan elite will allow the destruction of the statues as an attempt to ameliorate the frustration of the
protestors by giving them a target for their anger. The elite understand while the statues are the release of frustration and
the target of the anger, they remain safe. But what happens next week when all the symbols of empire have been eradicated?
Today, in the context of the Black Lives Matter protests, TomDispatch regular Andrew Bacevich considers the all-American version of "extreme
materialism" that Martin Luther King called out more than half a century ago. And when it
comes to the overwhelming urge to get one's hands on the goods, among the looters of this
moment two groups are almost never mentioned: the Pentagon and the police.
Yet, in 1997, the Department of Defense set up the 1033 program as part of the National
Defense Authorization Act to provide thousands of domestic police forces with "surplus"
equipment of almost every imaginable militarized kind. Since then, thanks to your tax
dollars, it has given away $7.4
billion of such equipment, some of it directly off the battlefields of this country's
forlorn "forever wars."
For items like grenade launchers, mine-resistant armored vehicles, military rifles,
bayonets, body armor, night-vision goggles, and helicopters
, all that police departments have to fork over is the price of delivery. The Pentagon has,
in fact, been so eager to become the Macy's of
militarized hardware that, in 2017, it was even willing to "give $1.2 million worth of
rifles, pipe bombs, and night vision goggles to a fake police department," no questions
asked. That "department" proved to be part of a sting
operation run by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). "It was like getting stuff
off of eBay," a GAO official would
say . Only, of course, for free.
The militarization (or, thought of another way, the commercialization) of the police has
been remarkably on pace these last 23 years, while the Pentagon's
ever-soaring budgets for its ever-sinking wars could be thought of as the great American
commercial success story of this century. With more and more taxpayer dollars in its
wallet, it's been on a remarkable looting spree. Ask yourself: has there been a weapons
system it couldn't have, a military base it couldn't establish, a war expense Congress
wouldn't fund even while cutting back on crucial aspects of the domestic budget like
infrastructure
programs or
disease-prevention spending ? No wonder the Pentagon could supply all those police
departments with a cornucopia of goods with which to turn themselves into over-armed
occupying forces in this country.
It's never thought of that way, but the Pentagon and the police have essentially been
looting the coffers of the American taxpayer for a long time now and, in the Trump era, the
process has only intensified .
Nonetheless, as Bacevich points out, even with protests over racism filling the streets of
America, protests over defunding the Pentagon have yet to surface in any significant way.
Perhaps it's finally time. ~ Tom
Martin Luther King's Giant Triplets
By Andrew Bacevich
In the wake of the police killing of George Floyd, Americans are finally – or is it
once again? – confronting the racism that afflicts this country and extends into just
about every corner of our national life. Something fundamental just might be happening.
Yet to state the obvious, we've been
here before. Mass protests in response to racial inequality and discrimination, including
police brutality, have been anything but unknown in the United States. Much the same can be
said of riots targeting black Americans, fomented and exploited by white racists, often
actively or passively abetted by local law enforcement officials. If Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin,
formerly known as H. Rap Brown, was correct in calling violence "as American as
cherry pie," then race-related urban unrest is the apple-filled equivalent.
The optimists among us believe
that "this time is different." I hope events will prove them right. Yet recalling
expectations that Barack Obama's election in 2008 signaled the dawn of a " post-racial America
," I see no reason to expect it to be so. A yawning gap, I fear, separates hope from
reality.
Let me suggest, however, that the nation's current preoccupation with race, as honorable
and necessary as it may be, falls well short of adequately responding to the situation
confronting Americans as they enter the third decade of the twenty-first century. Racism is a
massive problem, but hardly our only one. Indeed, as Martin Luther King sought to remind us
many years ago, there are at least two others of comparable magnitude.
MLK Defines the Problem
In April 1967, at New York City's Riverside Church, Dr. King delivered a sermon that
offered a profound diagnosis of the illnesses afflicting the nation. His analysis remains as
timely today as it was then, perhaps more so.
Americans remember King primarily as a great civil rights leader and indeed he was that.
In his Riverside Church address, however, he turned to matters that went far beyond race. In
an immediate sense, his focus was the ongoing Vietnam War, which he denounced as "madness"
that "must cease." Yet King also used the occasion to summon the nation to "undergo a radical
revolution of values" that would transform the United States "from a thing-oriented society
to a person-oriented society." Only through such a revolution, he declared, would we be able
to overcome "the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism."
The challenge confronting Americans was to dismantle what King referred to as the
"edifice" that produced and sustained each of those giant triplets. Today's protesters,
crusading journalists, and engaged intellectuals make no bones about their determination to
eliminate the first of those giant triplets. Yet they generally treat the other two as, at
best, mere afterthoughts, while the edifice itself, resting on a perverse understanding of
freedom, goes almost entirely ignored.
I'm not suggesting that members of the grand coalition of Americans today fervently
campaigning against racism favor extreme materialism. Many of them merely accept its reality
and move on. Nor am I suggesting that they consciously endorse militarism, although in
confusing "support" for the troops with genuine patriotism some of them do so implicitly.
What I am suggesting is that those calling for fundamental change will go badly astray if
they ignore Dr. King's insistence that each of the giant triplets is intimately tied to the
other two.
Defund the Pentagon?
The protests triggered by the recent murders of George Floyd and other black Americans
have produced widespread demands to "defund the police." Those demands don't come out of
nowhere. While "reform" programs undertaken in innumerable American cities over the course of
many years have demonstrably
enhanced police firepower , they have done little, if anything, to repair relations
between police departments and communities of color.
As an aging middle-class white male, I don't fear cops. I respect the fact that theirs is
a tough job, which I would not want. Yet I realize that my attitude is one more expression of
white privilege, which black men, regardless of their age and economic status, can ill afford
to indulge. So I fully accept the need for radical changes in policing – that's what
"defund" appears to imply – if American cities are ever to have law enforcement
agencies that are effective, humane, and themselves law-abiding.
What I can't fathom is why a similar logic doesn't apply to the armed forces that we
employ to police huge chunks of the world beyond our borders. If Americans have reason to
question the nation's increasingly
militarized approach to law enforcement, then shouldn't they have equal reason to
question this country's thoroughly militarized approach to statecraft?
Consider this: on an annual basis, police officers in the United States kill approximately
1,000 Americans , with blacks
two-and-a-half times more likely than whites to be victimized. Those are appalling
figures, indicative of basic policy gone fundamentally awry. So the outpouring of protest
over the police and demands for change are understandable and justified.
Still, the question must be asked: Why have the nation's post-9/11 wars not prompted
similar expressions of outrage? The unjustified killing of black Americans rightly finds
thousands upon thousands of protesters flooding the streets of major cities. Yet the
loss of thousands of
American soldiers and the physical and psychological wounds sustained by tens of thousands
more in foolhardy wars elicits, at best, shrugs. Throw in the hundreds of
thousands of non-American lives taken in those military campaigns and the
trillions of taxpayer dollars they have consumed and you have a catastrophe that easily
exceeds in scale the myriad race-related protests and riots that have roiled American cities
in the recent past.
With their eyes fixed on elections that are now just months away, politicians of all
stripes spare no effort to show that they "get it" on the issue of race and policing. Race
may well play a large role in determining who wins the White House this November and which
party controls Congress. It should. Yet while the election's final outcome may be uncertain,
this much is not: neither the American
propensity for war, nor the
bloated size of the Pentagon budget, nor the dubious habit of maintaining a sprawling
network of military bases across much of the planet will receive serious scrutiny during
the political season now underway. Militarism will escape unscathed.
At Riverside Church, King described the U.S. government as "the greatest purveyor of
violence in the world today." So it unquestionably remains, perpetrating immeasurably more
violence than any other great power and with remarkably little to show in return. Why, then,
except on the easily ignored fringes of American politics, are there no demands to "defund"
the Pentagon?
King considered the Vietnam War an abomination. At that time, more than a few Americans
agreed with him and vigorously demonstrated against the conflict's continuation. That today's
demonstrators have seemingly chosen to file away our post-9/11 military misadventures under
the heading of regrettable but forgettable is itself an abomination. While their sensitivity
to racism is admirable, their indifference to war is nothing short of disheartening.
In 1967, Dr. King warned that "a nation that continues year after year to spend more money
on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." During
the intervening decades, his charge has lost none of its sting or aptness.
America's National Signature
Given their size and duration, the protests occurring in the wake of the murder of George
Floyd have been remarkably peaceful. That said, some of them did, early on, include rioters
who resorted to looting. Smashing windows and ransacking stores, they walked off not with
milk and bread for the hungry, but with shopping bags filled with
high-end swag – designer shoes and sneakers, purses, clothing, and jewelry lifted
from
stores like Prada and Alexander McQueen. Also stolen were smart phones,
handguns , even automobiles . In-store
surveillance systems recorded
scenes reminiscent of Black Friday doorbuster sales, though without anyone bothering to
pass through a checkout counter. Some looters quickly attempted to monetize their hauls by
offering to sell purloined items online.
Certain right-wing commentators wasted no time in using the looting to tar the protest
movement as little more than an expression of nihilism. Tucker Carlson of Fox News was
particularly
emphatic on this point. Americans taking to the streets in response to George Floyd's
murder, he said, "reject society itself."
"Reason and process and precedent mean nothing to them. They use violence to get what they
want immediately. People like this don't bother to work. They don't volunteer or pay taxes to
help other people. They live for themselves. They do exactly what they feel like doing On
television, hour by hour, we watch these people – criminal mobs – destroy what
the rest of us have built "
To explain such selfish and destructive misconduct, Carlson had an answer readily at
hand:
"The ideologues will tell you that the problem is race relations, or capitalism, or police
brutality, or global warming. But only on the surface. The real cause is deeper than that and
it's far darker. What you're watching is the ancient battle between those who have a stake in
society, and would like to preserve it, and those who don't, and seek to destroy it.
This is vile, hateful stuff, and entirely wrong – except perhaps on one point. In
attributing the looting to a deeper cause, Carlson was onto something, even if his effort to
pinpoint that cause was wildly off the mark.
I won't try to unravel the specific motives of those who saw an opportunity in the
protests against racism to help themselves to goods that were not theirs. How much was
righteous anger turned to rage and how much cynical opportunism is beyond my ability to
know.
This much, however, can be said for certain: the grab-all-you-can-get impulse so vividly
on display was as all-American as fireworks on the Fourth of July. Those looters, after all,
merely wanted more stuff. What could be more American than that? In this country, after all,
stuff carries with it the possibility of personal fulfillment, of achieving some version of
happiness or status.
The looters that Tucker Carlson targeted with his ire were doing anything but "rejecting
society itself." They were merely helping themselves to what this society today has on offer
for those with sufficient cash and credit cards in their wallets. In a sense, they were
treating themselves to a tiny sip of what passes these days for the American Dream.
With the exception of cloistered nuns, hippies, and other vanishing breeds, virtually all
Americans have been conditioned to buy into the proposition that stuff correlates with the
good life. Unconvinced? Check out the videos from last year's Black Friday and then consider
the intense, if unsurprising, interest of economists and journalists in tracking the
latest
consumer spending trends . At least until Covid-19 came along, consumer spending served
as the authoritative measure of the nation's overall health.
The primary civic obligation of US citizens today is not to vote or pay taxes. And it's
certainly not to defend the country, a task offloaded onto those who can be enticed to enlist
(with minorities vastly
overrepresented ) in the so-called All-Volunteer Military. No, the primary obligation of
citizenship is to spend.
Ours is not a nation of mystics, philosophers, poets, artisans, or Thomas Jefferson's
yeomen farmers. We are now a nation of citizen-consumers, held in thrall to the extreme
materialism that Dr. King decried. This, not a commitment to liberty or democracy, has become
our true national signature and our chief contribution to late modernity.
Tearing Down the Edifice
At Riverside Church, King reminded his listeners that the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, which he had helped to found a decade earlier, had chosen this as its motto: "To
save the soul of America." The soul of a nation corrupted by racism, militarism, and extreme
materialism represented King's ultimate concern. Vietnam, he said, was "but a symptom of a
far deeper malady within the American spirit."
In a tone-deaf
editorial criticizing his Riverside Church sermon, the New York Times chastised
King for "fusing two public problems" – racism and the Vietnam War – "that are
distinct and separate." Yet part of King's genius lay in his ability to recognize the
interconnectedness of matters that Times editors, as oblivious to deeper maladies then
as they are today, wish to keep separate. King sought to tear down the edifice that sustained
all three of those giant triplets. Indeed, it is all but certain that, were he alive now, he
would call similar attention to a fourth related factor: climate change denial. The refusal
to treat seriously the threat posed by climate change underwrites the persistence of racism,
militarism, and extreme materialism.
During the course of his sermon, King quoted this sentence from the statement of a group
that called itself the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam: "A time comes when silence
is betrayal." Regarding race, it appears that the
great majority of Americans have now rejected such silence. This is good. It remains an
open question, however, when their silent acceptance of militarism, materialism, and the
abuse of Planet Earth will end.
"... You can fool someone for a long time, you can fool a lot of people for a short time - but you can't fool a lot of people for a long time. That is, unless those people are willing to live the lie. ..."
"... I think the reason the MSM's propaganda is so effective nowadays (and I'm thinking specifically about the world since the Iraq invasion in 2003) is that, deep down, maybe in the collective inconsciousness level, the working classes from the First World countries know their superior living standards depend on imperial brutality over the rest of the world. ..."
"... The current increased smear campaigns against the so called Russian Bots, Assad Apologists etc., is surely just the first part of of a an attempt to implement very serious censorship and control over the internet to attempt to completely block out any alternative voices. ..."
"... Obivously western intelligence servies, NATO leak stuff to western msm to intimidate and censor political oppostion in every western country. ..."
"... Orwell's great fear was totalitarianism. Either from the left or the right. What we have now is much more subtle. The MSM retains the illusion of freedom and most people go along with it. We may even realize we are being manipulated but the only alternative is posting on sites like MOA. ..."
"... The Skirpal charade was a front for several things but mainly, I think, to turn the focus away from Brexit and to opening the Cold War front again. ..."
"... George Orwell has been a presence throughout this thread. It was unfortunate he was hurried by MI6 to finish the last pages of 'Animal Farm' so it could be translated into Arabic and be used to discredit Communist parties in Western Asia. This always raised the ire of Communist organisations through following decades .This being said he wrote some great text especially for me the revealing 1939 novel - Coming up for A ..."
"... I don't know if wars are really an extension of diplomacy by other means, but they certainly seem to be... an extension of ideology and propaganda. Ideas are very important in preparing and fighting wars; especially today, though, in reality the way we think about our western imperial war-fighting, goes back well over a century, back to the Whiteman's Burden and other imperialist myths. ..."
"... For the last thirty years we've essentially been fighting 'liberal crusades for freedom and democracy.' That, at least, was the 'cover story' the pretext presented to the people. There's an irony here. Just like Islamic State, we've been engaging in 'holy warfare' too! ..."
Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in
Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the
facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles
reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been
killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who
had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers
in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over
events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what
happened but of what ought to have happened according to various 'party lines'.
George Orwell, Looking back on the Spanish War
, Chapter 4
Last week saw an extreme intensifying of the warmongers' campaign against individuals who
publicly hold and defend a different view than the powers-that-be want to promote. The campaign
has a longer history but recently turned personal. It now endangers the life and livelihood of
real people.
In fall 2016 a
smear campaign was launched against 200 websites which did not confirm to NATO propaganda.
Prominent sites like Naked
Capitalism were among them as well as this site:
While the ProPornOT campaign was against websites the next and larger attack was a
general defaming of specific content.
The neoconservative Alliance For
Securing Democracy declared that any doubt of the veracity of U.S. propaganda stories
discussed on Twitter was part of a "Russian influence campaign". Their ' dashboard ' shows the most prominent hashtags and
themes tweeted and retweeted by some 600 hand-selected but undisclosed accounts. (I have reason
to believe that @MoonofA is among them.) The dashboard gave rise to an endless line of
main-stream stories faking concern over alleged "Russian influence". The New York
Times published several such stories including this
recent one :
Russia did not respond militarily to the Friday strike, but American officials noted a sharp
spike in Russian online activity around the time it was launched.
A snapshot on Friday night recorded a 2,000 percent increase in Russian troll activity
overall, according to Tyler Q. Houlton, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.
One known Russian bot, #SyriaStrikes, had a 4,443 percent increase in activity while another,
#Damsucs, saw a 2,800 percent jump, Mr. Houlton said.
A person on Twitter, or a bot, is tagged by a chosen name led with an @-sign. Anything led
with a #-sign is a 'hashtag', a categorizing attribute of a place, text or tweet. Hashtags have
nothing to do with any "troll activity". The use of the attribute or hashtag #syriastrike
increased dramatically when a U.S. strike on Syria happened. Duh. A lot of people remarked on the
strikes and used the hashtag #syriastrike to categorize their remarks. It made it easier for
others to find information about the incident.
The hashtag #Damsucs does not exit. How could it have a 2,800% increase? It is obviously a
mistyping of #Damascus or someone may have used as a joke. In June 2013 an Associated
Press story famously
carried the dateline "Damsucs". The city was then under artillery attack from various Takfiri
groups. The author likely felt that the situation sucked.
The spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security Tyler Q. Holton, to which the
Times attributes the "bot" nonsense, has a Twitter account under his name and also tweets as
@SpoxDHS. Peter Baker, the NYT author, has some 150,000 followers on Twitter and tweets several
times per day. Holton and Tyler surely know what @accounts and #hashtags are.
One suspects that Holton used the bizzare
statistic of the infamous ' Dashboard '
created by the neoconservative, anti-Russian lobby . The dashboard creators asserted that the
use of certain hashtags is a sign of 'Russian bots'. On December 25 the dashboard showed that
Russian trolls and bots made extensive use of the hashtag #MerryChristmas to undermine America's
moral.
One of the creators of the dashboard, Clint Watts, has since confessed that it is mere
bullshit :
"I'm not convinced on this bot thing," said Watts, the cofounder of a project that is widely
cited as the main, if not only, source of information on Russian bots. He also called the
narrative "overdone."
As government spokesperson Holton is supposed to spout propaganda that supports the
government's policies. But propaganda is ineffective when it does not adhere to basic realities.
Holton is bad at his job. Baker, the NYT author, did even worse. He repeated the
government's propaganda bullshit without pointing out and explaining that it obviously did not
make any sense. He used it to further his own opinionated, false narrative. It took a day for the
Times to issue a paritial correction of the fact free tale.
With the situation in Syria developing in favor of the Syrian people, with dubious government
claims around the Skripal affair in Salisbury and the recent faked 'chemical attack' in Douma the
campaign against dissenting reports and opinions became more and more personal.
Last December the Guardian commissioned a hatchet
job against Vanessa Beeley
and Eva Bartlett . Beeley and
Bartlett extensively reported
(vid) from the ground in Syria on the British propaganda racket "White Helmets". The
Guardian piece defended the 'heros' of the White Helmets and insinuated that both
journalists were Russian paid stooges.
In March the self proclaimed whistle-blower and blowhard Sibel Edmonds of Newsbud
launched a lunatic broadside smear attack
(vid) against Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett. The Corbett Report debunked (vid) the nonsense. (The debunking
received 59,000 views. Edmonds public wanking was seen by less than 23,000 people.)
Some time ago the CIA propaganda outlets Voice of America and Radio Free Europe
started a 'fact-checking' website and named it Polygraph.info . (Some satirist or a clueless intern
must have come up with that name. No country but the U.S. believes that the unscientific results
of polygraph tests have any relation to truthfulness. To any educated non-U.S. citizen the first
association with the term 'polygraph' is the term 'fake'.)
Ben Nimmo, the Senior Fellow for Information Defense at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic
Research Lab, studies the exploits of "Ian56" and similar accounts on Twitter. His recent
article in the online publication Medium profiles such fake pro-Kremlin accounts and
demonstrates how they operate.
...
Nimmo, and several other dimwits quoted in the piece, came to the conclusion that Ian56 is a
Kremlin paid troll, not a real person. Next to Ian56 Nimmo 'identified' other 'Russian troll'
accounts:
One particularly influential retweeter (judging by the number of accounts which then
retweeted it) was @ValLisitsa, which posts in English and Russian. Last year, this account
joined the troll-factory #StopMorganLie campaign.
Had Nimmo, a former NATO spokesperson, had some decent education he would have know that
@ValLisitsa, aka Valentina Lisitsa , is a famous
American-Ukrainian pianist. Yes, she sometimes tweets in Russian language to her many fans in
Russia and the Ukraine. Is that now a crime? The videos of her world wide performances
on Youtube have more than 170 million views. It is absurd to claim that she is a 'Russian troll'
and to insinuate that she is taking Kremlin money to push 'Russian troll' opinions.
Earlier this month Newsweek also
targeted the journalists Beeley and Bartlett and smeared a group of people who had traveled
to Syria as 'Assad's pawns'.
On April 14 Murdoch's London Times took personal aim at the members of a group of
British academics who assembled to scientificly investigate dubious claims against Syria. Their
first investigation report though, was
about the Skripal incident in Salisbury. The London Times also targeted Bartlett and
Beeley. The piece was leading on page one with the
headline: "Apologists for Assad working in universities". A page two splash and an editorial
complemented the full fledged attack on the livelihood of the scientists.
Tim Hayward, who initiated the academic group, published
a (too) mild response.
On April 18 the NPR station Wabenews
smeared the black activists Anoa Changa and Eugene Puryear for appearing on a Russian TV
station. It was the begin of an ongoing, well concerted campaign launched with at least seven
prominent smear pieces issued on a single day against the opposition to a wider war on Syria.
On April 19 the BBCtook aim at Sarah Abdallah , a Twitter account with over 130,000
followers that takes a generally pro Syrian government stand. The piece also attacked Vanessa
Beeley and defended the 'White Helmets':
In addition to pictures of herself, Sarah Abdallah tweets constant pro-Russia and pro-Assad
messages, with a dollop of retweeting mostly aimed at attacking Barack Obama, other US
Democrats and Saudi Arabia.
...
The Sarah Abdallah account is, according to a recent study by the online research firm
Graphika, one of the most influential social media accounts in the online conversation about
Syria, and specifically in pushing misinformation about a 2017 chemical weapons attack and the
Syria Civil Defence, whose rescue workers are widely known as the "White Helmets".
...
Graphika was commissioned to prepare a report on online chatter by The Syria Campaign , a
UK-based advocacy group organisation which campaigns for a democratic future for Syria and
supports the White Helmets.
The Syria Campaign Ltd. is a
for profit 'regime change' lobby which, like the White Helmets it promotes, is sponsored with
millions of British and U.S. taxpayer money.
Brian Whitaker, a former Middle East editor for the Guardian ,
alleged that Sarah Abdullah has a 'Hizbullah connection'. He assumes that from two terms she
used which point to a southern Lebanese heritage. But south Lebanon is by far not solely
Hizbullah and Sarah Abdallah certainly does not dress herself like a pious Shia. She is
more likely a Maronite or secular whatever. Exposing here as 'Hizbullah' can easily endanger her
life. Replying to Whitaker the British politician George Galloway asked:
George Galloway @georgegalloway - 14:50 UTC - Replying to
@Brian_Whit
Will you be content when she's dead Brian?
...
Will you be content Brian when ISIS cut off her head and eat her heart? You are beneath
contempt. Even for a former Guardian man
Whitaker's smear piece was not even researched by himself. He plagiarized it, without naming
his source,
from Joumana Gebara, a CentCom approved Social Media
Advisor to parts of the Syrian 'opposition'. Whitaker is prone to fall for scams like the 'White
Helmets'. Back in mid 2011 he promoted the "Gay Girl in
Damascus", a scam by a 40 year old U.S. man with dubious financial
sources who pretended to be a progressive Syrian woman.
Also on April 19 the Guardian
stenographed a British government smear against two other prominent Twitter accounts:
Russia used trolls and bots to unleash disinformation on to social media in the wake of the
Salisbury poisoning, according to fresh Whitehall analysis. Government sources said experts had
uncovered an increase of up to 4,000% in the spread of propaganda from Russia-based accounts
since the attack, – many of which were identifiable as automated bots.
Notice that this idiotic % increase claim, without giving a base number, is similar to the one
made in the New York Times piece quoted above. It is likely also based on the lunatic
'dashboard'.
[C]ivil servants identified a sharp increase in the flow of fake news after the Salisbury
poisoning, which continued in the runup to the airstrikes on Syria.
One bot, @Ian56789, was sending 100 posts a day during a 12-day period from 7 April, and
reached 23 million users, before the account was suspended. It focused on claims that the
chemical weapons attack on Douma had been falsified, using the hashtag #falseflag. Another,
@Partisangirl, reached 61 million users with 2,300 posts over the same 12-day period.
The prime minister discussed the matter at a security briefing with fellow Commonwealth
leaders Malcolm Turnbull, Jacinda Ardern and Justin Trudeau earlier this week. They were
briefed by experts from GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre about the security
situation in the aftermath of the Syrian airstrikes.
The political editor of the Guardian , Heather Steward, admitted that her 'reporting'
was a mere copy of government claims:
A day earlier Ian56/@Ian56789 account with 35,000 followers had suddenly been blocked by
Twitter. Ben Nimmo was extremely happy about this success.
But after many users protested to the Twitter censors the account was revived.
Neither Ian, nor Partisangirl, are 'bots' or have anything to do with Russia. Partisangirl,
aka Syria Girl, is the twitter moniker of Maram Susli, a Syrian-Australian scientist specialized
in quantum chemistry. She was already interviewed on Australian TV (vid) four years
ago and has been back since. She has published videos of herself talking about Syria on Youtube and on Twitter and held
presentations on Syria at several international conferences. Her account is marked as 'verified'
by Twitter. Any cursory search would have shown that she is a real person.
The claim of bots and the numbers of their tweets the government gave to the Guardian
and Sky News are evidently false . With just a few clicks
the Guardian and Sky News 'journalists' could have debunked the British government
claims. But these stenograhers do not even try and just run with whatever nonsense the government
claims. Sky News even manipulated the picture of Partisangirl's Twitter homepage in the
video and screenshot above. The original shows Maram Susli speaking about Syrian refugees at a
conference in Germany. The picture provides that she is evidently a living person and not a
'bot'. But Sky News did not dare to show that. It would have debunked the government's
claim.
After some negative feed back on social media Sky News contacted the 'Russian bot' Ian
and invited him to a live interview
(vid). Ian Shilling, a wakeful British pensioner, managed to deliver a few zingers against the
government and Sky News . He also published a
written response:
I have been campaigning against the Neocons and the Neocon Wars since January 2002, when I
first realised Dick Cheney and the PNAC crowd were going to use 9/11 as the pretext to launch a
disastrous invasion of Iraq. This has nothing to do with Russia. It has EVERYTHING to do with
the massive lies constantly told by the UK & US governments about their illegal Wars of
Aggression.
...
Brian Whitaker could not hold back. Within the 156,000 tweets Ian wrote over seven years
Whitaker found one(!)
with a murky theory (not a denial) about the Holocaust. He alleged that Ian believes in
'conspiracy theories'. Whitaker then linked to and discussed one Conspirador Norteño who
peddles 'Russian bots' conspiracy theories. Presumably Whitaker did not get the consp-irony of
doing such.
On the same day as the other reports the British version of the Huffington Post
joined the Times in its earlier smear against British academics, accusing Professor
Hayward and Professor Piers Robinson of "whitewashing war crimes". They have done no such thing.
Vanessa Beeley was additionally attacked.
Also on the 19th the London Times aimed at another target. Citizen Halo , a well known Finnish grandma, was declared to be a
'Russian troll' based on Ben Nimmo's pseudo-scientific trash, for not believing in the Skripal
tale and the faked 'chemical attack' in Syria. The Times doubted her nationality and
existence by using quotes around her as a "Finnish activist".
Meanwhile the defense editor of the Times , Deborah Haynes, is stalking Valentina Lisitsa on
Twitter. A fresh smear-piece against the pianist is surely in the works.
The obviously organized campaign against critical thinking in Britain extended beyond the
Atlantic. While the BBC , Guardian, HuffPo, Times and Sky News published
smear pieces depicting dissenting people as 'Russian bots', the Intercept pushed a piece
by Mehdi Hasan bashing an amorphous 'left' for rejecting a U.S. war on Syria:
Dear Bashar al-Assad Apologists: Your Hero Is a War Criminal Even If He Didn't Gas Syrians
.
Mehdi Hasan is of course eminently qualified to write such a piece. Until recently he worked
for Al Jazeerah , the media outlet of the Wahhabi dictatorship of Qatar which supports the
Qatari sponsored al-Qaeda in its war against Syria. The Mehdi Hasan's piece repeats every false
and debunked claim that has been raised against the Syrian government as evidence for the Syrian
president's viciousness. Naturally many of the links he provides point back to Al
Jazeerah's propaganda. A few years ago Mehdi Hasan tried to get a job with the conservative
British tabloid Daily Mail . The Mail did not want him. During a later TV discussion Hasan
slammed the Daily Mail for its reporting and conservative editorial position. The paper
responded by
publishing his old job application. In it Mehdi Hasan emphasized his own conservative
believes:
I am also attracted by the Mail's social conservatism on issues like marriage, the family,
abortion and teenage pregnancies.
A conservative war-on-Syria promoter is bashing an anonymous 'left' which he falsely accuses
of supporting Assad when it takes a stand against imperial wars. Is that a 'progressive' Muslim
Brotherhood position? (Added: Stephen Gowans and Kurt Nimmo
respond to Hasan's screed.)
On the same day Sonali Kolhatkar at Truthdig , as pseudo-progressive as the
Intercept , published a quite similar piece: Why
Are Some on the Left Falling for Fake News on Syria? . She bashes the 'left' - without citing
any example - for not falling for the recent scam of the 'chemical attack' in Douma and for
distrusting the U.S./UK government paid White Helmets. The comments against the piece are
lively.
Those working in the media are up in arms over alleged fake news and they lament the loss of
paying readership. But they have only themselves to blame. They are the biggest creators of fake
news and provider of government falsehood. Their attacks on critical readers and commentators are
despicable.
Until two years ago Hala Jabar was foreign correspondent in the Middle East for the Sunday
Times . After fourteen years with the paper and winning six awards for her work she was 'made
redundant' for her objective reporting on Syria. She remarks on the recent media push against
truth about Syria and the very personal attacks against non-conformist opinions:
In my entire career, spanning more than three decades of professional journalism, I have
never seen MSM resolve to such ugly smear campaigns & hit pieces against those questioning
mainstream narratives, with a different view point, as I have seen on Syria, recently.
.2/ This is a dangerous manoeuvre , a witch hunt in fact, aimed not only at character
assassination, but at attempting to silence those who think differently or even sway from
mainstream & state narrative.
.3/ It would have been more productive, to actually question the reason why more & more
people are indeed turning to alternative voices for information & news, than to dish out ad
hominem smears aimed at intimidating by labelling alternative voices as conspirators or
apologists.
.4/ The journalists, activists, professors & citizens under attack are presenting an
alternative view point. Surely, people are entitled to hear those and are intelligent enough to
make their own judgments.
.5/ Or is there an assumption, (patronizing, if so), that the tens of thousands of people
collectively following these alternative voices are too dumb & unintelligent to reach their
own conclusions by sifting through the mass information being dished at them daily from all
sides?
.6/ Like it or hate it, agree or disagree with them, the bottom line is that the people
under attack do present an alternative view point. Least we forget, no one has a monopoly on
truth. Are all those currently launching this witch hunt suggesting they do?
The governments and media would like to handle the war on Syria like they handled the war in
Spain. They want reports without "any relation to the facts". The media want to "retail the lies"
and eager propagandists want to "build emotional superstructures over events that never
happened."
The new communication networks allow everyone to follow the war on Syria as diligently as
George Orwell followed the war in Spain in which he took part. We no longer have to travel to see
the differences of what really happens and what gets reported in the main stream press. We can
debunk false government claims with freely available knowledge.
The governments, media and their stenographers would love to go back to the old times when
they were not plagued by reports and tweets from Eva, Vanessa, Ian, Maram and Sarah or by
blogposts like this one. The vicious campaign against any dissenting report or opinion is a sorry
attempt to go back in time and to again gain the monopoly on 'truth'.
It is on us to not let them succeed.
Posted by b on April 21, 2018 at 23:02 UTC |
Permalink
next page " Excellent.
The good news about both The Intercept and Truthdig pieces is that the comments quickly showed
that readers knew what the publishers were up to.
The Intercept seemed to have removed Hasan's obscene act of prostitution within a day.
The reality is that we simply have to expect the imperialists, now reduced to propaganda and
domestic repression, to act in this way: there is no point in attempting to shame them and they
never did believe in journalistic principles or standards or ethics. They are the scum who
serve a cannibalistic system for good wages and a comfortable life style- that is what the
'middle class' always did do and always will.
No longer is it possible to control TV, Radio and printed newspapers and use them to set the
message. There are now an almost infinite set of channels including youtube, twitter, blogs,
podcasts,streamed radio... It's like there is a public bitcoin/bitnewsledger where new
information only gets written into the ledger if it is authenicated by sufficient
endorsements.
In the past, a lie could travel around the world before the truth got its shoes on (Mark Twain
I believe) but the truth is catching up. We are in the midst of the great changeover where
older people still rely on traditional information channels yet younger internet enabled
peoplecan leverage the new channels more effectively to educate themselves.
Western propagandists are freaking out because nobody believes their lies anymore. The more
they freak out, the more we know they have lost the narrative.
I just fear for the safety of these independent journalists. It is not beneath the deep
state to assassinate their enemies. These people need to be very careful.
For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that
dramatically furthered the nation's understanding of Russian interference in the 2016
presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect's
transition team and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this
category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)
The hysterical, side-splitting laughter over this chicken-choking, circle-jerking drivel
will echo in eternity. Galactic stupidity simply doesn't get any more cosmic, except perhaps
awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama.
This is a fight between Deep States of the Rothschild-UK 'Octopus,' US-centric
Rockefeller-Kochs, Russian (itself split between competing and intertwined Anglo-American
clans/Eurasianists vs Altanticists) and China (also divided between sovereignty oriented
Shanghai and Rothschild affiliated Hong Kong which was founded upon the opium trade in
cooperation with the UK-Octopus).
The main point of contention is whether we have a hard or soft landing as the New World
Order is born, with the UK-Octopus needing to instigate an epic crisis so as to bury countless
trillions of worthless derivatives it sits upon, specifically seeking to collapse the USD as a
global fiat and use the ensiung chaos to assist the Chinese as they establish an unasailable
Yuan fiat. A war with Russia will bring the US-centric Deep State to it's knees and so this
forms the basis of the not-so secret alliance between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, while
China attempts to remain neutral since Xi prefers a smooth transition since the US-centric
group may well launch a nuclear false flag attack on the Korean peninsula, thus irradiating the
region and dooming the potential for a Chinese dominated century, should the interests of yhis
group be ignored.
All gloves are off and the dispostions of various players are suddenly crystal clear after
the firing of Octopus agent Tillerson by Trump via twitter led immediately to the launching of
operation 'Novichok,' and was followed up with an attempted series of false flags in East
Ghouta which were planned so as to bring the US and Russia to war.
Other important players include the US military (itself divided between Octopus NATO and
US-centric Pentagon), the CIA, which is always on all sides of any conflict but was until
recently headed by Koch protege Mike Pompeo, as well as smaller Arab, Persian and Turkish Deep
States all jockeying for advantage and position. Even the Vatican is included and said to be
divided between Polish Cardinals on one side, with German, Italian and many Spanish speaking
Cardinals as opponents. There are other Deep States as well and in every instance they are
divided between one of the two main parties and themselves to one or another degree.
Media and social control is mainly the preserve of the UK Octopus, so as all of us have
understood for some time, anything included within it, from the NYTimes to most of Hollywood,
is completely worthless. Alternative media was created as an alternative to Octopus media,
while Trump takes to twitter so as to bypass their control.
I feel like a US voter forced to choose between Republicans and Democrats, but with the
promised 'Blue Wave' coming in November when Congressional elections are due, certain to be
impeached Donald Trump and his US-centric backers have a very short time frame in which to
change the score.
Ads also appeared on The Jimmy Dore Show channel, a far-left YouTube channel that peddles
conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Syrian chemical weapons attacks are hoaxes.
Syria is really the unifying theme in all these attacks.
I congratulate Bernhard on yet another excellent piece of investigative journalism. My comment
is not intended to criticise or take away from it, but only to point out that Orwell's quote
was taken out of context, in the sense that although he remarks on partisan propaganda, he says
that it is unimportant, since "the broad picture of the war which the Spanish Government
presented to the world was not untruthful. The main issues were what it said they were." On the
other hand, the lies of the pro-NATO press are important because unlike the partisan lies told
by leftist parties during the Spanish Civil War, today's NATO lies are the equivalent of the
official fascist propaganda of that time: they distort and hide the main issues. Here is the
full quote from the link that B has diligently provided:
I remember saying once to Arthur Koestler, 'History stopped in 1936', at which he nodded in
immediate understanding. We were both thinking of totalitarianism in general, but more
particularly of the Spanish civil war. Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever
correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports
which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an
ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete
silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as
cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of
imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager
intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in
fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened
according to various 'party lines'. Yet in a way, horrible as all this was, it was unimportant.
It concerned secondary issues -- namely, the struggle for power between the Comintern and the
Spanish left-wing parties, and the efforts of the Russian Government to prevent revolution in
Spain. But the broad picture of the war which the Spanish Government presented to the world was
not untruthful. The main issues were what it said they were. But as for the Fascists and their
backers, how could they come even as near to the truth as that? How could they possibly mention
their real aims? Their version of the war was pure fantasy, and in the circumstances it could
not have been otherwise.
As a given group loses its grip on power, it tends to employ ever more extreme tactics. This
explains the recent behavior of players like the US government, the UK government, the American
mainstream media and various think tanks. What other extreme behavior should we expect from
such a cabal? After all, they've already shown contempt for conditionally protected freedoms-
all of them- and a willingness to manufacture any narrative they want in order to further their
aims of conquest and profiteering. This whole mess could spiral out of control in countless
ways with terrifying consequences.
@15 Yes but I'm not sure how relevant Orwell's quote is to today. Do we even have a 'left-wing'
anymore? Or a Comintern for that matter? Even fascism wears a smiley face. Seems to me that
what we have is a tightly controlled MSM. That control may be slipping but we have yet to see a
replacement.
Those of us at MoA who are regulars may feel a certain level of complacency based on the level
of discourse here but I assure you that most Americans are still very much zombie followers of
whatever the TV and other media tell them. I believe that there is a strong possibility that MoA and like sites will become the focus
of paid narrative pushers and if that is not successful there are other ways to make b and our
lives difficult.
If b is ever knocked offline for some reason and needs help I encourage him to email his
readers with potential strategies to show/provide support. Thanks again and again for your web site b.
The first casualty of war is the truth.
Many Westerners would recognize this phrase but many of them don't understand that there
-IS- a war (the new Cold War). The longstanding law that prevented government propaganda in the US was revoked several
years ago.
U.S Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans
This type of tyranny has been going on forever in the US. Take A. Lincoln.
More than 14,000 civilians were arrested under martial law during the war throughout the
Union. Abraham Lincoln did so because they expressed views critical of Lincoln or his war. It's the same-o. Different faces same crap.
b- I am sorry to see their attacks on you, if things do go sideways please contact me if I can
be of help in any way.
Do you know what has happened to Tucker Carlson, he has been such a strong voice for truth that
I am concerned for him.
Stay strong and thank you for all you do in support of the truth.
Sure, there are more people that see the lies and bullshit for what they are. Still, seeing it
is not enough. What really matters now is to fully wipe out the mainstream media, to make it
completely extinct, and therefore seeing they're full of shit is only the prerequisite to
pondering how to actually bankrupt and destroy them. That's what everyone who's not fully on
board with the Western regimes' and bankers' propaganda should be thinking about. How to
convince people not only to stop buying their lies, but to stop buying them at all, how to cut
down the vast majority of their readership/viewers to the point they don't matter anymore.
Thank you b. This a very important subject. It wouldn't surprise me if a false flag happened
that would be aimed at censuring all alternative news. This might be centered around a
decoupling of east from west, perhaps when the current financial crisis explodes. Oh, has
anyone heard from Tucker Carlson lately?
You can fool someone for a long time, you can fool a lot of people for a short time - but you
can't fool a lot of people for a long time.
That is, unless those people are willing to live the lie.
I think the reason the MSM's propaganda is so effective nowadays (and I'm thinking
specifically about the world since the Iraq invasion in 2003) is that, deep down, maybe in the
collective inconsciousness level, the working classes from the First World countries know their
superior living standards depend on imperial brutality over the rest of the world. That's why,
for example, the USG and Downing Street haven't lost significant credibility domestically after
Iraq and after Libya. This is a dark social pact: people live the lies only to sleep well at
night and claim plausible deniability after; they only wish it to be over quickly and at the
least human cost from their side (every coffin that comes back to their community from the
Middle East is a crack in the illusion). They believe in Russiagate because, deep down, they
don't want to believe they were capable of electing someone like Trump and, mainly, because
they know their economies are failing, and the only solution is to invade other countries/prop
up the war industry.
Smearing people for appearing on RT! Americans who prattle on about freedom and democracy are
pressuring other not to do this or that which is to inhibit their freedom.
Don't they know it makes them look like dictators without portfolio?
Great article, b. I am a relative newcomer to MoA, having found it through Caitlin Johnstone
(Rogue Journalist), but in a short time, I have come to rely heavily on it for "hidden" news
and incisive analysis. Yes, independent news outlets are vital sources of truth, but their
reach is still tiny compared to that of the Empire and its toads in the media. The well
organized smear campaign against those who refuse to bow down is a frightening development
indeed.
Thanks b for your outstanding dissecting! The Information War is complex yet still remains
simple--all that's required is a critically thinking approach for any personally unconfirmed
sources and the data presented followed by the willingness to ask questions, no matter how
uncomfortable. Such a disciplined mind was once the paramount goal for those seeking wisdom,
but such pursuits are deemed passé, unrequired in the Digital Age. But Big Lie Media's
been working its evil for decades despite many calling out the lies. Funny how the two big
former communist nations are now more credible than the West and expressly seek honest and
open--Win-Win--relationships based on trust and equality. The Moral Table at play during Cold
War 1 is flipped with the Outlaw US Empire being the Evil Empire. And the Evil Empire can't
stand its own nakedness and its oozing social sores.
The liar is often agitated and nervous whereas one with the facts rests easy and remains
calm. In the run up to their summit, note how Trump is already agitated and nervous, already
prefacing his lies to come, whereas Kim is easy and calm, setting the table. Shrillness and
hysteria are the similar signs provided by media liars and is almost always fact-free, supposed
"sources" anonymous.
A magisterial piece of journalism, b. Congratulations, and thank you.
~~
Spain. Orwell. Fascism.
I was born decades after the Spanish Civil War, and to be very honest I never knew much
about it, nor have ever learned since. But Guernica I knew about, even
as a young teenager in school. The culture was shocked into remembering forever that there was
a lie involved with Guernica. That's all I ever really knew, was that Spain was a lie,
underneath which a massacre lay.
They say it was the humanitarian and artistic type of people who kept the truth of Spain
alive against the propaganda of the fascists. I don't know. I believe as I said the other day
that propaganda only works to crowd out the truth, so that people are not exposed to the truth.
But propaganda doesn't work in a battle against the truth, when people are exposed to both
sides of the story.
If you were running a scam based on fake news, and one day you had to make allegations using
this very term, and play your "fake news" card on the table in a round of betting that was
merely one round in a long game - if you did this, you'd be a bad card player, or one driven to
the corner and getting extremely close to leaving the table.
If your playing partner suddenly had to show the "false flag" card on the surface of the
table for the whole game to see - yet another secret hole card exposed and now worthless
forever - you could well think your game was finished. And it is - barring a few nasty
tricks...which will be recorded and placed into the game as IOU's.
Don't anybody be part of that collateral damage - be well. And instead, let's collect on
those IOU's. The game is almost over. Many people will appear to say that the players cannot be
beat. But they are with the losers. We are the players.
I wholeheartedly second your suggestion. I think the battle against the truth by the deep
States everywhere has only begun. They will not stop at smearing individual posters or
sites.
I do think we all need to start becoming more aware of alternatives, to YouTube (how's
DTube?), Twitter (gab?), Facebook, Google (several alternatives) etc. But that will not be
enough because I fear that in time the IP providers will come under pressure too - in all the
western countries, especially. And the domain providers 9we all know them), followed by blog
platforms such as WorldPress. I am not saying it's easy to curtail all of those, but they will
try, as sure as the sun sets in the West.
Of course, the biggest attacks will be mounted against anonymous commenters and posters.
That's already in the works at several outlets. The idea is of course that by stripping off
anonimity people will self-censor for fear of repercussions to their real life selves.
There are people working on alternative platforms of all sorts. I am somewhat hopeful about
user owned sites though these efforts are nascent. I hope commenters here will share what they
know of alternatives, even knowing this won't be an easy battle. After all, Twitter owes its
popularity to well, its popularity. Same with Facebook or Instagram or youTube. Therein lies
the rub - it won't be easy to wean users from these platforms as many start-ups found out. That
however should not mean that we shouldn't try. More and more Twitter users for example are
cross-posting on gab, and several youTubers started uploading also to Dtube. neither site is
ideal, I know. But neither was Twitter when it started.
The real aim of propaganda is to persuade the politicians and not the public. One man in their
middle wants to start a war and the media make sure that his or her fellow politicians will
hear no other story and make support the only possibility. That's why people like us have to be
vilified, so that all these politicians can invent an excuse for themselves and turn their head
away. What we think really doesn't matter because we are not the ones in control. They only
have to convince the Colin Powells and Frank Timmermans's.
The current increased smear campaigns against the so called Russian Bots, Assad Apologists
etc., is surely just the first part of of a an attempt to implement very serious censorship and
control over the internet to attempt to completely block out any alternative voices.
Amber Rudd
the UK Home Secretary has been banging on about Russian cyber attcks for the past couple of
months. Whilst based on the history of UK Government IT projects I couldn't expect the UK alone
to be capable of implementing any meaningful censorship scheme (they have a track record of
producing so many multi-billion pound national IT project disasters) but with the coordinated
help of the US and others they might just be able to put up enough censorship barriers to be
able to get back to their original plans (removing Assad and whatever else they have in mind).
False-flag chemical attacks haven't quite worked out to plan, but add in a false-flag cyber
attack that apparently disables some of the UK (and/or US/EU) vital services and that should be
enough for them to convince the plebs and sufficient MP's that it has become absolutely
necessary to block Russain and other media and internet sites and force the owners of many
social media channels to disable long lists of people with alternative views.
Prop or Not is NOT a 'friendly neighbourhood' anything. It was exposed a while ago as being a
joint state propaganda project between the CIA and West Ukraine, with the goal of spreading
anti-Russia disinformation, and employing the collusion of some no-integrity US propaganda rags
like The Daily Beast.
My question is their motivation and timing. Why does the rhetoric seem to increase after
the latest attack? Why care if 10% of the population doesn't follow their narrative now? Are
they preparing for a new round of kinetic action? Or do they simply believe their management of
the narrative needs more investment?
If people are going to rely on social media feeds for anything other than information on what
their friends and family are up to, then they are opening themselves up to being manipulated
easily and with a minimum of actual effort.
You no longer need to own a newspaper or a broadcast network to do so.
Ultimately people with a concience and some integrity will realize that something is awry. I'm
no spring chicken and have been on the net for nearly 20 years. There are more ' old ' people
surfing the net than initially may be apparent. As life passes by people become much more
attuned to bullsh*t. T. May's husband is on the board of a large British Armaments company. No
doubt her ministers are all in on many scams. She is a very mediocre character, a fool as her
time as home secretary demonstrated and was only voted in place so as to do the bidding of
others. And in my opinion, when I say others I mean she is the western harlot who jumps when
anyone pulls her string. They say that if you tell a lie often enough people believe it to be
the truth. Not necessarily. There are so many holes in the Skripal and Syrian stories that only
someone who doesn't want to have their view challenged will believe them. The stories are
falling apart and as they do, so does the credibility and trust of the western MSM and Politik.
The reason the Germans and others refused to join in, is I suspect, they realize that in part,
because once that is lost, it takes a great deal more to recover it. The Skripal case and the
latest Syrian faked gas attack is the start of the end for T. May and her govt.
Good comments, especially psychohistorian about being prepared to jump to alternative platforms
... Perhaps Russian ones?
What I was referencing in comment 5 is this relatively new desire by the 'powers that be'
for purity, for absolutely no one from 'our side' dissenting against the mainstream (and
completely bonkers in its anti-Russian extremism) narrative. This is not like the pre-digital
age, when small-circulation real leftist publications were not subject to mainstream and
official government extermination campaigns. And I don't think this is simply because of
digital age reach, because the readership for the real alternative media's left/anti-imperial
perspective doesn't engage enough people to be meaningful in terms of power and elections. At
least in the US; less certain about elsewhere.
There's something angry, extreme, and extremely insecure about the psychology of the Western
ruling class right now. My bet is that because of that insecurity they won't be so dangerous to
Russia/China in the years to come, but instead the anger will be directed at internal
left/anti-militarist dissenters. For some reason our reality bugs the sh!t out of them despite
our small numbers.
Until recently I used to read articles at both The Intercept and at Truthdig, but have since
realized both of these 'news' outlets actively censor posts that are too accurate, too
insightful of what the US government and MSM are doing in Syria and how they are manipulating
public opinion with the White Helmets, staged false gas attacks, etc. I don't trust Pierre
Omidyar, the philanthropist behind The Intercept, he has questionable political alliances. I
have had many of my posts at both Truthdig and The Intercept censored even though they were
entirely within comment rules. The Intercept has a lot of really BAD journalists posting crap
there, like this ass clown Mehdi Hasan. Even Glenn Greenwald, a multi millionaire, is suspect.
Both of these websites are psuedo-left and should not be trusted!
From the resistance trench with love , Apr 22 2018 11:40 utc |
52
....attacks on critical readers and commentators are despicable..
Indeed, but "the one free of sin to throw the first stone" ....
From my experience at several supposed "alternative media", most of them somehow pro-Russian
in the sense that they do not promote the sick warmongerism coming from the US and UK
stablishments against Russia and its allies in Syria and against Syria herself, every site has
its biases and slandering attacks by the owners of the blogs or by the "community" os
sycophants residing there are everyday bread for any newcomer who could express a bit of
dissent against the general editorial view.
I mayself have been obliged to change my nickname several times already to avoid attacks or
banning/censorship, when my position about Syrai and Russia does not differ almost in the least
with that of the people mentioned above who are being object of smearing campaign by the
MSM....and this has happened to me in the supposed pro-Russian "alt-media"....
Thus, I would recommend to apply a bit of self-criticism and reflect about how anyone of us
are probably contributing to the same effort of the bullies mentioned above against mainly
common citizens who only try to commit themselves to spread some of the truth they are finding
online through research and intensive reading, and try to offer an alternative point of view or
simply debunk the usual nonsense especially against certain ideologies, mostly spreaded by US
commenters.....
I noticed the part about Ian Shillilng being accused of denying the Holocaust or implying it
was a govt conspiracy.
I find that interesting, because a co-worker asked me out to the blue "Do you even believe
the Holocaust happened?" It's a strange question with no relation to Russiagate, yet pops up a
lot so it clearly has an agenda. The question made no sense but I did recognized it as a
familiar attack by the warmongers. My response was to to respond to such a ridiculous,
dishonest question and I ignored it.
He went to ask if I was "stupid" for not seeing that Mueller's indictments over lying to the
FBI and tax evasion/money laundering in Ukraine are NOT are not same thing as proving Russia
meddled to deny Hillary her Presidency.
Thanks for the article b.
As painful as it is to watch the increasing attempts at censoring non-msm voices, we can take
solace in the fact that, like a cornered rat, the establishment has no other option left but an
all-out, full-retard attack on anyone not toeing the line. While the damage they are doing is
real, this should be balanced with the fact that this attack comes out of weakness and not
strength: they are the ones "losing", and knowledge of that reality makes them increasingly
unhinged.
At first I thought this is some kind of joke. Than I watched few times, I still believe CNN
guy is in some kind of mission here, let's say to distract its viewers from existential matters
that grips ordinary people in the US. His insistence on the "Russians" is illogical at
first...this woman appear to be serious but when it comes to CNN everything is set-up, not just
everyone can come to CNN, period. No facts involved the conversation is about NOTHING, that is
the US national narrative being imposed by the ruling class trough various media. Just like
"attack" on Syria and Syria's gas attack. There were none, there were no cruise missile fired,
there were no downed ones! CNN's role is also to entertain its audience as well, everything but
not talk about social and economic issues. In other words to indoctrinate - shift attention,
not to ask unpleasant questions.
The NYT and NPR are warmonger institutions. It is sad that ppl who consider themselves to be
liberals, democrats, blue team (anti-war?- that's a stretch!) embrace these institutions as
purveyors of truth or even real news.
I don't feel that the quote is out of context. Yes, you show that Orwell clearly didn't
consider it a big deal at that time, but what is happening now is that what he describes is
omnipresent, the main stream of information we get, there is nothing else if you don't search
for alternatives. It is beyond doubt that Orwell, in the present context, would never have
added what he added in that book.
So in that light I feel the quote is extremely relevant and a good start of the article.
I want to express my thanks for this site and am really glad I was pointed towards MoA by
other sources of real information.
Meanwhile, the same western media give free pass to liberal warcriminals like Macron's France
that just today call for permanent illegal occupation of Syria - after illegally bombing it.
But no, it is people like us who call out this BS that gets silenced and harassed by the
same ignorant western media/"journalists" along with the western deep state spy networks!
What an excellent source of information the MoA site offers those of us who are seeking the
truth and living in an Empire full of lies.Over the past few months, I have perused this site
regularly and always find it very helpful in gaining a better and more concise understanding
of
what is really going on in our world.
I am also astounded at how helpful it is for me to read the comments of so many who are
regulars here.
The courtesy and level of intellectual dialog that goes on here in the comments section is a
rare thing indeed! We all must fight for truth for the sake of our families and loved ones.
"Fake" and "Genuine" are used to describe the video with the water being poured over people.
Fisk calls them genuine because the video was taped in the place where it pretends to be, not
in a film set or a location where nothing was going on. It was filmed in the real hospital with
real doctors, nurses and victims.
The video therefore is real (not staged), but the claim that people are suffering from gas
wounds is false.
You can thus also say that the video is fake: it is said to show victims of a gas attack, while
the doctor says they were suffering from suffocation, and only when someone shouted "gas", did
people start hosing each other down (which as someone posted in another article, would have
only made things worse if they had chlorine on them). As evidence of a gas attack, the video is
fake.
As long as a person is not claiming that the video shows victims of a real gas attack
aftermath, we're all on the same side I guess.
The response is of course to more eagerly call out the neocons propangada, western media
propaganda and so forth,
get a twitter account, get a blog, lets multiply this movement, because these people will of
course not stop at destroying peoples lives in the newspapers, they will call for censorship,
registrations and sooner or later jail for these views.
Orwell's great fear was totalitarianism. Either from the left or the right. What we have now is
much more subtle. The MSM retains the illusion of freedom and most people go along with it. We
may even realize we are being manipulated but the only alternative is posting on sites like
MOA.
The UK has no credibility left now. May's farcical handling of the Brexit negs has exposed
her as little more than a Tory mouthpiece, parroting party bon mots whilst having no clue where
she is heading. And I suspect her civil servants haven't, either!
The Skirpal charade was a front for several things but mainly, I think, to turn the focus
away from Brexit and to opening the Cold War front again. But what is alarming was her open
support for attacks on Syria. It's been known for some time that the UK has special forces
operating in Syria covertly; May's tub-thumping pretty much clarified that the Uk is as
determined as Washington and that Rothschild puppet Macron to force a regime change in
Syria.
You said she must go. I said the same thing last September after the fall-out from the June
election and other foot-in-mouth incidents: she'd be gone before year end. How wrong I was. She
has figures in the background protecting her.
Crushing dissent goes completely against 'liberal values' which is about the only high ground
left for the humanitarian regime changers a.k.a the Franquistas. So that is not going to
happen. On the other hand, social media is the easiest place to use covert operatives, even MSM
has other sponsors and actors, social media can be directly controlled by governments , and the
'intelligence community'. So they are just using the net for what they set it up for.
Propaganda for domestic consumption in the USA, isn't really meant to convince as much as to
scare people into submission. People don't obey Big Brother because they like him or believe
him, but because they cannot talk back to him and are scared of him. Media Scare tactics work
less if people can talk back, hear their own voice, not just Big Brother from every
loudspeaker.
Martin Luther (not King) said that "A lie is like a snowball: the further you roll it the
bigger it becomes." The snowball is melting because there is shift in the narrative given what
is happening on the ground in Syria. I find it fascinating that as it melts down layer by
layer, the first trojan horse outfits to implode are left humanitarian ones like the Intercept,
Newsbud, Democracy Now. The right wing ones like Fox, Young Turks, just concentrate on dumbing
down the conversation to reduce reality to bombastic and misleading 'political' points. This is
a another way to control the conversation, to scare people into thinking that facts or not
facts but partisan political 'opinions'. Look at how Jimmy Dore's in the interview mentioned by
B with Carla Ortiz, is trying to dumb down the conversation and keeps feigning ignorance.
Thankfully she blows him out of the water. Good job Carla!
The snowball is big and melting slowly. Who's next?
Vesti has a great 10-minute clip dated yesterday from a Russian talk show with Margarita
Simonyan of RT doing much of the talking. What she says is really encouraging about how she's
trying to talk, not to power (which already knows the real truth that it's obscuring) but to
common people, because there are those among the common people who do speak up and who really
do shape public opinion - not governments.
She cited Roger Waters as an example, who was speaking at a concert and telling the truth
about the White Helmets. She said, someone has to read in order to speak. And someone has to
write so someone can read. And that's what RT is doing, and that's how it works. And it is
working.
George Orwell has been a presence throughout this thread.
It was unfortunate he was hurried by MI6 to finish the last pages of 'Animal Farm' so it
could be translated into Arabic and be used to discredit Communist parties in Western Asia.
This always raised the ire of Communist organisations through following decades .This being said he wrote some great text especially for me the revealing 1939 novel - Coming up
for A
What many people don't realize is that fascism is a greedy habit, it expands to finally swallow
up those who think they are protected by silence or looking the other way. The individuals and
organizations villified today are the real heroes, and even if they suffer today, they will be
vindicated in the end. But unfortunately the gullible masses would by then be in the open
prison of fascism.
I don't know if wars are really an extension of diplomacy by other means, but they certainly
seem to be... an extension of ideology and propaganda. Ideas are very important in preparing
and fighting wars; especially today, though, in reality the way we think about our western
imperial war-fighting, goes back well over a century, back to the Whiteman's Burden and other
imperialist myths.
For the last thirty years we've essentially been fighting 'liberal crusades for freedom and
democracy.' That, at least, was the 'cover story' the pretext presented to the people. There's
an irony here. Just like Islamic State, we've been engaging in 'holy warfare' too!
The reason our media is so full of lies and distortions and propaganda is because the harsh
realities of our New Imperialism wars are so out of synch with the reality of what's happening
and crucially the attitudes of the general public who don't want to fight more overseas wars,
and especially if they are 'crusades' for democracy and freedom. But what's happened recently
is that dissent is being targeted as tantamount to treason. This is rather new and
disturbing.
It's because the ruling elite are... losing it and way too many people are questioning their
ideas about the wars we are fighting and their legitimacy and 'right to rule.'
In many ways the Internet is bringing about a kind of revolution in relation to the people's
access to 'texts' and images that reminds one of the great intellectual upheavals that the
translation of the Bible had on European thought four hundred years ago. Suddenly Bibles were
being printed all over the place and people could read the sacred texts without having to ask
the educated priests to 'filter' and translate and explain what it all meant. In a way
Wikileaks was doing the same thing... allowing people access to secret material, masses of it,
bypassing the traditional newsmedia and the journalistic 'preists.'
"... It's because the Democrats think that kowtowing to BLM will give them the winning edge in the November balloting. That's what it's all about. That's why they draped themselves in Kente cloth and knelt for the cameras. They think their black constituents are too stupid to see through their groveling fakery. They think that blacks will forget that Joe Biden pushed through legislation "which eliminated parole for federal prisoners and limited the amount of time sentences could be reduced for good behavior." ..."
"... The stupidity of the Dems was shown this week when they agreed to three Biden/Trump debates. They should leave him in his basement and hope for the best. They feature political ads where Biden slurs his speech! These are professionals, so it tells me they spent all day and did 40 takes and this was the best he could do. The election will be great comedy, or perhaps ..."
"... Clinton is the best evidence that certain people agree to be blackmailed in exchange for power, as Andrew Anglin wrote this week. ..."
"This is not a momentary civil disturbance. This is a serious, and highly organized
political movement It is deep and profound and has vast political ambitions. It is insidious,
it will grow. It's goal is to end liberal democracy and challenge western civilization
itself. This is an ideological movement Even now, many of us pretend this is about police
brutality. We think we can fix it by regulating chokeholds or spending more on de-escalation
training. We're too literal and good-hearted to understand what's happening. But we have no
idea what we are up against. ..These are not protests. This is a totalitarian political
movement and someone needs to save the country from it." Tucker
Carlson
Tucker Carlson is right, the protests and riots are not a momentary civil disturbance. They
are an attack the Constitutional Republic itself, the heart and soul of American democracy. The
Black Lives Matter protests are just the tip of the spear, they are an expression of public
outrage that is guaranteed under the first amendment. But don't be deceived, there's more here
than meets the eye. BLM is funded by foundations that seek to overthrow our present form of
government and install an authoritarian regime guided by technocrats, oligarchs and
corporatists all of who believe that Chinese-type despotism is far-more compatible with
capitalism than "inefficient" democracy. The chaos in the streets is merely the beginning of an
excruciating transition from one system to another. This is an excerpt from an article by F.
William Engdahl at Global Research:
"By 2016, Black Lives Matter had established itself as a well-organized network .. That
year the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy announced the formation of the Black-Led
Movement Fund (BLMF), "a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the
Movement for Black Lives coalition" in which BLM was a central part. By then Soros
foundations had already given some $33 million in
grants to the Black Lives Matter movement .. ..
The BLMF identified itself as being created by top foundations including in addition to
the Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation and the Soros Open Society Foundations." (
"America's Own Color
Revolution ", Global Research)
$100 million is alot of money. How has that funding helped BLM expand its presence in
politics and social media? How many activists and paid employees operate within the network
disseminating information, building new chapters, hosting community outreach programs, and
fine-tuning an emergency notification system that allows them to put tens of thousands of
activists on the streets in cities across the country at a moment's notice? Isn't that what
we've seen for the last three weeks, throngs of angry protestors swarming in more than 400
cities across America all at the beck-and-call of a shadowy group whose political intentions
are still not clear?
And what about the rioting, looting and arson that broke out in numerous cities following
the protests? Was that part of the script too? Why haven't BLM leaders condemned the
destruction of private property or offered a public apology for the downtown areas that have
been turned into wastelands? In my own hometown of Seattle, the downtown corridor– which
once featured Nordstrom, Pottery Barn and other upscale retail shops– is now a
checkerboard of broken glass, plywood covers and empty streets all covered in a thick layer of
garish spray-paint. The protest leaders said they wanted to draw attention to racial injustice
and police brutality. Okay, but how does looting Nordstrom help to achieve that goal?
And what role have the Democrats played in protest movement?
They've been overwhelmingly supportive, that's for sure. In fact, I can't think of even one
Democrat who's mentioned the violence, the looting or the toppling of statues. Why is that?
It's because the Democrats think that kowtowing to BLM will give them the winning edge in
the November balloting. That's what it's all about. That's why they draped themselves in Kente
cloth and knelt for the cameras. They think their black constituents are too stupid to see
through their groveling fakery. They think that blacks will forget that Joe Biden pushed
through legislation "which eliminated parole for federal prisoners and limited the amount of
time sentences could be reduced for good behavior."
According to the Black Agenda
Repor t: "Biden and (South Carolina's Strom) Thurmond joined hands to push 1986 and 1988
drug enforcement legislation that created the nefarious sentencing disparity between crack and
powder cocaine as well as other draconian measures that implicate him as one of the initiators
of what became mass incarceration. " Biden also spearheaded "the attacks on Anita Hill when she
came forward to testify against the supreme court nominee Clarence Thomas". All told, Biden's
record on race is much worse than Trump's despite the media's pathetic attempts to portray
Trump as Adolph Hitler. It's just more bunkum from the dissembling media.
Bottom line: The Democrats think they can ride racial division and social unrest all the way
to the White House. That's what they are betting on.
So, yes, the Dems are exploiting the protests for political advantage, but it goes much
deeper than that. After all, we know from evidence that was uncovered during the Russiagate
investigation, that DNC leaders are intimately linked to the Intel agencies, law enforcement
(FBI), and the elite media. So it's not too much of a stretch to assume that these deep state
agents and assets work together to shape the narrative that they think gives them the best
chance of regaining power. Because, that's what this is really all about, power. Just as
Russiagate was about power (removing the president using disinformation, spies, surveillance
and other skulduggery.), and just as the Covid-19 fiasco was essentially about power
(collapsing the economy while imposing medical martial law on the population.), so too, the BLM
protest movement is also about power, the power to inflict massive damage on the country's main
urban centers with the intention of destabilizing the government, restructuring the economy and
paving the way for a Democratic victory in November. It's all about power, real, unalloyed
political muscle.
Surprisingly, one of the best critiques of what is currently transpiring was written by
Niles Niemuth at the World Socialist Web Site. Here's what he said about the widespread
toppling of statues:
"The attacks on the monuments were pioneered by the increasingly frenzied attempt by the
Democratic Party and the New York Times to racialize American history, to create a
narrative in which the history of mankind is reduced to the history of racial struggle. This
campaign has produced a pollution of democratic consciousness, which meshes entirely with the
reactionary political interests driving it.
It is worth noting that the one institution seemingly immune from this purge is the
Democratic Party, which served as the political wing of the Confederacy and, subsequently,
the KKK.
This filthy historical legacy is matched only by the Democratic Party's contemporary
record in supporting wars that, as a matter of fact, primarily targeted nonwhites. Democrats
supported the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and under Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. The
New York Times was a leading champion and propagandist for all of these war." (
"Hands
off the monuments to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Grant!, WSWS)
What the author is referring to is The 1619 Project, which is a racialized version of
American history that was published by the Times on August 19, 2019. The deliberately-distorted
version of history was cobbled together in anticipation of increasing social unrest and racial
antagonism. The rioting, looting and vast destruction of America's urban core can all be traced
back to a document that postulates that the country was founded on racial hatred and
exploitation. In other words, The 1619 Project provides the perfect ideological justification
for the chaos and violence that has torn the country apart for the last three weeks. This is an
excerpt from an article at the World Socialist Web Site:
"The essays featured in the magazine are organized around the central premise that all of
American history is rooted in race hatred -- specifically, the uncontrollable hatred of
"black people" by "white people." Hannah-Jones writes in the series' introduction:
"Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country. "
This is a false and dangerous conception. DNA is a chemical molecule that contains the
genetic code of living organisms and determines their physical characteristics and
development . Hannah-Jones's reference to DNA is part of a growing tendency to derive
racial antagonisms from innate biological processes .where does this racism come from? It
is embedded, claims Hannah-Jones, in the historical DNA of American "white people." Thus, it
must persist independently of any change in political or economic conditions .
. No doubt, the authors of The Project 1619 essays would deny that they are predicting
race war, let alone justifying fascism. But ideas have a logic; and authors bear
responsibility for the political conclusions and consequences of their false and misguided
arguments." ("The New York Times's 1619
Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history", World Socialist Web
Site)
Keep in mind, this essay in the WSWS was written a full year before BLM protests broke out
across the country. Was Hannah-Jones enlisted to create a document that would provide the dry
tinder for the massive and coordinated demonstrations that have left the country stunned and
divided?
Probably, after all, (as noted above) the author's theory is that one race is genetically
programed to exploit the other. ( "Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country. ")
Well, if we assume that whites are genetically and irreversibly "racist", then we must also
assume that the country that these whites founded is racist and evil. Thus, the only logical
remedy for this situation, is to crush the white segment of the population, destroy their
symbols, icons, and history, and replace the system of government with one that better reflects
the values of the emerging non-Caucasian majority. Simply put, The Project 1619 creates the
rationale for sustained civil unrest, deepening political polarization and violent
revolution.
The 1619 Project is a calculated provocation meant to exacerbate racial animosities and pave
the way to open conflagration. And it has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination. The
nation is split into warring camps while Washington has devolved into fratricidal warfare. Was
that the objective, to destabilize the country in preparation for the dissolution of the
current system followed by a fundamental restructuring of the government consistent with the
identity politics lauded by the Democrats?
The Democrats, the Intel agencies and the media are all in bed together fomenting unrest
with the intention of decimating the economy, crushing the emerging opposition and imposing
their despotic one-party system on all of us. Here's a clip from a piece by Paul Craig Roberts
that sums up the role of the New York Times in inciting race-based violence:
"The New York Times editorial board covers up the known indisputable truth with their
anti-white "1619 project," an indoctrination program to inculcate hatred of white people in
blacks and guilt in white people.
Why does the New York Times lie, brainwash blacks into hatred of whites, and attempt to
brainwash whites into guilt for the creation of a New World labor force four centuries ago?
Why do Americans tolerate the New York Times fomenting of racial hatred in a multicultural
society?
The New York Times is a vile organization. The New York Times attempts to discredit the
President of the United States and did all it could to frame him on false charges. The New
York Times painted General Flynn, who honorably served the US, as a Russian agent and enabled
General Flynn's frame-up on false and now dropped charges. The New York Times spews hatred of
white people. And now the New York Times accuses the American military of celebrating white
supremacism.
Does America have a worse enemy than the New York Times? The New York Times is clearly and
intentionally making a multicultural America impossible . By threatening white people with
the prospect of hate-driven racial violence, the New York Times editorial board is fomenting
the rise of white supremacy." (
"The New York Times Editorial Board Is a Threat to Multicultural America ", The Unz
Review)
The editors of the Times don't hate whites, they are merely attacking the growing number of
disillusioned white working people who have left the Democratic party in frustration due to
their globalist policies regarding trade, immigration, offshoring, outsourcing and the
relentless hollowing out of the nation's industrial core . The Dems have abandoned these people
altogether and –now that they realize they will never be able to lure them back into
their camp– they've decided to wage a full-blown, scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners war
on them. They've decided to crush them mercilessly and fill their ranks with multi-ethnic,
bi-racial groups that will work for pennies on the dollar. (which will keep the Dems corporate
supporters happy.) So, no, the Times does not hate white people. What they hate is the growing
populist movement that derailed Hillary Clinton and put anti-globalist Trump in the White
House. That's the real target of this operation, the disillusioned throng of working people who
have washed their hands of the Democrats for good. Here's more background from Paul Craig
Roberts:
"On August 12 Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times, met with the Times'
employees to refocus the Times' attack on Trump . The Times, Baquet said, is shifting from
Trump-Russia to Trump's racism. The Times will spend the run-up to the 2020 presidential
election building the Trump-is-a-racist narrative. Of course, if Trump is a racist it means
that the people who elected him are also racists. Indeed, in Baquet's view, Americans have
always been racist. To establish this narrative, the New York Times has launched the "1619
Project," the purpose of which is "to reframe the country's history."
According to the Washington Examiner, "The basic thrust of the 1619 Project is that
everything in American history is explained by slavery and race. The message is woven
throughout the first publication of the project, an entire edition of the Times magazine. It
begins with an overview of race in America -- 'Our democracy's founding ideals were false
when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.'
The premise that America originated as a racist slave state is to be woven into all
sections of the Times -- news, business, sports, travel, the entire newspaper. The project
intends to take the "reframing" of the United States into the schools where white Americans
are to be taught that they are racist descendants of slave holders. A participant in this
brainwashing of whites, which will make whites guilty and defenseless, says "this project
takes wing when young people are able to read this and understand the way that slavery has
shaped their country's history." In other words, the New York Times intends to make slavery
the ONLY explanation of America.
At the meeting of the executive editor of the New York Times with the Times' employees to
refocus the Times' attack on President Trump, Baquet said: "Race in the next year is going to
be a huge part of the American story." (
"Is White Genocide Possible? ", The Unz Review)
Repeat: "Race in the next year is going to be a huge part of the American story." Either
Baquet has a crystal ball or he had a pretty good idea of the way in which the 1619 Project was
going to be used . I suspect it was the latter.
For the last 3 and a half years, Democrats and the media have ridiculed anyone who opposes
their globalist policies as racist, fascist, misogynist, homophobic, Bible-thumping,
gun-toting, flag-waving, Nascar boosting, white nationalist "deplorables". Now they have
decided to intensify the assault on mainly white working people by preemptively destroying the
economy, destabilizing the country, and spreading terror far and wide. It's another vicious
psy-ops campaign designed to thoroughly demoralize and humiliate the enemy who just happen to
be the American people. Here's more form the WSWS:
" It is no coincidence that the promotion of this racial narrative of American history by
the Times, the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party and the privileged upper-middle-class
layers it represents, comes amid the growth of class struggle in the US and around the
world.
The 1619 Project is one component of a deliberate effort to inject racial politics into
the heart of the 2020 elections and foment divisions among the working class. The Democrats
think it will be beneficial to shift their focus for the time being from the reactionary,
militarist anti-Russia campaign to equally reactionary racial politics." (" The New York
Times's 1619 Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history " WSWS)
Can you see how the protests are being used to promote the political objectives of elites
operating behind the mask of "impartial" reporting? The scheming NY Times has replaced the
enlightenment principles articulated in our founding documents with a sordid tale of racial
hatred and oppression. The editors seek to eliminate everything we believe as Americans so they
can brainwash us into believing that we are evil people deserving of humiliation, repudiation
and punishment. Here's more from the same article:
"In the months preceding these events, the New York Times, speaking for dominant sections
of the Democratic political establishment, launched an effort to discredit both the American
Revolution and the Civil War. In the New York Times' 1619 Project, the American Revolution
was presented as a war to defend slavery, and Abraham Lincoln was cast as a garden variety
racist
The attacks on the monuments to these men were pioneered by the increasingly frenzied
attempt by the Democratic Party and the New York Times to racialize American history, to
create a narrative in which the history of mankind is reduced to the history of racial
struggle . This campaign has produced a pollution of democratic consciousness, which meshes
entirely with the reactionary political interests driving it." (" The New York Times's 1619
Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history" , WSWS)
Ideas have consequences, and the incendiary version of events disseminated by the Times has
added fuel to a fire that's spread from one coast to the other. Given the damage that has been
done to cities across the country, it would be nice to know how Dean Baquet knew that "race was
going to play a huge part" in upcoming events? It's all very suspicious. Here's more:
" Given the 1619 Project's black nationalist narrative, it may appear surprising that
nowhere in the issue do the names Malcolm X or Black Panthers appear. Unlike the black
nationalists of the 1960s, Hannah-Jones does not condemn American imperialism. She boasts
that "we [i.e. African-Americans] are the most likely of all racial groups to serve in the
United States military," and celebrates the fact that "we" have fought "in every war this
nation has waged." Hannah-Jones does not note this fact in a manner that is at all critical.
She does not condemn the creation of a "volunteer" army whose recruiters prey on
poverty-stricken minority youth. There is no indication that Hannah-Jones opposes the "War on
Terror" and the brutal interventions in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Syria -- all
supported by the Times -- that have killed and made homeless upwards of 20 million people. On
this issue, Hannah-Jones is remarkably "color-blind." She is unaware of, or simply
indifferent to, the millions of "people of color" butchered and made refugees by the American
war machine in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa." (" The New York Times's 1619
Project: A racialist falsification of American and world histor y", WSWS)
So, black nationalists like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers are excluded from the The 1619
Project's narrative, but the author boasts that blacks "are the most likely of all racial
groups to serve in the US military"?? How does that happen unless Hannah-Jones was coached by
Democrat leaders about who should and shouldn't be included in the text? None of this passes
the smell test. It all suggests that the storyline was shaped by people who had a specific goal
in mind. That isn't history, it's fiction written by people who have an ax to grind. The Times
even admitted as much in response to the blistering criticism by five of "the most widely read
and respected authorities on US history." The New York TimesMagazine editor in
chief Jake Silverstein rejected the historians' objections saying:
"The project was intended to address the marginalization of African-American history in
the telling of our national story and examine the legacy of slavery in contemporary American
life. We are not ourselves historians, it is true. We are journalists, trained to look at
current events and situations and ask the question: Why is this the way it is?"
WTF! "We are not ourselves historians"? That's the excuse?? Give me a break!
The truth is that there was never any attempt to provide an accurate account of events. From
the very onset, the goal was to create a storyline that fit the politics, the politics of
provocation, incitement, racial hatred, social unrest and violence. That's what the Times and
their allies wanted, and that's what they got.
The Deep State Axis: CIA, DNC, NYT
The three-way alliance between the CIA, the Elite Media, and the Democratic leadership has
clearly strengthened and grown since the failed Russiagate fiasco. All three parties were
likely involved in the maniacal hyping of the faux-Covid pandemic which paved the way for
Depression era unemployment, tens of thousands of bankrupt businesses and a sizable portion of
the US population thrust into destitution. Now, these deep state loyalists are promoting a
"falsified" race-based version of history that pits one group against the other while diverting
attention from the deliberate destruction of the economy and the further consolidation of
wealth in the hands of the 1 percent.
Behind the veil of the protest movement, the war on the American people is gaining pace.
Stopped reading the Times after the buildup to the Iraq War, when it was clear they were
lying. Everyone please stop reading the Times, and in particular stop referring to what they
are writing. Act like they don't exist. If enough do, they won't.
The stupidity of the Dems was shown this week when they agreed to three Biden/Trump debates.
They should leave him in his basement and hope for the best. They feature political ads where
Biden slurs his speech! These are professionals, so it tells me they spent all day and did 40
takes and this was the best he could do. The election will be great comedy, or perhaps
This is all planned. Biden will be forced to drop out and Bloomberg or even Clinton will
arise.
"Tucker Carlson is right, the protests and riots are not a momentary civil disturbance. They
are an attack the Constitutional Republic itself, the heart and soul of American democracy."
I am reminded of david horowitz and chrissy hitchens
And how they promoted Israeli interests after first pretending to be independent thinkers
to gain creed for the switch. Standard zionazi-gay psywar tactic.
The stupidity of the Dems was shown this week when they agreed to three Biden/Trump
debates.
This is all planned. Biden will be forced to drop out and Bloomberg or even Clinton will
arise.
Stupid and planned?
Clinton is the best evidence that certain people agree to be blackmailed in exchange for
power, as Andrew Anglin wrote this week. Why should DNC care if Trump is 're-elected'? And if
they don't care, who not take a stab at installing an intersectional DNC pinnacle fraudster
via the griftiest, most insulting, infuriating way possible? They can't lose.
divideand conquer 1. To gain or maintain power by generating tension among others, especially those less powerful,
so that they cannot unite in opposition.
Notable quotes:
"... In its most general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal, but I'm hoping I can say something new. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity. ..."
"... If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members, who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump. ..."
I've been thinking about the various versions of and critiques of identity politics that are around at the moment.
In its most
general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that
members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different
things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal,
but I'm hoping I can say something new.
You missed one important line of critique -- identity politics as a dirty political strategy of soft neoliberals.
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been important to politics. But 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. Self-government requires uniting
through our commonalities and aspiring to achieve a shared future.
When individuals fall back onto clans, tribes, and us-versus-them identities, the political community gets fragmented. It becomes
harder for people to see each other as part of that same shared future.
Demagogues [more correctly neoliberals -- likbez] 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.
Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies
of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity.
Of course, the result is to leave in place political and economic structures that harm the very groups that inclusionary neoliberals
claim to support. The foreign policy adventures of the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists haven't fared much better
than economic policy or cultural politics. The U.S. and its coalition partners have been bogged down in the war in Afghanistan
for 18 years and counting. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is a liberal democracy, nor did the attempt to establish democracy in
Iraq lead to a domino effect that swept the Middle East and reformed its governments for the better. Instead, power in Iraq has
shifted from American occupiers to sectarian militias, to the Iraqi government, to Islamic State terrorists, and back to the Iraqi
government -- and more than 100,000 Iraqis are dead.
Or take the liberal internationalist 2011 intervention in Libya. The result was not a peaceful transition to stable democracy
but instead civil war and instability, with thousands dead as the country splintered and portions were overrun by terrorist groups.
On the grounds of democracy promotion, it is hard to say these interventions were a success. And for those motivated to expand
human rights around the world, it is hard to justify these wars as humanitarian victories -- on the civilian death count alone.
Indeed, the central anchoring assumptions of the American foreign policy establishment have been proven wrong. Foreign policymakers
largely assumed that all good things would go together -- democracy, markets, and human rights -- and so they thought opening
China to trade would inexorably lead to it becoming a liberal democracy. They were wrong. They thought Russia would become liberal
through swift democratization and privatization. They were wrong.
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. And to be clear, Donald Trump
had nothing to do with them. All of these failures were evident prior to the 2016 election.
If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing
of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members,
who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump.
Initially Clinton calculation was that trade union voters has nowhere to go anyways, and it was correct for first decade or so
of his betrayal. But gradually trade union members and lower middle class started to leave Dems in droves (Demexit, compare with
Brexit) and that where identity politics was invented to compensate for this loss.
So in addition to issues that you mention we also need to view the role of identity politics as the political strategy of the
"soft neoliberals " directed at discrediting and the suppression of nationalism.
The resurgence of nationalism is the inevitable byproduct of the dominance of neoliberalism, resurgence which I think is capable
to bury neoliberalism as it lost popular support (which now is limited to financial oligarchy and high income professional groups,
such as we can find in corporate and military brass, (shrinking) IT sector, upper strata of academy, upper strata of medical professionals,
etc)
That means that the structure of the current system isn't just flawed which imply that most problems are relatively minor and
can be fixed by making some tweaks. It is unfixable, because the "Identity wars" reflect a deep moral contradictions within neoliberal
ideology. And they can't be solved within this framework.
Belief system is not chosen. The individual is indoctrinated into it via socialization process. Only few can break this bond.
Notable quotes:
"... Social or Cultural Norms are standards for behavior engendered from infancy by parents, teachers, friends, neighbors, and others in one's life. Social Norms are the shared expectations and rules that guide the behavior of people within social groups; Social Norms can go a long way toward maintaining social order. Engendered, Social or Cultural Norms can be enforced by something as subtle as a gesture, a look, or even the absence of any response at all. At the extremes, aberrant social behavior becomes a crime. One could adopt Social Norms as a part or all of their Belief System. ..."
"... Religions were an early form of Social Norms. Yet and still, all Religious Beliefs address Social Behavior, Social Norms. As with Social Norms, most, if not all, Religions have slowly evolved over time. As with Social Norms, Religious Beliefs are often engendered from infancy by parents; handed down from generation to generation. Most Religions require one's Believing; Believing that the precepts of the Religion come down to us from a supreme being or deity via a prophet or inspired teacher. Whereas science asks questions in the quest for knowledge, Abrahamic religions hold that any questioning of their particular beliefs is blasphemous, a great sin. Rather than welcome questions in re validity, religions insist that, first and foremost, adherents believe. Religions might be a part of the whole of one's Belief System. ..."
"... Can we even have stable societies without Belief Systems? Is it possible to build a Society around Science, Philosophy, and/or Reason? Can we, benefitting from Science and Philosophy: Improve the quality of our Belief Systems? Of our Religions? Can Beliefs become Informed Opinions? Will future societies' Belief Systems be based more on Science and Philosophy, and less on opinion and belief? Do they have a choice? It seems that the more successful societies have long since chosen to give the thinking of Science and Philosophy precedence over Believing. Darwin tells us that survival goes to those that adapt. ..."
Belief Systems, these prisms through which we view the world, have been around from our earliest days. Not so long ago, the Ancient
Greeks separated the concept of what we might call belief into two concepts: pistis and doxa with pistis referring to trust and confidence
(notably akin the regard accorded science) and doxa referring to opinion and acceptance (more akin the regard accorded cultural norms).
In quest of a personal Belief System, should one: Go with the flow and adapt to the Social or Cultural Norm? Follow the Abrahamic
admonishment to first believe? Follow their own Reasoning? Or, should one look to Science?
Social or Cultural Norms are standards for behavior engendered from infancy by parents, teachers, friends, neighbors, and others
in one's life. Social Norms are the shared expectations and rules that guide the behavior of people within social groups; Social
Norms can go a long way toward maintaining social order. Engendered, Social or Cultural Norms can be enforced by something as subtle
as a gesture, a look, or even the absence of any response at all. At the extremes, aberrant social behavior becomes a crime. One
could adopt Social Norms as a part or all of their Belief System.
Most modern Religions are handed down from times long past, times before much was known about anything. Most, if not all, early
Religions were based on mythology. Later on, some Religions found more of their basis in whatever evidence and reasoning skills were
available to a people. From the earliest times, human cultures have developed some form or another of a Belief System premised on
Religion.
Humans are, uniquely it seems, given the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking in an orderly rational way; they are given
the faculty of Reason. To Reason is to use the faculty of Reason so as to arrive at conclusions; to discover, formulate, or conclude
by way of a carefully Reasoned Analysis. One might base a part or all of their Belief System on Reason.
Science can be seen as an endeavor to increase knowledge, to understand; to reduce ignorance and misunderstanding. Science encourages
active skepticism. Science, the word comes from the Latin word for knowledge, is premised on verifiable empirical evidence and best
thinking. Science employs our faculty to Reason. Belief is not a scientific criterion but is rather a bias to be filtered out of
any scientific experiment. We have confidence in the knowledge afforded us by Science to the extent that we have confidence in the
validity of the evidence and the rigor of the Reasoning, and in Scientific Methodology. Science can form the basis of one's Belief
System to the extent that they have confidence in Science.
Religions were an early form of Social Norms. Yet and still, all Religious Beliefs address Social Behavior, Social Norms. As with
Social Norms, most, if not all, Religions have slowly evolved over time. As with Social Norms, Religious Beliefs are often engendered
from infancy by parents; handed down from generation to generation. Most Religions require one's Believing; Believing that the precepts
of the Religion come down to us from a supreme being or deity via a prophet or inspired teacher. Whereas science asks questions in
the quest for knowledge, Abrahamic religions hold that any questioning of their particular beliefs is blasphemous, a great sin. Rather
than welcome questions in re validity, religions insist that, first and foremost, adherents believe. Religions might be a part of
the whole of one's Belief System.
As is to be expected, Science is often in conflict with religious beliefs. This dichotomy between the Reasoning of Science and
the Believing of Religion goes back at least to early Egypt, Greece, and India; has played, and still plays, a huge role for philosophers,
scientists, and others given to thought.
While most modern societies have moved away from a Religious dominance of their culture; at the extremes, we still have theocracies
where Religious Belief is given reign over culture and politics, and, to some extent or another, thought itself.
Preceding statute law, Religious associated Belief Systems played an important role in mankind's development. Down through the
centuries, religious behavioral standards have provided societies personal security, social stability. Religious Beliefs have long
been, are still being, codified into law.
Codified laws can also be based on 'Social Norms', on philosophy and reason ( love of learning, the pursuit of wisdom, a search
for understanding, ); or on yet other Belief Systems.
Can we even have stable societies without Belief Systems? Is it possible to build a Society around Science, Philosophy, and/or
Reason? Can we, benefitting from Science and Philosophy: Improve the quality of our Belief Systems? Of our Religions? Can Beliefs
become Informed Opinions? Will future societies' Belief Systems be based more on Science and Philosophy, and less on opinion and
belief? Do they have a choice? It seems that the more successful societies have long since chosen to give the thinking of Science
and Philosophy precedence over Believing. Darwin tells us that survival goes to those that adapt.
He didn't say it quite that way, but that is what he meant.
This seeming need of humans to Believe can be abused. The atrocities of Colonial Spain and Portugal and the Era of Slavery were
ostensibly committed under the aegis of Christian Belief. Nazi Germany, Jonestown, ISIS, and a Trump Presidency are examples of some
of the more negative consequences of aberrant Belief Systems.
Demagogues prey on this need to Believe by telling the people what to Believe; by giving them something to Believe. Fox News,
by telling its viewers what to Believe, gives them this thing they need; something to Believe. All those arbiters of opinion we see
and read on the media are trying to sell Beliefs to their audience; an audience that needs something to Believe. Fox News has become
a Belief System for millions. So too, the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, and Shawn Hannity.
Adolph Hitler and Jim Jones gave their needy followers something to Believe. Osama bin Laden/Al-Qaeda and ISIS gave their needy
followers something to Believe. Donald J. Trump is giving his needy followers something to Believe.
Thinking's too hard.
Obviously, existing well-meaning Belief Systems can be co-opted by unsavory persons, societies. Equally obvious, Belief Systems
can be instilled into a population. From the days of slavery and for these 150 yrs hence, whites in the Southern States have engendered
racism into their progeny. For 150 yrs now they propagated a false version of history in their schools. They created and propagated
a Belief System premised on mendacity.
Though many Belief Systems are based on Religious Tenets; we also see them based on economic models, personality cults, , even
in science. Economic dogma can be instilled in a society as a Belief System to the extent that any challenge thereto is considered
to be heretical, blasphemous. One can be born a Republican, a Baptist, or both, as were their parents and their parents' parents.
People have been being born Catholic for 2,000 yrs. Joseph Smith, a come lately, instilled.
Some positive consequences of Belief Systems include: higher moral standards, the great art and science flowing from the Renaissance;
the science, philosophy, and art from The Age of Reason/The Enlightenment. More recently: the ending of slavery, the ending of Colonialism,
the ending of apartheid, the codification of LGBT rights, and the struggle to end racism correlate with changes in Belief Systems.
Pending challenges for Belief Systems include such as freedom from hunger, access to housing, and alleviating economic disparity.
Belief Systems can carry us forward. Belief Systems can hold us back.
Is tweeting believing?
To what Belief System, if any, is this our Age of Technology attributable? Has Technology itself become a Belief System?
A very famous frog once said, "It is not easy being green."
Closely held, long-held, Beliefs are hard to give up; especially if they have been engendered via emulation, imprinting, repetition,
, since infancy. In America, the most technologically advanced economy ever known; our technology, our scientific achievements, are
all based on science. Yet today we have upwards of half of our politicians pandering to one or another Religious group that, for
the most part, denies Science. Quid pro quo: the pols get the Religious groups' vote, the Religious group gets the laws, and the
judges and justices, they want. Perhaps in part as a consequence of this support, most of this same group of politicians would govern
all the while making little effort to acquaint themselves with Science, with technology, in this day and age of Science and Technology.
Many, maybe most, of these same politicians hold fast to theories of economics and law that are, themselves, based on Belief.
John Prine, recently departed, not a frog, wrote the tune "In Spite of Ourselves".
In spite of ourselves, we humans mumble and fumble our way as is our wont.
Ron (RC) Weakley (a.k.a., Darryl for a while at EV) , June 22, 2020 8:35 am
" Darwin tells us that survival goes to those that adapt.
He didn't say it quite that way, but that is what he meant "
[No he did not say it that way because that is not what he meant. Human beings just like to misrepresent Darwin that way because
it follows along with their own narrative of innovative superiority and control of their own fate. To transpose biological mutation
from the natural selection process of biological evolution over to social evolution is a bit of a stretch, but clearly it would
favor diversity and freedom over rigid authoritarian orthodoxy. It comes with no guaranty of course, but it also more accidental
or incidental than contrived.]
Ron (RC) Weakley (a.k.a., Darryl for a while at EV) , June 22, 2020 9:18 am
Reason is not the same as logic, not pure logic at least. Impure logic is mostly sophistry. Reason is not necessarily sophistry,
but still depends upon assumptions which in life may be less reliable than in math.
Nietzsche and Machiavelli were notable philosophers of celebrated capacity for reason. By my own anti-intellectual biases I
have found them both intolerable as human beings and deceptive as arbiters of truth. Science, when correctly applied, has evolved
far beyond its roots in philosophy. I am skeptical of both incorrect science and any philosophy that I am not taking an active
roll in. Any valid philosophy should be about the present rather than the past. Kant and William James are tolerable, but still
insufficient despite their well meaning morality.
"... "The extraordinary destruction of white and Asian businesses in many instances wiping out a family's lifetime work, the looting of national businesses whose dumbshit CEOs support the looters, the merciless gang beatings of whites and Asians who attempted to defend their persons and their property, the egging on of the violence by politicians in both parties and by the entirely of the media including many alternative media websites, shows a country undergoing collapse. ..."
"... This is why it is not shown in national media . Some local media show an indication of the violent destruction in their community, but it is not accumulated and presented to a national audience. Consequently, Americans think the looting and destruction is only a local occurrence I just checked CNN and the BBC and there is nothing about the extraordinary economic destruction and massive thefts." ..."
"... Why has the media failed to show the vast destruction of businesses and private property? Why have they minimized the effects of vandalism, looting and arson? Why have they fanned the flames of social unrest from the very beginning, shrugging off the ruin and devastation while cheerleading the demonstrations as a heroic struggle for racial justice? Is this is the same media that supported every bloody war, every foreign intervention, and every color-revolution for the last 5 decades? Are we really expected to believe that they've changed their stripes and become an energized proponent of social justice? ..."
"... The scale and coordination alone suggests that elements in the deep state are probably involved. We know from evidence uncovered during the Russiagate probe, that the media works hand-in-glove with the Intel agencies and FBI while–at the same time– serving as a mouthpiece for elites. ..."
"... That hasn't changed, in fact, it's gotten even worse. The uniformity of the coverage suggests that that same perception management strategy is being employed here as well. Even at this late date, the determination to remove Trump from office is as strong as ever even though, in the present case, it has been combined with the broader political strategy of inciting fratricidal violence, obliterating urban areas, and spreading anarchy across the count ..."
"... This isn't about racial justice or police brutality, it's about regime change, internal destabilization, and martial law. ..."
"... What the Black Lives Matter movement does not understand is that they are being used by the billionaire white capitalists who are fighting to push the working class even lower ..."
"... The rightful grievance over racism against blacks is now used to get Trump since Russia Gate, Impeachment, the corona scandal ..."
"... The protests are merely a fig leaf for a "color revolution" that bears a striking resemblance to the more than 50 CIA-backed coups launched on foreign governments in the last 70 years ..."
"... "Use a grievance that the local population has against the system, identify and support those who oppose the current government, infiltrate and strengthen opposition movements, fund them with millions of dollars, organize protests that seem legitimate and have paid political instigators dress up in regular clothes to blend in." ..."
"... "The logistical capabilities of antifa+ are also impressive. They can move people around the country with ease, position pallet loads of new brick, 55 gallon new trash cans of frozen water bottles and other debris suitable for throwing on gridded patterns around cities in a well thought out distribution pattern. Who pays for this? Who plans this? Who coordinates these plans and gives "execute orders?" ..."
"... Antifa+ can create massive propaganda campaigns that fit their agenda. These campaigns are fully supported by the MSM and by many in the Congressional Democratic Party. The present meme of "Defund the Police" is an example. This appeared miraculously, and simultaneously across the country. I am impressed. Yesterday the frat boy type who is mayor of Minneapolis was booed out of a mass meeting of radicals in that fair city because he refused to endorse abolishing the police force. ..."
"... Colonel Lang is not the only one to marvel at Antifa's "logistical capabilities". The United States has never experienced two weeks of sustained protests in hundreds of its cities at the same time. ..."
"... it points to extensive coordination with groups across the country, a comprehensive media strategy (that probably preceded the killing of George Floyd), a sizable presence on social media (to put people on the street), and agents provocateur whose task is to incite violence, loot and create mayhem. ..."
"... This a destabilization campaign similar to the CIA's color revolutions designed to topple the regime (Trump), install a puppet government (Biden), impose "shock therapy" on the economy ..."
"... "The BLM represents the forefront of an effort to divide Americans along racial and political lines, thus keeping race and identity-based barbarians safely away from more critical issues of importance to the elite, most crucially a free hand to plunder and ransack natural resources, minerals, crude oil, and impoverish billions of people whom the ruling elite consider unproductive useless eaters and a hindrance to the drive to dominate, steal, and murder . ..."
"... The protest movement is the mask that conceals the maneuvering of elites. The real target of this operation is the Constitutional Republic itself ..."
"... that explains why anti-fa attack Yellow Vests in Germany. The Yellow Vests are the true people's movement and as shown in the video below it is not about the left and the right for the yellow vest but common people fed up with the system ..."
"... Watch every frame of this. It shows the government-media complex and their little thugs, ANTIFA, in perfect collusion to interfere with the regular Germans trying to stop the Satanic communist-Globo homo project. ..."
"... My bro is one of the few people flying, for work. He says the only people on the airlines are antifa thugs moving all around the country. ..."
"... Won't these riots create a wave of revulsion among the silent majority and consolidate Trump's support base? ..."
"... Is Antifa a group of deep state agitators? That's the question. In the Sunday edition of the New York Times– the official propaganda organ of US elites– an article is entirely devoted to creating "plausible deniability" that Antifa is behind the violence in the protests that have swept the country. ..."
"Revolutions are often seen as spontaneous. It looks like people just went into the
street. But it's the result of months or years of preparation. It is very boring until you
reach a certain point, where you can organize mass demonstrations or strikes. If it is
carefully planned, by the time they start, everything is over in a matter of weeks."
Foreign Policy
Journal
Does anyone believe the nationwide riots and looting are a spontaneous reaction to the
killing of George Floyd?
It's all too coordinated, too widespread, and too much in-sync with the media narrative that
applauds the "mainly peaceful protests" while ignoring the vast destruction to cities across
the country. What's that all about? Do the instigators of these demonstrations want to see our
cities reduced to urban wastelands where street gangs and Antifa thugs impose their own harsh
justice? That's where this is headed, isn't it?
Of course there are millions of protesters who honestly believe they're fighting racial
injustice and police brutality. And more power to them. But that certainly doesn't mean there
aren't hidden agendas driving these outbursts. Quite the contrary. It seems to me that the
protest movement is actually the perfect vehicle for affecting dramatic social changes that
only serve the interests of elites. For example, who benefits from defunding the police? Not
African Americans, that's for sure. Black neighborhoods need more security not less. And yet,
the New York Times lead editorial on Saturday proudly announces, " Yes, We Mean Literally
Abolish the Police–Because reform won't happen." Check it out:
"We can't reform the police. The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact
between the public and the police .There is not a single era in United States history in
which the police were not a force of violence against black people. Policing in the South
emerged from the slave patrols in the 1700 and 1800s that caught and returned runaway slaves.
In the North, the first municipal police departments in the mid-1800s helped quash labor
strikes and riots against the rich. Everywhere, they have suppressed marginalized populations
to protect the status quo.
So when you see a police officer pressing his knee into a black man's neck until he dies,
that's the logical result of policing in America. When a police officer brutalizes a black
person, he is doing what he sees as his job " (" Yes, We
Mean Literally Abolish the Police–Because reform won't happen" , New York
Times)
So, according to the Times, the problem isn't single parent families, or underfunded
education or limited job opportunities or fractured neighborhoods, it's the cops who have
nothing to do with any of these problems. Are we supposed to take this seriously, because the
editors of the Times certainly do. They'd like us to believe that there is groundswell support
for this loony idea, but there isn't. In a recent poll, more than 60% of those surveyed, oppose
the idea of defunding the police. So why would such an unpopular, wacko idea wind up as the
headline op-ed in the Saturday edition? Well, because the Times is doing what it always does,
advancing the political agenda of the elites who hold the purse-strings and dictate which ideas
are promoted and which end up on the cutting room floor. That's how the system works. Check out
this excerpt from an article by Paul Craig Roberts:
"The extraordinary destruction of white and Asian businesses in many instances wiping out
a family's lifetime work, the looting of national businesses whose dumbshit CEOs support the
looters, the merciless gang beatings of whites and Asians who attempted to defend their
persons and their property, the egging on of the violence by politicians in both parties and
by the entirely of the media including many alternative media websites, shows a country
undergoing collapse.
This is why it is not shown in national media . Some local media show an
indication of the violent destruction in their community, but it is not accumulated and
presented to a national audience. Consequently, Americans think the looting and destruction
is only a local occurrence I just checked CNN and the BBC and there is nothing about the
extraordinary economic destruction and massive thefts." (" The Real Racists", Paul Craig Roberts,
Unz Review)
Roberts makes a good point, and one that's worth mulling over. Why has the media failed to
show the vast destruction of businesses and private property? Why have they minimized the
effects of vandalism, looting and arson? Why have they fanned the flames of social unrest from
the very beginning, shrugging off the ruin and devastation while cheerleading the
demonstrations as a heroic struggle for racial justice? Is this is the same media that
supported every bloody war, every foreign intervention, and every color-revolution for the last
5 decades? Are we really expected to believe that they've changed their stripes and become an
energized proponent of social justice?
Nonsense. The media's role in concealing the damage should only convince skeptics that the
protests are just one part of a much larger operation. What we're seeing play out in over 400
cities across the US, has more to do with toppling Trump and sowing racial division than it
does with the killing of George Floyd. The scale and coordination alone suggests that elements
in the deep state are probably involved. We know from evidence uncovered during the Russiagate
probe, that the media works hand-in-glove with the Intel agencies and FBI while–at the
same time– serving as a mouthpiece for elites.
That hasn't changed, in fact, it's gotten
even worse. The uniformity of the coverage suggests that that same perception management
strategy is being employed here as well. Even at this late date, the determination to remove
Trump from office is as strong as ever even though, in the present case, it has been combined
with the broader political strategy of inciting fratricidal violence, obliterating urban areas,
and spreading anarchy across the country.
This isn't about racial justice or police brutality,
it's about regime change, internal destabilization, and martial law. Take a look at this
article at The Herland Report:
"What the Black Lives Matter movement does not understand is that they are being used by
the billionaire white capitalists who are fighting to push the working class even lower and
end the national sovereignty principles that president Trump stands for in America .
The rightful grievance over racism against blacks is now used to get Trump since Russia
Gate, Impeachment, the corona scandal and nothing else has worked. The aim is to end
democracy in the United States, control Congress and politics and assemble the power into the
hands of the very few
That sounds about right to me. The protests are merely a fig leaf for a "color revolution"
that bears a striking resemblance to the more than 50 CIA-backed coups launched on foreign
governments in the last 70 years. Have the chickens have come home to roost? It certainly looks
like it. Here's more from the same article:
"Use a grievance that the local population has against the system, identify and support
those who oppose the current government, infiltrate and strengthen opposition movements, fund
them with millions of dollars, organize protests that seem legitimate and have paid political
instigators dress up in regular clothes to blend in."
So, yes, the grievances are real, but that doesn't mean that someone else is not steering
the action. And just as the media is shaping the narrative for its own purposes, so too, there
are agents within the movement that are inciting the violence. All of this suggests the
existence of some form of command-control that provides logistical support and assists in
communications. Check out this excerpt from a post at Colonel Pat Lang's website Sic Semper
Tyrannis:
"The logistical capabilities of antifa+ are also impressive. They can move people around
the country with ease, position pallet loads of new brick, 55 gallon new trash cans of frozen
water bottles and other debris suitable for throwing on gridded patterns around cities in a
well thought out distribution pattern. Who pays for this? Who plans this? Who coordinates
these plans and gives "execute orders?"
Antifa+ can create massive propaganda campaigns that fit their agenda. These campaigns are
fully supported by the MSM and by many in the Congressional Democratic Party. The present
meme of "Defund the Police" is an example. This appeared miraculously, and simultaneously
across the country. I am impressed. Yesterday the frat boy type who is mayor of Minneapolis
was booed out of a mass meeting of radicals in that fair city because he refused to endorse
abolishing the police force.
Gutting the civil police forces has long been a major goal of
the far left, but now, they have the ability to create mass hysteria over it when they have
an excuse ."
("My take on the present situation", Sic Semper Tyrannis)
Colonel Lang is not the only one to marvel at Antifa's "logistical capabilities". The United
States has never experienced two weeks of sustained protests in hundreds of its cities at the
same time. It's beyond suspicious, it points to extensive coordination with groups across the
country, a comprehensive media strategy (that probably preceded the killing of George Floyd), a
sizable presence on social media (to put people on the street), and agents provocateur whose
task is to incite violence, loot and create mayhem.
None of this has anything to do with racial justice or police brutality. America is being
destabilized and sacked for other purposes altogether. This a destabilization campaign similar
to the CIA's color revolutions designed to topple the regime (Trump), install a puppet
government (Biden), impose "shock therapy" on the economy pushing tens of millions of Americans
into homelessness and destitution, and leave behind a broken, smoldering shell of a country
easily controlled by Federal shock troops and wealthy globalist mandarins. Here's a short
excerpt from an article by Kurt Nimmo at his excellent blog "Another Day in the Empire":
"The BLM represents the forefront of an effort to divide Americans along racial and
political lines, thus keeping race and identity-based barbarians safely away from more
critical issues of importance to the elite, most crucially a free hand to plunder and ransack
natural resources, minerals, crude oil, and impoverish billions of people whom the ruling
elite consider unproductive useless eaters and a hindrance to the drive to dominate, steal,
and murder .
It is sad to say BLM serves the elite by ignoring or remaining ignorant of the main
problem -- boundless predation by a neoliberal criminal project that considers all -- black,
white, yellow, brown -- as expliotable and dispensable serfs. " (" 2 Million Arab Lives
Don't Matter ", Kurt Nimmo, Another Day in the Empire)
The protest movement is the mask that conceals the maneuvering of elites. The real target of
this operation is the Constitutional Republic itself. Having succeeded in using the Lockdown to
push the economy into severe recession, the globalists are now inciting a fratricidal war that
will weaken the opposition and prepare the country for a new authoritarian order.
the media narrative that applauds the "mainly peaceful protests" while ignoring the vast
destruction to Hong Kong where there was neither police violence nor racial discrimination.
Look like the same organizing principles were used in both places.
Of course that explains why anti-fa attack Yellow Vests in Germany.
The Yellow Vests are the true people's movement and as shown in the video below it is not
about the left and the right for the yellow vest but common people fed up with the system, a
true grass roots movement of the people.
And Anti-fa, the Whores of the Satanic elites attack them. Why would anti-fascists attack the
common man?
Watch every frame of this. It shows the government-media complex and their little thugs,
ANTIFA, in perfect collusion to interfere with the regular Germans trying to stop the Satanic
communist-Globo homo project.
Few arguments in contra of the article. Can any-one conceive of there being a competition between BLM rioting organizing and
covertly supporting, and Corona-19, where the elites were very cohesive internationally in the face.
The target, Trump, the man with no policies, the implement nothing, is it such a worthy target to a fraction of the power
elites? That would speak for shallowness on their behalf. Creating back-ground noise to fade out the re-organizing of society,
regardless of actors as Trump could be an acceptable explanation. "Keep the surplus population busy. Keep the attention on the
streets".
There is a trade-off. The international elites see the exposure of the US internal policies, the expenditure of energy, do
they regard the situation as something to copy-paste, an interesting experiment, or as weakness to be taken advantage of?
Probably the first, then BLM covert support chains perfectly with Corona-19, and scales things up.
"Black neighborhoods need more security not less."
Police are not security, they're repression. Anybody of any color who thinks they're safer
with heavily armed bureaucrats blundering around is a moron.
And since when does reductions in guard labor equal austerity? There are several economic
rights that should not be derogated, but assholes with guns impounding cars is not one of
them. If the residents of a community are asking for more cops, that's one thing. They are
not. Law enforcement budgets are stuffed up the ass of residents and often municipalities.
Look into e.g. the MA "strong chief" enabling acts. States have massive unfunded pension
liabilities in large part because of police featherbedding. That's what's being pushed by the
"deep state" (you mean CIA.) The evident CIA use of provocateurs is aimed at justifying
further increases in repressive capacity.
OK bye! Don't let the door hit your fat ass on the way out! Stupid and delusional though pigs are, it's dimly dawning on them that America considers
them crooked loudmouthed violent assholes. Here's a typical one exercising what Gore Vidal
called the core competence of police, whining.
Boo hoo hoo, asshole, go home and beat your wife or eat a gun or whatever it is you dream
of doing in retirement, cause the states can't afford your crooked unions' pensions in this
induced depression. Cut these white man's welfare jobs.
Is Antifa a group of deep state agitators? That's the question.
In the Sunday edition of the New York Times– the official propaganda organ of US
elites– an article is entirely devoted to creating "plausible deniability" that Antifa
is behind the violence in the protests that have swept the country.
Why is the Times so concerned that its readers might have a different opinion on this
matter? Why do they want to convince people that the protests-riots are merely spontaneous
outbursts of anti-racist sentiment? Could it be because the Times job is to create a version
of events that suits the interests of the elites it serves? Here's a few excerpts from
today's piece titled "Federal Arrests Show No Sign That Antifa Plotted Protests":
While anarchists and anti-fascists openly acknowledged being part of the immense
crowds, they call the scale, intensity and durability of the protests far beyond anything
they might dream of organizing. Some tactics used at the protests, like the wearing of
all black and the shattering of store windows, are reminiscent of those used by anarchist
groups, say those who study such movements. (plausible deniability)
Anarchists and others accuse officials of trying to assign blame to extremists rather
than accept the idea that millions of Americans from a variety of political backgrounds have
been on the streets demanding change. Numerous experts also called the participation of
extremist organizations overstated. (plausible deniability)
"A significant number of people in positions of authority are pushing a false narrative
about antifa being behind a lot of this activity," said J.M. Berger, the author of the
book "Extremism" and an authority on militant movements. "These are just unbelievably large
protests at a time of great turmoil in this country, and there is surprisingly little
violence given the size of this movement.".. (plausible deniability)
In New York, the police briefed reporters on May 31, claiming that radical anarchists
from outside the state had plotted ahead of protests by setting up encrypted communications
systems, arranging for street medics and collecting bail funds.
Within five days, however, Dermot F. Shea, the city's police commissioner, acknowledged
that most of the hundreds of people arrested at the protests in New York were actually New
Yorkers who took advantage of the chaos to commit crimes and were not motivated by political
ideology . John Miller, the police official who had briefed reporters, told CNN that most
looting in New York had been committed by "regular criminal groups." (plausible
deniability)
Kit O'Connell, a longtime radical leftist activist and community organizer in Austin, said
that shortly after Mr. Trump's election, the group took part in anti-fascist protests in the
city against a local white supremacist group and scuffled separately with Act for America, an
anti-Muslim organization.
Why is the Times acting like Antifa's attorney? Why are the trying to minimize the role of
professional agitators? Why is the Times so determined to shape the public's thinking on this
matter?
Doesn't this suggest that Antifa and other groups operating within the protest movement
are actually linked to agencies in the deep state that are conducting another operation
against the American people?
@anonymous anonymous, I have been encouraging cops to quit for a long time. They are
protecting the wrong people, being used to protect people in the ruling class that hate and
despise cops just a little less than they hate and despise the rest of us civilians.
To the issue at hand, black people should only be policed, arrested, charged, prosecuted,
defended, judged, and (if found guilty) punished by other blacks. No white person should have
anything to do with it. Any white person policing negros in America is making a huge mistake,
and should immediately quit.
The pensions are not going to be paid, and the crazy, Soros paid for black people are
going to make it impossible for a white cop pretty soon anyway. Might as well walk before
they make you run.
Don't worry about BLM, which is corporate phoney bullshit protest, easter parades and
internet posturing. The blacks in the street don't fall for that shit. Look what happens when
coopted oreos try to herd everybody back to tame marching:
The provocateurs are not influencing them. The sellout house negroes are not influencing
them. They know what they want. The regime is shitting its pants. If they scapegoat Trump and
purge him, Biden will inherit the same problem only worse.
Won't these riots create a wave of revulsion among the silent majority and consolidate
Trump's support base?
That's what I am wondering too. It makes more sense to me that the elites driving these
BLM riots are those who support Trump. Terrify people and threaten the existence of police is
a good way to get elderly white voters out of their covid lockdowns on election day.
Doesn't this suggest that Antifa and other groups operating within the protest movement
are actually linked to agencies in the deep state that are conducting another operation
against the American people?
Do we really want to suggest the CIA is committing treason against the American people?
Isn't it more likely that the Times is agitating against the CIA for other reasons? Reasons
Carlos Slim could explain?
For those who haven't read Pepe Escobar's latsest on BLM, here's a couple clips:
Black Lives Matter, founded in 2013 by a trio of middle class, queer black women very
vocal against "hetero-patriarchy", is a product of what University of British Columbia's
Peter Dauvergne defines as "corporatization of activism".
Over the years, Black Lives Matter evolved as a marketing brand, like Nike (which
fully supports it). The widespread George Floyd protests elevated it to the status of a new
religion. Yet Black Lives Matter carries arguably zero, true revolutionary appeal. This is
not James Brown's "Say It Loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud". And it does not get even close to
Black Power and the Black Panthers' "Power to the People".
Black Lives Matter profited in 2016 from a humongous $100 million grant from the Ford
Foundation and other philanthropic capitalism stalwarts such as JPMorgan Chase and the
Kellogg Foundation.
The Ford Foundation is very close to the U.S. Deep State. The board of directors is
crammed with corporate CEOs and Wall Street honchos. In a nutshell; Black Lives Matter, the
organization, today is fully sanitized; largely integrated into the Democratic Party machine;
adored by mainstream media; and certainly does not represent a threat to the 0.001%.
an evident ham-handed attempt to make this all about race. The real threat to this police
state is racial and international solidarity against state predation – the stuff that
got Fred Hampton killed,
"when I talk about the masses, I'm talking about the white masses, I'm talking about the
black masses, and the brown masses, and the yellow masses, too We say you don't fight racism
with racism. We're gonna fight racism with solidarity. We say you don't fight capitalism with
no black capitalism; you fight capitalism with socialism."
or Angela Davis and the Che-Lumumba club. BAP is right back on this and the resonating
international demonstrations show that that's the right track. The whole world sees what this
is about, except for a few fucked-over US whites.
botazefa, of course the CIA is committing treason against the American people. Where were you
when they whacked JFK, then RFK? Where were you when they blew up OKC? Where were you when
they released anthrax on the Senate, infiltrated and protected 9/11 terrorists, assigned more
terrorists to MITRE to blind NORAD, blew up the WTC for the second time, and exfiltrated the
Saudi logisticians?
Anybody unaware that CIA has been pure treason from inception is (1) retarded XOR (2) a
CIA traitor.
Sorry. The assholes on this asshole site will not let you say that what is important is how
the super-billionaires control us. They are going to insist that it's niggerniggernigger all
the way home and that's all there is to it. You would think they were paid. Or really, really
stupid.
When Gina, she-wolf of Udon Thani, got busted for trying to overthrow the United States
government with Russiagate, she hung onto her job by rigging the succession with all the
Brennan traitors who ran the Russiagate coup.
So we should expect that Gina will now stage a couple massacres like Kent State and
Jackson State, because that's how CIA ratfucked Nixon when he didn't knuckle under.
Gina's extra motivated to stay on top because she's criminally culpable for systematic and
widespread torture:
@Mike Whitney Excellent article and I believe excellent analysis of the situation.
Where we may differ is with Trump's complicity in Deep State efforts. I believe Trump is a
minion of the Deep State. His actions and inactions can not be explained any other way.
Let's assume for a minute, that Pepe Escobar is correct when he says this:
"Black Lives Matter profited in 2016 from a humongous $100 million grant from the Ford
Foundation and other philanthropic capitalism stalwarts such as JPMorgan Chase and the
Kellogg Foundation .
The Ford Foundation is very close to the U.S. Deep State. The board of directors is
crammed with corporate CEOs and Wall Street honchos. In a nutshell; Black Lives Matter,
the organization, today is fully sanitized; largely integrated into the Democratic Party
machine; adored by mainstream media; and certainly does not represent a threat to the
0.001%.
If this is true–and I believe it is– then Black Lives Matter is no different
than USAID or any of the other NGOs that are used to incite revolution around the world. If
this is true, then there is likely a CIA link to these protests, the main purpose of which is
to remove Trump from office.
So Black Lives Matter= activist NGO linked to US Intel agencies= Regime Change
Operation
But there is something else going on here too, (that many readers might have noticed) that
is, the way social media has been manipulated to put millions of young people on the street
in order to promote the agenda of elites.
How did they manage that?
How did they get millions of young people to come out day after day (14 days so far) in
over 400 cities to protest an issue about which they know very little aside from the media's
irritating reiteration of "systemic racism", (a claim that is not supported by the data.)
IMO, we are seeing the first successful social media saturation campaign launched probably
by the Pentagon's Office Strategic Communications or a similar outfit within the CIA. Having
already taken control over the entire mainstream media complex, the intel agencies and their
friends at the Pentagon are now wrapping their tentacles around internet communications in
order to achieve their goal of complete tyrannical social control.
As always, the target of these massive covert operations is the American people who had
better pull their heads out of the sand pronto and come up with a plan for countering this
madness.
@anonymous The elephant in the room, that seems to be ignored by all is the simple fact
that Hispanics are working class heroes. And they outnumber the blacks, and hate their guts
for the most part. Not the scrawny punks withe Che t-shirts, but the actual working types
that are less than thrilled to deal with the weak. Notice how no Hispanic barrios have EVER
been f ** ked with, no matter when the race riot? There is an open fatwa from La Eme
regarding blacks that has never been rescinded. Has a lot to do with the kneegro exodus from
the LA area, which correlates with the lack of looting in the formerly black areas. Which the
MSM prefers to ignore. The happy idiots are mugging for the cameras on a daily basis in
Hollywood, but the Hispanic run Sheriff's office has no problem with popping gas and
defending businesses. Also note that the MSM only reports on areas when a local government
craters to the mob. LA County was under curfew for 7 days due to a mob of looters that
numbered perhaps 2000. If that Jew mayor (with the Italian surname) had not allowed the
looting, then we would have seen the kind of 36 hour turnaround like we had with Rodney King.
The ethnic group that ignores the MSM and stands up for its own people will win in the end.
Right now we are looking more toward the kind of Celtic/Meso-American alliance that is well
known in the penal system. These groups can exist side by side, with each ignoring the other.
Blacks, on the other paw seem to be unable to keep to themselves, at least on the ghetto
level, and will always be an issue for civilization. It's time we stop calling for a generic
and all-inclusive White establishment. The race traitors and weaklings forfeit that right.
When Celts, Italians, Germans, etc. were proud and independent, there was strength. It's time
to return to that ideal. Only the negroid actually lumps all whites together, which the Jews
use as a divisive tool. Strength should be idolized, rather than weakness exploited.
I'm saying that the NYT is not necessarily mouthpiece *only* for the Deep State. As for
your JFK assassination – Senate Anthrax – 9/11 etc, those are considered
conspiracy theories and I've never been persuaded otherwise. I've read up on the theories and
they are not strong.
I don't know what a retarded XOR is except as it relates to logic diagrams and I don't
work for the CIA.
Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement?
It's called Jewish lawfare for Antifa, Jewish control of media, and Jewish cult of Magic
Negro.
Even though Jews led the Gentric Cleansing campaigns against blacks by using mass
immigration, globo-homo celebration, and white middle class return to cities, the Jews are
now pretending be with the blacks and throwing the immigrants, white middle class, and homos
to the black mobs.
simple fact that Hispanics are working class heroes
Some are. Most aren't. And the 'not'% grows with selective Americanization (not
assimilation). Still, I'll take them over the blacks, even with their generally inferior (to
White) culture.
Whites are better with separation from them along with blacks. Whatever the prime driver,
both groups have poisoned America, likely beyond repair. Conquistador gonnna
conquistador.
M. Whitney in comment 21 clarifies his view of BLM as the impetus for this rebellion. That
does not square with the reports of people on the street.
BLM is exactly analogous to BDS: a controlled opposition of feckless halfassed gestures
designed to distract from the real movement. You hear BLM apparatchiks whining about getting
their movement hijacked because people in the streets show solidarity with oppressed groups
worldwide – and youe hear BLM getting booed by the people they're trying to corral.
BLM's mission is putting words in the protestors' mouths. You hear Democrat BLM spokesmodels
trying to distort calls for police abolition and no more impunity. And real protestors call
bullshit.
BLM works on dumb white guys: hating on BLM makes them feel very edgy and defiant. Black
Lives Matter! Blue Lives Matter! Black! Blue! Black! Blue! Catnip for dumbshits, courtesy of
CIA. Keeps them away from the really subversive stuff, which makes perfect sense for whites
too.
@ICD Look into whether the training of cops has been outsourced and privatized. Or simply
shortened to save money.
And ask why the police are even armed when in Communist China they are not, and
traditionally in the non-American West they were not, now are in imitation of America.
Ann Nonny Mouse, truer words were never spoken. Chinese cops have these cute little
nightsticks, and sometimes they will bop a guy and the guy just stands there and says Ow and
the cops continue to reason with him, no restraint, incapacitation, any of that shit. British
cops used to be that way, they used to reason with you. Now they're all American style
Assholes, if not Israeli concentration camp guards. Just nuke FOP HQ in Memphis.
Koch sees privatization as a future profit center and a chance to control the cops
himself. They're not trainable, they're too fucking stupid. We all did fine without pigs up
through most of the 19th century. Hue and cry works fine. Fire all the cops and replace them
with unarmed women social workers. That's all they are, prodigiously incompetent social
workers.
Too, those many businesses with all that unsold inventory sitting around gathering dust due
to Covid isolation will benefit from insurance payments covering their losses due to looting.
The cherry on top.
Are you just clueless or what? Did you notice the names of the Antifa leaders that have
been exposed? They are Amish Right? They are Jews and they will always be Jews! Soros and
other Jews have been running this game for a long time. Where have you been? SDS in Chicago
no Jews there right!
The CIA and the FBI overwhelmed with Jews can you count? All the professors who have been
destroying whites with their fake studies blaming everything wrong in the world on Whites and
Western Civilization. The entire Media owned by who?
Either you were dropped out of a spaceship a few days ago or you are a total idiot and
can't see the forest before trees.
Try this: The Percentage of all Ivy League Presidents, top adminstrators, deans etc take a
guess then go count them and see which group they belong to.
Does anyone believe the nationwide riots and looting are a spontaneous reaction to the
killing of George Floyd?
It's all too coordinated, too widespread, and too much in-sync with the media narrative
.
* * *
This a destabilization campaign similar to the CIA's color revolutions designed to
topple the regime (Trump), install a puppet government (Biden), impose "shock therapy" on
the economy pushing tens of millions of Americans into homelessness and destitution, and
leave behind a broken, smoldering shell of a country easily controlled by Federal shock
troops and wealthy globalist mandarins.
One must wonder: How could the CIA and the U.S. Democrat establishment foment and
coordinate all of the Black Lives Matter protests occurring in Canada, several nations of
South and Central America, the U.K., Ireland, throughout the European Union, and in
Switzerland, the Middle East (Turkey, Iran ), and in Asia (Korea, Japan .) and New Zealand,
Australia, and Africa?
Mr. Whitney: Neither magic nor bigotry-induced hallucinations can forge a tenable
conspiracy theory.
I think the primary reason the mainstream media doesn't want the general public, especially
those living outside the major cities, to understand the extent of the destruction and
violence that spread in a highly-coordinated fashion across America, is that this would be
cause for alarm among a majority of Americans who would demand more Law & Order, which
would redound to Trump's benefit.
Notice Trump is countering by tweeting "LAW & ORDER!"
Here is Trump tweeting "Does anyone notice how little the Radical Left takeover of Seattle
is being discussed in the Fake News Media[?] That is very much on purpose "
Does anyone notice how little the Radical Left takeover of Seattle is being discussed in
the Fake News Media. That is very much on purpose because they know how badly this weakness
& ineptitude play politically. The Mayor & Governor should be ashamed of
themselves. Easily fixed!
The outcome of the election in November could hinge on the urgency the public places on
the issue of Law & Order. Hence the media's all out effort to minimize the extent of the
Anarchy and Violence and the financial sponsorship, planning, and coordination behind it.
Please see my comment of June 15, 2020 at 1:38 am GMT (comment # 34). I must apologize for
that comment's insufficiency (owed to my posting that comment before I happened upon your
comment to which this comment replies). Had I encountered your comment earlier, my
June 15, 2020 at 1:38 am GMT comment (comment # 34) would have observed that you are
triumphantly illogical as you are a world class crackpot.
@ICD You said it. Police Departments country-wide are stuffed up the wazoo with more cash
than they can spend. But what do they cry? Poor us. Poor us. We ain't got no money.
This is what they, and by they, I mean all our owners and their overseers, always do. They
cry poverty when they are rolling in loot.
Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement?
Yes, and the left(unwittingly) will help them with their cause, and the right will
cowardly hide right behind the deep state as protection from the violent left.
@Priss Factor You are extremely unlikely to receive any of those things from a "Negro".
90% of Americans are unlikely to even see more than ten black people in their entire lives.
I wish you psychotic fucking female idiots on this website who are constantly blathering
about black people could realize how annoying you are to the 90% of white people who are not
living in or next to black ghettos. Please STFU and allow discourse to trend in more
pertinent directions, and move away from black people if you're so paranoid about them.
@Mike Whitney The (((media))) have an uphill battle in convincing us to deny the evidence
of our eyes -- black-hooded white punks throwing bricks through storefronts then inviting
joggers to loot.
That is why so many platforms, even "free speech" GAB, are wildly censoring
counter-narratives.
@Brian Reilly Stephen Molyneux said that police forces were originally geared to operate
under white Christian societies where there was a high level of trust and people were
law-abiding. I remember when I was a kid, we didn't even lock our doors. Our bikes were left
out on the front lawn, sometimes for days, weeks, and nobody took them. Nobody locked their
car doors. People just didn't steal other people's stuff. When a cop tried to pull you over,
you didn't hit the gas pedal and take off. You didn't run from the cops; you were polite to
them and they were polite to you.
Tucker Carlson said that Blacks are now asking for their own hospitals (I forget what city
this was) and their own doctors and nurses. Blacks schools, Black police forces.
Tribes don't mix. Their culture is different than our culture. Why should they change for
us, and why should we change for them?
It is a marriage that does not work. Either send them back to Africa (best solution) or
give them Mississippi and put up a big wall. Then let them pay for their own upkeep –
all of it. Good luck with that.
Yesterday the frat boy type who is mayor of Minneapolis was booed out of a mass
meeting of radicals in that fair city because he refused to endorse abolishing the police
force.
Mayor Jacob Frey got elected at his extremely young age by flanking on the Left with anti
police rhetoric, He is the the originator of this crisis; as soon as the video of Floyd's
death was public Frey publicly and literally called the four cops murderers and said
he was powerless to have them arrested. That was a false accusation of police impunity,
because the supposedly powerless Frey was able to order the police to vacate their own
station thus letting the demonstrators take over and burn it. Yet to draw back a bit the Deep
State if worried about other states.
That event Frey largely created was the key moment of this whole thing. Trump could have
nipped it in the bud by had sending in troops immediately the Minneapolis 3rd Precinct was
burnt down. Crushing the riots in that city and preventing the example infecting the
demonstrations in other cities. and turning them into cover for riots. Trump did not want to
be seen as Draconian although it would not have been at all violent, because no one is going
to challenge the army's awesome presence once it arrived on the streets,as worked in the
Rodney King riots.
The real target of this operation is the Constitutional Republic itself. Having
succeeded in using the Lockdown to push the economy into severe recession, the globalists
are now inciting a fratricidal war that will weaken the opposition and prepare the country
for a new authoritarian order.
George Floyd had foam visible at the corners of his mouth when the police arrived. Autopsy
tests revealed Fentanyl and COVID-19: both from Wuhan. I Can't Breath is America gearing up
to confront and settle accounts with Xi's totalitarian state.
Current events might seem to be a setback for the US, but provide the opportunity for a
re-set with the black community, with a potential outcome of resolving race tensions that
have been a cause of dissension and internal weakness, just as during the Cold War racial
integration was thought essential by anti communists like Nixon. America is gearing up to
settle accounts with China, which is a Deep State new Cold War. While it is a possibility
that whites could lose control of their society, and see it fall into the hands of an
explicitly anti -acist elite/ minorities alliance, the Deep State is not the same as the
hyper capitalist elite whose growing wealth depends on China.
Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement?
@Mike Whitney The Duran did an excellent video titled "Social Media 'Unchecked Power'"
where they talk about Trump and Barr going after the tech companies and their virtual
monopolies with an executive order.
At 33:45 they state that Microsoft (Bill Gates) invested $1 billion and the CIA invested
$16 million into Facebook when it was still operating as a university network. The CIA were
one of the first investors in Facebook.
Why the hell was the CIA investing $16 million to get Facebook off the ground? Hmmm. Could
it be because Facebook would be instrumental in controlling the narrative?
The young people, who have no experience and no real knowledge of history, are being taken
in by these social media companies who are playing on their emotions. Any dissenting opinions
are blocked or banned. Very dangerous.
@Loup-Bouc Well, the "deep state" is just an euphemism for the jewish power structure,
and all those places you named are run be jews. That jews cooperate in extended conspiracies
without regard of borders should be common knowledge for every observer of history and
current politics. I see nothing far-fetched. Honestly, my mind would boggle if I should
explain, how the Antifa gets away with those things it always gets away with, if it wasn't
controlled by the "deep state". And I couldn't explain the international cooperation either.
As Pepe' Escobar said – Americans looting is a natural thing – just look at how
the US Military has stolen the gaz and oil from Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. and is trying like
hell for the Venezuelan oil fields. Not to mention where all their gold, silver and billions
of dollars have gone. The list of the USG looting criminal record is unprecedented . It's a
Family Tradition. Enjoyed the article !
@MrFoSquare The Capitol Hill area of Seattle that has been taken over as an "autonomous
zone" by the protesters is really rather laughable.
One of the first things they did was put up what they called "light fencing". Oh, so when
THEY put up walls, that's perfectly fine. When Trump tries to do it, that's evil and racist.
Borders are A-okay when they're doing it.
They've colonized an area for themselves. I thought the Progressive Left was against
colonialism, taking someone else's property. Isn't that what they've done? They've taken over
whole neighborhoods.
And they've got armed patrol guards checking people as they enter. If you're not in
agreement with their ideology, you're not allowed to enter. So apparently it's okay to have
border controls when they're running the world.
They're doing everything they profess to be against. Hilarious.
@Brian Reilly "anonymous, I have been encouraging cops to quit for a long time."
Dude, why? I don't want to get jacked by some thug or some immigrant policeman from
Honduras. And I can't defend myself because it would be a hate crime.
There are underlying motives, or "hidden agendas", beneath the authentic struggle for
justice. The greatest motive is for power: either to retain it or gain it. The need or desire
for power can be identified in every conflict in history. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@Realist So you think that everything they've done to Trump has been one big show and
he's been in on it? The pussy tape, Stormy Daniels, spying on his campaign, the leaking, the
Steele Dossier, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, his impeachment, lying to the FISA Courts by the
FBI, CIA's involvement, Mueller Report, DNC server, Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac,
fake news media, sanctuary cities, courts disobeying his executive orders, Covid-19, protests
– all of it has been a ruse to fool us into thinking that Trump is a legitimate
opposition?
What, it's better to have the citizens split politically 50/50? That way there's never a
majority who start throwing their weight around and making trouble for the elite looters?
Keep the people fighting among each other and divided?
Trump has gone through all of this, but he's just faking it? Are we Truman from the Truman
Show?
I guess you could be right, but what if you're not? What if Trump is actually an outsider?
He's never really ever been part of the elite, not really. If he is truly an outsider, then
these people have been a party to an attempted coup against a duly-elected President.
And if so, then that's sedition and they should hang.
@PetrOldSack Trump is just a puppet, well maybe a bit more, of the part of the MIC and
Deep State that apparently has a different agenda. This is not to say that they are "good
people" but they seem to want to keep the US as a functioning republic and a major power.
Maybe they have some plans re the other group(s) in the elites that are extremely dangerous
for those groups. Which would explain why those groups ("globalists") want to remove those
elements of influence people behind Trump get from the fact that he is the president. This
explains why fake Covid-19 was so pumped by the media and when that apparently did not work
they moved on to BLM "color revolution". It is interesting how all of this plays out, as it
will decide the fate of the world. Ironically, Xi, Putin and other leaders that represent
groups wanting to maintain (some) sovereignty of their states have a common enemy, even as
their states are in competition, namely "globalist" elements within their own power
structures.
One of the goals of the British security service, MI5, is to control the leader or deputy
leader of any subversive organisation larger than a football team. The same is likely true in
every country.
The typical criticism of MI5 is that it is too passive, and does not use its knowledge to
close down hostile groups. In Algeria, the opposite happened: the Algerian security service
infiltrated the most extreme Islamist group in the 1990s and aggravated the country's civil
war by committing massacres, with the goal of creating public revulsion for the
Islamists.
This range of possibilities makes it hard to figure out what the Deep State and other
manipulators are doing.
@Sean Frey is a weak Leftist. The equally weak Governor (another Leftie) needed to handle
the situation. He didn't. Trump told him that the feds would help if he asked; he didn't.
This is all on the state and local governments. They did nothing except to tell the cops
to stand down while the city got looted and burned.
If Trump had sent in the military, they would have screamed blue murder. They probably
would have called for his impeachment. Of course, that's what they wanted Trump to do. Thank
goodness Trump didn't fall for their trap.
So the NYT has joined the vanguard af the American People's Revolution?! People change sides
and not all organisations are uniform, even the CIA. There has to be some organisation to
these protests and whoever is providing it, I doubt the protesters are complaining, but want
even more of it, and for it to be more effective, widespread and to grow. And finding
protesters is no problem now or in the future considering the state of the economy, business
closures, rising unemployment, expensive education. What are all these young people supposed
to do? Sit at home playing video games, surfing porn, watching TV? Or go on a holiday? Now in
these circumstances? I guess they're bored with all that so they may as well hit the streets
and stay on the streets as they'll be on the streets anyway when they get evicted because
they can't pay the rent. And as they're being impoverished they may as well steal what they
can. And obviously they don't fear arrest and are happy to get a criminal record since even a
clean sheet won't get them a job in the failing economy, and they know that. I'm sure many
want a solution that will provide for their future. But who is providing it? So it's on them
to create it. Of course politicians will want to use them and manipulate them for their own
ends. And the elites, and the deep state too. And sure there are Jews in it as in anything.
And sure they're fat, ugly, and degenerate – they're Americans reflecting their own
society. But where it goes nobody knows
@Mike Whitney "Is Antifa a group of deep state agitators? That's the question."
99% of them wouldn't have a clue as to any larger strategic direction. Sorry,
but to repeat myself: "useful idiots".
"Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement?"
Well, duh! It seems likely that the entire George Floyd murder on camera was a staged
event, its even possible that he/it was never really killed. See:
PSYOP? George Floyd "death" was faked by crisis actors to engineer revolutionary riots,
video authors say
" Numerous videos are now surfacing that directly question the authenticity of the claimed
"death" of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. Several trending videos appear to reveal
striking inconsistencies in the official explanations behind the reported death of Floyd.
These videos appear to reinforce the idea that the George Floyd incident was, if not entirely
falsified, most definitely planned and rigged in advance. It is already confirmed that the
Obama Foundation was tweeting about George Floyd more than a week before he is claimed to
have died. "
"Obviously, since Barack Obama doesn't own a time machine, the only way the Obama
Foundation could have tweeted about George Floyd a week before his death is it the entire
event was planned in advanced.
Note: We do not endorse every claim in each of the videos shown below, but we believe the
public has the right to hear dissenting views that challenge the official narratives, and we
believe public debate that incorporates views from all sides of a particular issue offers
inherent merit for public discourse.
Numerous video authors are now spotting stunning inconsistencies in the viral videos that
claim to show white cops murdering George Floyd in broad daylight. Without exception, these
video authors, many of whom are black, believe:
at least one of the "police officers" was actually a hired crisis actor who has appeared
in other staged events in recent years.
that the black man depicted in the viral videos is not, in fact, an individual named
George Floyd.
that the responding medical personnel were not EMTs but were in fact mere crisis actors
wearing police costumes.
Each of the video authors shown below reveals still images and video clips that they say
support their claims. Here's an overview of some of the most intriguing videos and the
summary of what those videos are saying: .":
@Mike Whitney I think you are correct Mike. IF blm got $100 million from anyone it
follows that they are beholden -- & the only entities capable of such "generosity" are
"establishment" it therefore follows that BLM are beholden (controlled) by the establishment
( .the deep state .)
Now the New York Times thinks that the black, brown, white and yellow lives are dispensable
does it mean their own GRAY lives matter more to the rest of us? No, it does not!
The scale and coordination alone suggests that elements in the deep state are probably
involved.
It seems right and logical.
But what I don't understand, is why the deep state elite don't understand that in the end the
collapse of the "traditional society" will touch them too in their private life. In the long
run the ruining of the US will ruin everybody in the US including them. Don't they get it ?
Maybe they are intoxicated by their own lies are are begining to lose their lucidity. Like Al
Pacino intoxicated by his own coke in scarface.
@MrFoSquare What we need are some solid numbers:
How many arrested? (& who are they?)
How many properties destroyed?
Dollars worth of damage?
Which cities had the worst damage?
A social media "history" of protest/riot posting ?
Where/who are responsible for brick/frozen water bottle stashes?
Travel histories of notable offenders?
Links between "protesters" & the media ?
Money? Who/what/when/how was all this funded on a day-to-day basis.
And so on.
Mike Whitney doesn't know the first thing. It takes a lot of organizing time and personnel to
properly prepare and lead in the field any large public protest. There are people experienced
in this. Getting them together and deploying their capability is required.
These protests are classic unplanned, spontaneous actions. At least the first major wave
of them. Only after some time will parties try to lead, organize. Or manipulate.
First thing, it's like trying to herd cats. So, you need marshals. Lots of them. Ably led,
and clearly seen. Just to try and steer a protest down one street or to some point. You need
first aid available, provision for seniors and children. Water. Knowledgeable people to deal
with the media.
People who know what they're doing to deal with senior police. With city transit, buses,
taxis. Hospitals, road construction, fire departments. A good protest cleans itself up too so
provide the means for that. Loudspeakers, music – all this an more has to be organized.
By some people.
And 100% of this or even a hint of organizing is not evident at these protests. And the
evidence is easy to see. Organizers advertise too for volunteers. Everything in plain sight
for those with eyes to see.
If you are stupid enough to think that some handful of fruitcakes from some official
agency could even find their way to a protest, actually have a clue how to conduct themselves
and not get laughed at or just ignored – there's no hope for you. You know nothing
about protests and are pedalling fantasy.
@obwandiyag As usual, you're completely delusional. Most police departments are in the
exact same boat as the municipalities that fund them: one downturn (like, say, a public
lockdown followed by public disorder and looting) from going right to the wall.
There won't be any need to "defund" police; most of America's cities and towns are soon to
be on the bread line, looking for those Ctrl-P federal dollars. Quarterly deficits of twenty
trillion, here we come!
@Thomasina The power elite have different factions and they fight each other to a point,
but they do not try to expose each other. This is why none of Trump enemies are going to be
put in prison.
This is why Trump supports don't know what Genie Engery is, not that they would care.
The scum Trump appointed should tell you what side he's on.
I don't know if Antifa is run directly by the three-letter FedGov agencies. But I do know
that the university is the breeding ground for these vermin, and all universities, even
"private" ones, are largely funded by the governmnent, and are tax exempt.
@schnellandine The Hispanics in America are similar to waves of Italians in the late 19th
and early 20th Centuries, except the numbers are far larger and never ending, which impacts
assimilation. The Hispanics are the ones doing the hard physical labor for low pay, and they
are the ones in American society to invest in learning the skill to perform some of those
backbreaking, low paying jobs well. They are the Super Marios of today. Many of them ply
their trades as small businessmen. They are thankful for their jobs and the people they
serve.
Many are loving, salt-of-the-earth type people who genuinely love their blanco friends.
Howard Stern thinks their music sucks but at least they sing songs about el corazon, music of
the heart and of love. (No one is comparable to the Italians in that department, but what do
you suppose happened to the beautiful love music produced by black male vocalists as late as
a generation ago?) Except for the fact that Hispanics come from countries with long
traditions of corrupt, El Patron governments which unfortunately they want to enact here as a
social safety net, they are often traditional in their attitudes about religion and family.
Of course, they get in drunken brawls, abuse their women, and the graft and incompetence in
their institutions can be outrageous. The reason they flee here is because the world they've
created themselves in the shithole places they've leaving isn't as good as the West created
by Caucasian cultures. The law abiding, decent family people I'm speaking of prosper
alongside of whites and many come to recognize that whites and Hispanics can build a common
destiny that's far preferable to the direction black agitators are taking blacks in America.
So you think that everything they've done to Trump has been one big show and he's been
in on it? The pussy tape, Stormy Daniels, spying on his campaign, the leaking, the Steele
Dossier, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, his impeachment, lying to the FISA Courts by the FBI,
CIA's involvement, Mueller Report, DNC server, Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac,
fake news media, sanctuary cities, courts disobeying his executive orders, Covid-19,
protests – all of it has been a ruse to fool us into thinking that Trump is a
legitimate opposition?
Absolutely.
Keep the people fighting among each other and divided?
Yes, but the elite do not fear the majority they are in complete control through
insouciance and stupidity on the majority.
I guess you could be right, but what if you're not? What if Trump is actually an
outsider?
He's not his actions and inactions are impossible to logically explain away he is a minion
of the Deep State.
The protest movement is directed and controlled by the same zionists who control the
government and their goal is the destruction of America and they are being allowed to do the
wrecking and destruction that they are doing, as this helps full fill the zionist communist
takeover of America.
To see where this is leading read up on the bolshevik-communist revolution in Russia and
the communist revolution in China and Cuba and Cambodia, and there is the future of
America.
@Christophe GJ They enjoy human suffering. Who knows maybe their compensation is linked
to dead bodies. The deep state types will dwell in gate communities that will never be
breached. The perks of owning both segments of the "opposition." As for the CIA's owners, a
sharp depopulation has been their goal for some time. Why it has to be so ghoulish and
prolong is anyone's guess.
@Brian Reilly "To the issue at hand, black people should only be policed, arrested,
charged, prosecuted, defended, judged, and (if found guilty) punished by other blacks."
Yeah, some city tried that. To try to satisfy the "Get White police out of our
neighborhoods" they did -- they re-orged and sent only black cops into black neighborhoods,
and let the White cops police the White neighborhoods. And the BLACK POLICE SUED to end that!
They were, they claimed (and legitimately, too!) being treated unfairly by making THEM police
the most violent, the most dangerous, the most deadly neighborhoods, and "protecting" the
White cops from that duty by letting only the White cops work the nice neighborhoods. They
WON too!
(note: "IKAGO" = "I know a good one." the all-too-often excuse from the unawakened!)
=====================
I don't mourn the loss of Baltimore. Or Detroit, Chicago, Gary, Atlanta, etc etc etc.
It is ultimately a huge benefit to have Negroes concentrated in these huge teeming Petri
dishes.
As always I advocate the complete White withdrawal from these horrible urban sh_tholes,
and as always I advocate that since Negroes do not want to be policed, to immediately stop
policing them.
And to anyone who might be naive enough to say "hey, there are good people in those
neighborhoods, who try to work and raise their kids, who obey the law and who abhor the
lawlessness and rioting as much as anyone" . my response is that these same IKAGO's voted for
a Negro president, for Negro mayors, Negro city council members, Negro police chiefs and
Negro school superintendents, and now they are getting exactly what they deserve, good and
effing hard.
I have ZERO sympathy for blacks.
=====================
And the new rule:
Remember when seconds count, the police are not even obligated to respond.
Of course "deep state elements" operate in protests! What A STUPID question, Whitney. All
kinds of political tricksters, manipulators, provocateurs, idiots, fools, people suffering
from ennui, you name it Mike, they're involved. And yes, the murder of the black man in
Minneapolis was the trigger.
That's not the only cause of social unrest. There are lots of reasons that drive the
displeasure of the mass of people and it's not the silly "deep state". Before you use that
term, if you want any sort of salute from intelligent people, you need to define your terms.
Or are just just waving a red flag so you can attract a bunch of stupid Trumpsters?
There's a whole lot of deep state out there, good buddy. Just examine the federal budget
and whatever money you cannot assign to a particular institution or specific purpose, that is
funding your your "deep state". It's billions and billions. But there is no Wizard of Oz
behind the curtain to spend it all on nefarious purposes. Sure, the deep state destroyed the
WTC and killed a few thousand people. These hidden operators can do things civilians can only
imagine, but they cannot create movements, Whitney. You just can't fool all of the people all
of the time.
Are you having a touch of brain degeneration, Mike, like dear autocrat in the White
House?
A great article. While Trump may have some ties to the Deep State, I doubt very much that he
is their puppet. He won the nomination because he was against some of the Deep States key
policies. He even tried to implement his policies but mostly failed due to traitors in his
administration and all the coordinated coup attempts.
One recent development that causes me to think that this article is spot on is the blatant
attacks by retired generals and even currently serving generals against a sitting president.
Even Defense Sec. Esper (the Raytheon lobbyist) criticized Trump's comments on the
Insurrection Act, which was totally unnecessary since Trump only said that he had the
authority to use it.
The coordinated criticism of the generals just reminds me of how similar it is to the
coordinated effort by the CIA, FBI, State Department and NSA to use the Russiagate hoax and
impeachment hoax to remove Trump. The riots, the money funneled from BLM to Biden 2020,
support of Antifa by the MSM and the generals treasonous actions are not coincidences.
I'm surprised by the generally low level of the responses.
Mr. Whitney:
There haven't been 'millions' of protestors, maybe some thousands.
Please list the "valid grievances" that negros hold concerning the cops; are the cops
supposed to raise black IQ? These riots need to be suppressed pronto; don't waste your time
waiting for the fat orange buffoon to do anything.
Negros have no 'communities', and never will.
I'm wondering why Mr. Unz thinks he is required to let leftists like Whitney post
here.
(1)-There is a 'deep state'
(2)-(1) does NOT imply that negros are a noble race.
The opening statement is quite true. They've apparently been organizing under the radar for
some years now. Diversity is our greatest weakness and these fissures that run through the
country can be exploited. Blacks have been weaponized and used as the spearpoint along with
the more purposeful real Antifa (lots of wannabes walking around clad in black). Everything
has really been well coordinated and the Gene Sharp playbook followed. These 'color
revolution' employees are actually all over the globe, funded by various front groups and
NGOs. The money trail often leads to various billionaires like the ubiquitous Soros but
people like that may just be acting as fronts themselves. Supposed leftists working against
the interests of the value producing working class?
The George Floyd murder was a obviously a wholly staged Deep State event, complete with
the usual crisis actors, as this video summary clearly illustrates :
@Brian Reilly"To the issue at hand, black people should only be policed, arrested,
charged, prosecuted, defended, judged, and (if found guilty) punished by other blacks. No
white person should have anything to do with it. "
And when these same blacks attack or steal from a White person, which they often do, do
you think they'll get a just punishment from their fellow blacks or a high five?
The solution to the black problem is complete separation, there is no other way.
@Mike Whitney But why do you assume the CIA wants to get rid of Trump? Isn't that
tantamount to judging a book by its cover? Americans have been on to the evil shenanigans of
the intelligence community for decades. Trump is nothing more than controlled opposition and
a false sense of security for "patriots". One needs look no further than the prognostications
of Q to see that Trump is the beneficiary of deep state propaganda. The CIA's modus operandi,
together with the rest of the IC, is to deceive. So if they appear to be doing one thing
(fighting Trump) you can be sure they intend the opposite.
Americans are nose deep in false dichotomies, and Trump is a pole par excellence. Despite
his flagrant history as an NYC liberal, putative fat cat, swindler, and network television
superstar, he is now depicted as either a populist outsider, or a literal Nazi. The simple
fact is that he is an actor and confidence artist. He is playing a role, and he is playing to
both sides of the aisle, and his work is to deceive the entirety of the American public,
together with the mockingbird media, which is merely the yin to his pathetic yang.
Too many Americans think they have a choice, or a chance, by simply minding their own
business, consuming their media of choice, and voting. In fact, Americans are face to face
with the end of their history, as the country has been systematically looted for decades, and
will soon be demolished as it is no longer profitable to the oligarchs who manage the globe.
Obama-Trump is a 1-2 knockout punch.
@Uomiem That's a good point, and it's of the main problems I do have with Trump: his
cabinet picks and financial backers (Adelsen, Singer, et al.). But in fairness, what happens
when he tries to pick someone who's not approved by the system? Well, if they're cabinet
officers, they'll never get approved by the senate. And even if they're not, they will be
driven out of the White House somehow–just like Gen. Flynn and Steve Bannon. In short,
when it comes to staffing, Trump's choices are limited by the same swamp he's fighting. Sad
but true
@Thomasina Interesting comments by the Duran but I cannot find any evidence of a direct
investment by the CIA in Facebook. The CIA's investment arm, In-Q-Tel, did invest in early
Facebook investor Peter Theil's company Palantir and other companies. Also, Graylock Partners
were also early investors in Facebook along with Peter Theil and the head of Graylock is
Howard Cox who served on In-Q-Tel's board of directors. But these are indirect inferences.
Unlike the clear and direct investment of the CIA in the company that was eventually
purchased by Google and is now called Google Earth, I can't find any evidence of a direct
investment by the CIA in Facebook. I have no doubt it's true since it's a perfect tool for
data gathering. Do you have any direct evidence of such an investment?
Is the Deep State stage-managing the "BLM" protests to further an agenda? Absolutely.
The main influence of the Deep State is felt in its complete dominance of the controlled
media.
Like mantras handed down by the commissars, the mainstream media keep repeating key
phrases to narrowly define what's happening: "mostly peaceful protests", "anti-black
racism".
The media is an organ of the Deep State. The Deep State will decide when the protests will
end, and when that day arrives, the media will suddenly pivot on cue like a school of fish or
a flock of birds.
Perhaps some non believers in the Deep State would like to explain why the multi trillion
dollar corporations in America are supporting BLM, Antifa and other anarchy groups since on
the face of it anarchy would be antithetical to these corporations?
Hint: The wealthy and powerful (aka Deep State) know that anarchy divides a populous
thereby removing their ability to resist their true enemy and even more draconian laws. The
die is being cast at this moment and the complete subjugation of the American people will,
probably, be effectuate by the end of this year. A full court press is under way and life is
about to change for 99% of the American people.
If you disagree with my hint correct it.
Too many Americans think they have a choice, or a chance, by simply minding their own
business, consuming their media of choice, and voting. In fact, Americans are face to face
with the end of their history, as the country has been systematically looted for decades,
and will soon be demolished as it is no longer profitable to the oligarchs who manage the
globe. Obama-Trump is a 1-2 knockout punch.
Your points are excellent. All tragic, devastating events in the last, at least, 20
years have been staged or played to facilitate the total control by the Deep State.
The problem is power – and the nature of those who lust for it. The police are very
powerful, by necessity and the nature of police work is the exercise of power – on the
street.
Not to mention the fact that police forces, like every other institution, are managed from
the top. Sgt. Bernstein back at the station calls the shots, gets to decide who is hired /
fired and generally runs the department like a CEO runs a company. Not all cops are rotten,
but if Sgt. Bernstein is a scumbag, the whole department tends to behave as a scumbag.
I'll give you two guesses, the second one doesn't count, as to which tribe of psychopaths
– who call themselves "chosen" – have mastered the art of playing both sides
against the middle, using the police as a very powerful tool to accomplish an ancient agenda
of world-domination, straight out of The Torah.
The police are just another sad story of the destruction of America, by Shlomo.
@Mike Whitney Any explanation that ignores that the catalyst for what is happening is the
Federal Reserve Notes free fall is not a good explanation.
This is a failed Communist Putsch. The people pushing it have enough control of major
cities to keep it alive but not enough to push it into the heartland. 400 million guns and a
few billion bullets are protecting freedom in the USA just like they were intended to.
All failed communist revolutions end in fascism taking power. The Yahoo news comments
sections are way to big to censor properly and they are already taking on a Fascist tone with
almost half the posters. This is only just beginning and most people are beginning to
understand that these lies non whites tell about the fake systemic racism are too dangerous
to go unchallenged. The idea that the protests ,the protests not the riots, have no
foundation in truth is starting to work its way to the forefront of white peoples minds.
Non whites are coddled by the establishment in the USA and no real racists have any power
in the USA so this whole thing is and has been for 50 years based on lies.
The jew mob is going to lose all their economic power over the next year or so as the Fed
Note hyper-inflates. The mob knows this and made a grab for ideological power using low IQ
ungrateful non whites they have been inculcating with anti white ideals for decades as their
foot soldiers.
They are screwed because the places they control are parasitic just like they are. Cities
are full of people making nothing and pretty much just doing service jobs for each other. All
the things needed to keep cities going come from outside the cities and the jew mob is not in
charge in the places that actually produce things. Not like they are in the cities
anyway.
Ignoring the currency rises makes you dishonest Mike.
I think the leadership and tactics of the police are deplorable. I can only surmise that the
local political leadership in many cities is on the inside of this latest scam.
The police should be able to launch attacks on the crowd to single out those who are
Antifa activists. That is what the riot police in France would do. They should try to ignore
the rabble behind which these activists are sheltering.
By remaining on the defensive and without using the element of surprise to capture these
activists, the police are sitting ducks.
My dad told me what it was like in Cairo when the centre of the city was destroyed in
1952. I was tiny at that time and remember my mother carrying me. We watched Cairo burning in
the distance. We were on the roof of the huge house of my Egyptian grandfather in
Heliopolis.
The looters and arsonists were well-equipped. It was not by any means spontaneous. They
smashed the locks on the draw-down shutters of the shops with sledge hammers. Next, they
looted the shop. Lastly, they tossed in Molotov cocktails. The commercial heart of Cairo was
largely destroyed in a few hours. Cinemas and the Casino were burnt. Cairo was a very
pleasant metropolis in those days. It became prosperous during WW2 by supplying the
Allies.
My family's small factory was in the very centre of Cairo – in Abbassia. My father
rounded up his workers to defend the factory. Many lived on the premises. They were all tough
Sa'idi from Upper
Egypt. Many were Coptic Christians. They all had large staffs that they knew how to use. The
arsonists and looters kept well clear.
JUNE 9, 2020 CityLab University: A Timeline of U.S. Police Protests
The latest protests against police violence toward African Americans didn't appear out of
nowhere. They're rooted in generations of injustice and systemic racism.
@Sean said:
"While it is a possibility that whites could lose control of their society, and see it fall
into the hands of an explicitly anti -[r]acist elite/ minorities alliance,"
"Anti-racist?
The entire matter is "explicit" racism directed against Euro-whites.
@gay troll "But why do you assume the CIA wants to get rid of Trump?"
John Brennan collaborated with James Comey on the Russian collusion narrative. Brennan is
indicative of the upper-echelon CIA and its orientation towards the globalist billionaire
class.
@Loup-Bouc Maybe you also noticed that the opening pages of the article suggested that
the author was unhinged when he made so much of an alleged editorial in the NYT which wasn't
an editorial but an opinion piece by an activist. And what about the spontaneous eruptions of
protest all round the world? Masterminded by the US "Deep State"? Absurd.
Mr. Whitney may have got to an age when he can no longer understand the young and their
latest fashionable fatuities and follies.
@obwandiyag " The assholes on this asshole site will not let you say that what is
important is how the super-billionaires control us. "
Nonsense, I rant against the largely Jewish super-billionaires all the time.
Truth is that blacks and working class whites are in relatively similar positions compared
to the 1%. We should be seeking alliances with people like Rev. Farrakhan, but instead, for
some curious reason, big Jewish money is pouring into keeping racial grievances alive and
kicking. It looks very much like a divide and conquer strategy.
Where did the antiwar and Occupy Wall Street movements go after Obama's election? My guess
is that the financial elite saw the danger of having OWS ask questions about the bailouts, so
they devoted a ton of time and energy into pushing racial grievance politics, gender neutral
bathrooms and the like. Their co-ethnics in the media collaborated with them in making sure
only one perspective made the news.
PS: if you don't like the website, simply avoid visiting it. Trust me, no one will miss
your inane posts.
"90% of Americans are unlikely to even see more than ten black people in their entire
lives."
I sure hope you're talking about IRL, because I see more than ten black people in any
commercial break on any TV show on any cable or network TV station every hour of every day.
In fact, it's at least 50/50 B/W and it feels more like 60/40 B/W. And it's always the blacks
who are in charge, the whites spill chips all over the kitchen floor
@SunBakedSuburb 15 seasons of The Apprentice on NBC is indicative of Trump's
orientation towards the globalist billionaire class. It sure was nice of NBC to thus
rehabilitate Trump's image after it became clear he was a cheat who could not even hold down
a casino. From fake wrestler to fake boardroom CEO, Trump has ALWAYS been made for TV.
As for Russiagate, it was a transparent crock of shit from the moment Clapper sent his
uncorrobated assertions under the aegis of "17 intelligence agencies". You assume the point
of the charade was to "get Trump", but really Russiagate was designed to deceive "liberals"
just as Q was designed to deceive "conservatives". It is the appearance of conflict that
serves to divide Americans into two camps who both believe the other is at fault for all of
society's ills. In fact, it is the Zionists and bankers who are to blame for society's ills,
and like the distraction of black vs. white, Democrat vs. Republican keeps everybody's
attention away from the real chauvinists and criminals.
@Sean Well, I can't deny that yours is an extremely original interpretation. It sure made
me think. I can't say I'm convinced, though it doesn't seem to have any conspicuous a priori
inconsistency with facts. I guess time will tell.
@Realist Agree. Someone posted he had a friend at Minneapolis airport. Incoming planes
were full of antifa types the day after Floyd died.
They are very well organized. They are notorious around universities. Well, not
universities in dangerous black neighborhoods. They live like students in crowded apartments
and organize all their movements. Plenty of dumb kids to recruit. Plenty of downwardly mobile
White grads who can't get jobs or into grad s hook because they're White. Those Whites go
into liberal rabble rousing instead of rabble rousing against affirmative action, so
brainwashed are they. Portland is a college town. That's why antifa is so well organized
there. Seattle's a college town too as is Chicago.
Why ANTIFA doesn't loot banks, doesn't stand in front od Soros home, JPMorgan headquarters,
big corporations, Bezos business .etc? Because rich are paying for riots ..the same way they
payed to support Hitler during WWII.
@Anon Thanks for highlighting the complex racial politics -- in this case between
Hispanics and Africans. That was something Ron Unz got right as well -- independently of the
numerology -- in the other article; basically saying that there have been a lot of various
social-engineering projects going on.
Naturally I'm liable for everything else you said ;/ no comment, no contest,
I think it will be alright if we can get back to basics, natural rights, republican
representative organization, pluralism, etc The corporate nightmare has everyone crammed into
a vat of human resources. Undo that, see how it goes, then take it from there.
@Mike Whitney The reason most of the rioters arrested were native New Yorkers is that
they were the useful idiots designated fall guys.
The organizers are adept at changing clothes hats and sunglasses. Their job is to get
things started by smashing windows of a Nike's store and running away letting a few looters
be arrested.
I remember something written by an Indian communist, not Indian nationalist How To Start a
Riot in the 1920s.
1 Start rumors about abuse of Indians by British.
2. Decide where to start the riots.
3 Best place is in the open air markets around noon. The merchants will have collected
substantial money. The local lay abouts will be up and about.
4 Instigators start fights with the merchants raid cash boxes overturn tables and the riot is
on.
The ancient Roman politicians started riots that way. It's standard procedure in every
country in every era. All this fuss and discussion by the idiot intelligentsia is ridiculous
as is everything the idiot intelligentsia thinks, writes and does.
We Americans experience a black riot every few years, just as we experience floods,
droughts, blizzards , earthquakes, forest fires, tornadoes floods and hurricanes.
As long as we have blacks and liberal alleged intellectuals we'll have riots.
Ending Emergency Unemployment Insurance Supplements
By DEAN BAKER
The Republicans have been working hard to ensure that the $600 weekly supplement to
unemployment insurance benefits, which was put in place as part of the pandemic rescue
package, is not extended beyond the current July 31 cutoff. They argue that we need
people to return to work.
They do have a point. The supplement is equivalent to pay of $15 an hour for someone
working a 40-hour week, and this is in addition to a regular benefit that is typically
equal to 40 to 50 percent of workers' pay. The supplement translates into an even larger
hourly pay rate for workers putting in shorter workweeks, which was the case for most
laid off workers in the restaurant and retail sectors.
It is hard for employers in traditionally low paying sectors to match these pay rates.
Even those of us who are big proponents of higher minimum wages would not advocate a jump
to more than $20 an hour at a point when businesses are crippled by the pandemic.
However, there is also the point that we don't want workers to have to expose
themselves to the coronavirus. That was the reason for the generous supplement. We wanted
to make sure that workers, who in many cases were legally prevented from working, did not
suffer as a result.
There is an obvious solution here. Suppose we reduce or end the supplement in areas
where the pandemic is under control.
This would not be determined by some Trumpian declaration that the pandemic is over,
but by solid data. The obvious metric would be positive test rates. Suppose that the
supplement was reduced or eliminated in states or counties where the positive test rate
is less than 5 percent. (This may not be the right rate.) This would mean that workers
going back to work would face relatively little risk of contracting the virus. It would
also give states incentive to conduct vigorous testing programs, as well as other control
measures, in order to get their positive rates down.
Our unemployment insurance system is badly broken and it would be desirable to have
more generous benefits, and also to focus more on work sharing, as other countries have
done. We can recognize this point and still agree that an arbitrary supplement to all
benefits is not the right long-term fix even if it was very good policy in the
pandemic.
Too bad, but # blacklivesmatter per
its core organization @ Blklivesmatter just torpedoed itself,
with its full-fledged support of # defundthepolice
: "We call for a national defunding of police." Suuuure. They knew this is non-starter, and tried a sensible Orwell 1984
of saying,
Uhlig now faces a social media campaign, led by a prominent University of Michigan economist, to get him booted as editor of the
Journal of Political Economy . Here is another leader of the professional lynch mob:
I am calling for the resignation of Harald Uhlig ( @ haralduhlig
) as the editor of the Journal of Political Economy. If you would like to add your name to this call, it is posted at
https:// forms.gle/9uiJVqCAXBDBg6 8N9 . It will be delivered by end of
day 6/10 (tomorrow).
To: The editors of the Journal of Political Economy and President of The University of Chicago Press We, the undersigned,
call for the resignation of Harald Uhlig, the Bruce Allen and Barbara...
There has been a rash of firings of editors this week. One interesting thing - judging by the publications listed and by the
cringing, groveling apologies given by these editors, they are liberals who are being eaten by up-and-coming radicals. It's like
the liberals had no idea what hit them.
I used to worry the future would be like "1984". Then the Soviet Union fell, things seemed OK tor awhile. After 9/11, I worried
the future would be like "Khartoum". But now, it looks like it is going to be a weird combination of "Invasion of the Body-Snatchers"
and "Planet of the Apes".
Now seeing reports on Twitter that the Seattle Autonomous Zone now has its first warlord. America truly is a diverse place.
You have hippie communes, religious sects, semi-autonomous Indian reservations, a gerontocracy in Washington, and now your very
own Africa style fiefdom complete with warlord.
I really am sorry. This must be so depressing to watch as an American.
Arizona State journalism school retracts offer to new dean because of an "insensitive" tweets and comments - by insensitive
we mean, not sufficiently zealous and not hip to the full-spectrum wokeness. Online student petitions follow, and you know the
rest of the story.
This is madness. The true late stages of a revolution where they start eating their own.
Those tweets above (and countless others like them) just demonstrate the absolute intellectual and moral rot that now reigns
in academia. I saw one yesterday by an attorney for a prominent activist organization who said he couldn't understand why the
Constitution isn't interpreted as "requiring" the demolition of the Robert E. Lee statue in Virginia, and others like it. I'm
having a harder time understanding how he ever graduated from an accredited law school.
Forget "defund the police," perhaps "defund universities" would be the best place to start healing what ails contemporary culture.
The rot started there, not only with the "anti-racist" (as opposed to "mere" non-racism) cant, it with gender ideology (Judith
Butler), Cultural Marxism, etc. When "pc" first became a common term in the early '90s I thought it passing fad. We now see the
result of the decades long radical march through the institutions bearing fruit, and it's more strange and rotten fruit than ever.
Woke leftists are the people who believe in the myth of aggregate Black intellectual parity with Whites and Asians the least.
That's why they constantly do absolutely everything in their power to juke the statistics, like allowing Black students to not
have to take exams, which is really just an extension of this same principle at work in "affirmative action."
The French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, the Khmer Rouge--100,000,000 people were murdered
in the name of extreme egalitarianism across the 20th century. When leftism gets out of control, tragedy happens.
I have no idea why you believe hard totalitarian methods aren't coming. I'm not sure what the answer is. We can expect no help
from the Republican party. That much is certain. A disturbing number of people have not yet awoken from their dogmatic slumber.
Who is Amy Siskind going to call to arrest Tucker Carlson and bring him to a tribunal? The defunded police?
It seems to me that the left has gone about this bassackwards. First you ashcan the Second Amendment, THEN you take away their
First Amendment Rights. You most certainly do not go around silencing people with political correctness, then go around announcing
your intention to kulak an entire group of very well-armed people. But that's just my opinion...
Rod, I disagree that a "soft totalitarianism" is what awaits us if these barbarians are allowed to run around unopposed. The
notion of human rights is a product of the religion they despise, so I see no reason why they would respect this ideal when dealing
with vile white wreckers of the multi-cultural utopia they have envisioned.
"... Moreover, people do distinguish between needs and wants. Americans need to eat, but they mostly don't need to eat out. They don't need to travel. Restaurant owners and airlines therefore have two problems: they can't cover costs while their capacity is limited for public-health reasons, and demand would be down even if the coronavirus disappeared. This explains why many businesses are not reopening even though they legally can. Others are reopening, but fear they cannot hold out for long. And the many millions of workers in America's vast services sector are realizing that their jobs are simply not essential. ..."
"... America's economic plight is structural. It is not simply the consequence of Trump's incompetence or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's poor political strategy. It reflects systemic changes over 50 years that have created an economy based on global demand for advanced goods, consumer demand for frills, and ever-growing household and business debts. This economy was in many ways prosperous, and it provided jobs and incomes to many millions. Yet it was a house of cards, and COVID-19 has blown it down. ..."
In the 1960s, the US had a balanced economy that produced goods for both businesses and
households, at all levels of technology, with a fairly small (and tightly regulated) financial
sector. It produced largely for itself, importing mainly commodities.
Today, the US produces for the world, mainly advanced investment goods and services, in
sectors such as aerospace, information technology, arms, oilfield services, and finance. And it
imports far more consumer goods, such as clothing, electronics, cars, and car parts, than it
did a half-century ago.
And whereas cars, televisions, and household appliances drove US consumer demand in the
1960s, a much larger share of domestic spending today goes (or went) to restaurants, bars,
hotels, resorts, gyms, salons, coffee shops, and tattoo parlors, as well as college tuition and
doctor's visits. Tens of millions of Americans work in these sectors.
Finally, American household spending in the 1960s was powered by rising wages and growing
home equity. But wages have been largely stagnant since at least 2000, and spending increases
since 2010 were powered by rising personal and corporate debts. House values are now stagnant
at best, and will likely fall in the months ahead.
Mainstream economics pays little attention to such structural questions. Instead, it assumes
that business investment responds mostly to the consumer, whose spending is dictated equally by
income and desire. The distinction between "essential" and "superfluous" does not exist. Debt
burdens are largely ignored.
But demand for many US-made capital goods now depends on global conditions. Orders for new
aircraft will not recover while half of all existing planes are grounded. At current prices,
the global oil industry is not drilling new wells. Even at home, though existing construction
projects may be completed, plans for new office towers or retail outlets won't be launched
soon. And as people commute less, cars will last longer, so demand for them (and gasoline) will
suffer.
Faced with radical uncertainty, US consumers will save more and spend less. Even if the
government replaces their lost incomes for a time, people know that stimulus is short term.
What they do not know is when the next job offer – or layoff – will come along.
Moreover, people do distinguish between needs and wants. Americans need to eat, but they
mostly don't need to eat out. They don't need to travel. Restaurant owners and airlines
therefore have two problems: they can't cover costs while their capacity is limited for
public-health reasons, and demand would be down even if the coronavirus disappeared. This
explains why many businesses are not reopening even though they legally can. Others are
reopening, but fear they cannot hold out for long. And the many millions of workers in
America's vast services sector are realizing that their jobs are simply not essential.
Meanwhile, US household debts – rent, mortgage, and utility arrears, as well as
interest on education and car loans – have continued to mount. True, stimulus checks have
helped: defaults have so far been modest, and many landlords have been accommodating. But as
people face long periods with lower incomes, they will continue to hoard funds to ensure that
they can repay their fixed debts. As if all this were not enough, falling sales- and income-tax
revenues are prompting US state and local governments to cut spending, compounding the loss of
jobs and incomes.
America's economic plight is structural. It is not simply the consequence of Trump's
incompetence or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's poor political strategy. It reflects systemic
changes over 50 years that have created an economy based on global demand for advanced goods,
consumer demand for frills, and ever-growing household and business debts. This economy was in
many ways prosperous, and it provided jobs and incomes to many millions. Yet it was a house of
cards, and COVID-19 has blown it down.
"Reopen America" is therefore an economic and political fantasy. Incumbent politicians crave
a cheery growth rebound, and the depth of the collapse makes possible some attractive
short-term numbers. But taking them seriously will merely set the stage for a new round of
disillusion. As nationwide protests against systemic racism and police brutality show,
disillusion is America's one big growth sector right now.
Tucker: "Is our nation being ripped apart by a total and complete lie, a provable lie? A lie
used by cynical media manipulators and unscrupulous politicians who understand that racial strife
-- race hatred -- is their path to power, even if it destroys the country."
Bakari Sellers, CNN political commentator: People worry about the protesters and the
looters. And it is just people who are frustrated.
Don Lemon, CNN anchor: They are frustrated, and they are angry, and they are out
there. And they're upset. You shouldn't be taking televisions, but I can't tell people how to
react to this.
Sen.
Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y.: I'm proud of the protests, and I think it is part of the
tradition of New York. The violence is bad, reprehensible, and it should be condemned, but it
is not the overwhelming picture in New York.
Nikole Hannah-Jones, The New York Times: Destroying property which can be replaced is
not violence.
Chris Cuomo, CNN anchor Too many see the protests as the problem. Please, show me
where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.
Neoliberalism (or neoliberal capitalism) is a term which gets thrown around a lot in cultural and political discourse. Is it often
used to describe the policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1970s and 1980s and the subsequent premierships of Bill
Clinton and Tony Blair and the adjective "neoliberal" continues to be used as a derogatory phrase in the ongoing Democratic debates
in the US.
Yet it is also used with reference to the "gig economy" and services such as Uber, Deliveroo and Airbnb. Is neoliberalism, then,
simply a synonym for capitalism or is there more to it than that? In this "neoliberalism explained" video, I aim to answer just that.
In this month's episode of What the Theory, I unpack what we mean when we talk about neoliberalism.
From the early work of economists such as Milton Friedman (author of Capitalism and Freedom), Friedrich von Hayek (author of The
Road to Serfdom) and the Mont Pelerin Society, through its implementation by Reagan and Thatcher to its infliction upon countries
in the global south as described in The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, I undertake a brief history of free-market capitalism and
consider some of its consequences.
[The above are affiliate links. I receive a small kickback from anything you buy which, in turn, helps to support the channel.]
If you've enjoyed this video and would like to see more including my What The Theory? series in which I provide some snappy introductions
to key theories in the humanities as well as PhD vlogs in which I talk about some of the challenges of being a PhD student then do
consider subscribing.
Neoliberalism is human arrogance to the extreme. It speeds up globe disharmony that will ultimately cause the extinction of
the species. Mans greed will be it's own end. cheers
So if the welfare state of the post war period was a means of stabilizing labour and capital relations and neoliberalism seeks
to destroy that and has its ideological roots in 19th century liberalism, does that mean we're going to witness the mass poverty
and precarization of that same period again?
Your presentation style gives me a slight vibe of "guy talking to a room full of children about how cool bugs are," which I
do mean as a complement Anyway yeah good stuff I like it
Being someone who is old enough to clearly remember the pre-Reagan/ Thatcher era, I always feel badly for those who have never
known life outside of this neoliberal dystopian nightmare that we find ourselves in. Back then people talked a lot about "intrinsic
worth"; that a human life, a species, or a special place (natural or historic) has a value far beyond what money could buy, and
should therefore be protected.
Fairness was always a consideration; if an employee did a good job and was loyal to the company
for a number of years, then the company owners gave them extra paid vacation, a pension, a Christmas bonus, and a gold watch on
retirement to show their appreciation.
A 10% profit for the year was considered satisfactory and sustainable, unlike today, where
stockholders demand increasing returns at the expense of employees, product quality, etc. If a company sold toxic or dangerous
products, or mistreated employees, an expose would be done on 60 minutes and that company would either fold, or pay damages. The
well being of citizens and the environment was the first consideration (at least outside of the military industrial complex and
fossil fuel companies), and anyone who put profits before all else was viewed as favorably as a KKK grand wizard is today. It's
amazing what 38 years of pro-neoliberal Ayn Randian propaganda has done to the world. We'll likely drive ourselves to an early
extinction because of it, and knowing this, the Oligarchy searches for new ways to profit from out impending demise. Madness!
Yes, please do a video on the gig economy. I am also interested to hear your thoughts on neoliberalism's attack on education.
New subscriber... love the channel! Look forward to seeing more!
Neoliberalism is explicitly different from Classical Liberalism, which is why they are distinguished by the prefix... Adam
Smith's theories for example are completely incompatible with neoliberal theory.
Another very interesting video. I do think there is some missing context on: Cold War, Decolonization, Decline of traditional
Communism in 1980s, defeat of traditional Communism in 1990's. To be fair, I don't think your narrative would change much or at
all with the other context pieces included. It would just provided the "more complete" picture on neoliberalism. Very thoughtful
analysis overall. Well done.
The best ive heard it defined loosely is "the idea to extend market practices to more and more human spheres of life"
As
if thats worked well with housing, prisons, and politics...
I was researching on Gramsci and I watched your video only because I couldn't find anything on the more popular channels and
wasn't so sure if I wanted to click on it or just let go and read an article on Gramsci or something. Casually scrolled through
your content and now watching your latest upload. This is what I've been looking for, for so long. You've got almost everything
I'm interested in and I like your way of explaining things. Instantly subscribed. Keep up the good work man!
I know that what you've drawn upon is quite similar to Heide Gerstenberger's argument on how capitalism changed and came in
different guises (2007), but, and forgive me if I'm mistaken, the literary and philosophical background of neoliberalism are nothing
but a misunderstanding of liberalism, specifically Adam Smith, as they forget, or neglect, that he was concerned with moral philosophy
and his "the invisible hand" was a mere metaphor that he mentioned only once in The Wealth of Nation. I just wanted to add this
point as it is important regarding the fallacies of the literature of neoliberalism. I love your channel. My students will have
a new video to watch this semester. Good luck and I'm waiting for your gig economy episode. Keep it up bruv!
"... Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. ..."
"... Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ..."
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity
in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming.
Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into
the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
As a peedupon all I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or (IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite
power/control efforts. It might not be about private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes
sense
The author of this video, if you looks at his other video is pretty bizarre and way outside Softpanorama preferences. But
this is a very good, highly compressed analyses.
Notable quotes:
"... Liberalism for the poor: "Too bad, personal responsibility" Liberalism for the rich: "All is forgiven, society will pay the bill" ..."
The great thing about neoliberalism is that it allows us to blame every single structural
problem of our society on either personal failures or too much government.
The oddest thing I find when arguing with ancaps and neolibs is when I talk about
wage-slavery. How the bus driver who gets paid minimum wage and has to work 12h/day in harsh
conditions to simply put some bread on their family's table the next morning is basically
impeded to seek anything else, and how proper welfare would allow them to at least guarantee
a better future for their kids.
The response is that the bus driver "is free" and "chooses"
to be a wage-slave, because there is the alternative of not working and dying of hunger.
(They literally said that. Their idea of freedom is that you can choose to die if you don't
want to be work terrible conditions because you weren't born into a middle-class family)
As a disabled person I'm really glad you talked about disability and it's relation to
neoliberalism as many people often forget about how important a point it is. I am not free as
a disabled person under neoliberalism/capitalism. This is just a true statement regardless of
your view point. Even with the class privilege I have from having had a relatively middle
class upbringing I am still trapped. I'm 19 and in university and my family mostly look after
me but what will happen when I inevitably have to move out?
Will I be completely reliant on
benefits (which are often not enough to live on?) Will I be working in a part time job where
I'm constantly in pain and tired barely able to pay rent? Will my house be accessible? And
with all these worries will I ever live a meaningful life? Or will I be living pay check to
pay check in debt (after the NHS is privatised) and with pain my entire life?
I know
everybody has worries but I feel like it's more intensified when you have a disability. I've
been worrying about this stuff since I was just entering high school and it is crushingly
real and personal. If every person with a disability has to go through this I completely
understand the suicide statistics - why would I live in a world that hates me? I'm sorry to
be so depressing but this is why I hate when people dismiss it as "just a political opinion"
or "not personal." It absolutely is personal. Thank you for bringing this stuff to people's
attention - really enjoy your videos! Keep up the good work
Welfare reduces freedom, because it prevents you from being able to choose between having
a place to live and having access to healthcare, and instead forces you to have both. /s
I think the primary problem with neoliberalism is simply that it ignores class realities.
It ignores the material differences and power imbalances between employers and wage workers
and the fact that liberal society contains a ruling class that will always defend its
interest against the masses, and how the ruling class propagates the suffering and misery of
the lower class.
"Choose with your dollars" My father lives where the ONLY general store for MANY miles is
a Wal-mart. Just how much freaking frakkin choice is THAT?!?🤯🤯
"When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only
then will you realize that one cannot eat money." Quote of victims of a genocide nobody talks
about ..
It is still greatly dependent on the West to development and still is a developing
country.
So, yes, the West still has a realistic chance of destroying China and inaugurating a new
cycle of capitalist prosperity.
What happens with the "decoupling"/"Pivot to Asia" is that, in the West, there's
a scatological theory [go to 10th paragraph] - of Keynesian origin - that socialism can
only play "catch up" with capitalism, but never surpass it when a "toyotist phase" of
technological innovation comes (this is obviously based on the USSR's case). This theory
states that, if there's innovation in socialism, it is residual and by accident, and that
only in capitalism is significant technological advancement possible. From this, they posit
that, if China is blocked out of Western IP, it will soon "go back to its place" - which is
probably to Brazil or India level.
If China will be able to get out of the "Toyotist Trap" that destroyed the USSR, only time
will tell. Regardless, decoupling is clearly not working, and China is not showing any signs
so far of slowing down. Hence Trump is now embracing a more direct approach.
As for the USA, I've put my big picture opinion about it some days ago, so I won't repeat
myself. Here, it suffices to say that, yes, I believe the USA can continue to survive as an
empire - even if, worst case scenario, in a "byzantine" form. To its favor, it has: 1) the
third largest world population 2) huge territory, with excellent proportion of high-quality
arable land (35%), that basically guarantees food security indefinitely (for comparison, the
USSR only had 10% of arable land, and of worse quality) 3) two coasts, to the two main Oceans
(Pacific and Atlantic), plus a direct exit to the Arctic (Alaska and, de facto, Greenland and
Canada) 4) excellent, very defensive territory, protected by both oceans (sea-to-sea),
bordered only by two very feeble neighbors (Mexico and Canada) that can be easily absorbed if
the situation asks to 4) still the financial superpower 5) still a robust "real" economy -
specially if compared to the micro-nations of Western Europe and East-Asia 6) a big fucking
Navy, which gives it thalassocratic power.
I don't see the USA losing its territorial integrity anytime soon. There are separatist
movements in places like Texas and, more recently, the Western Coast. Most of them exist only
for fiscal reasons and are not taken seriously by anyone else. The Star-and-Stripes is still
a very strong ideal to the average American, and nobody takes the idea of territory loss for
real. If that happens, though, it would change my equation on the survival of the American
Empire completely.
As for Hong Kong. I watched a video by the chief of the PLA last year (unfortunately, I
watched it on Twitter and don't have the link with me anymore). He was very clear: Hong Kong
does not present an existential threat to China. The greatest existential threat to China
are, by far, Xinjiang and Tibet, followed by Taiwan and the South China Sea. Hong Kong is a
distant fourth place.
Just a thought: what if people like Gordon Guthrie Chang, Jennifer Zeng, Peter Navarro or
even Maria Bartiromo suggest to the two dude Trump and Pompeo sending FBI, CIA agents
or even national guard to American's rural areas, small isolate farming communities in
Pennsylvania, Oregon ripping off every Huawei and ZTE hardwares 2G, 3G, 4G and maybe 5G if
any, cell towers and replaced it with Ericsson and Nokia. Would it make America great again
?
On the one side, figures allied to American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's vision for
an anti-Imperial world order lined up behind FDR's champion Harry Dexter White while those
powerful forces committed to maintaining the structures of a bankers' dictatorship (Britain was
always primarily a banker's empire) lined up behind the figure of John Maynard Keynes[
1 ].
John Maynard Keynes was a leading Fabian Society controller and treasurer of the British
Eugenics Association (which served as a model for Hitler's Eugenics protocols before and during
the war). During the Bretton Woods Conference, Keynes pushed hard for the new system to be
premised upon a one world currency controlled entirely by the Bank of England known as the
Bancor. He proposed a global bank called the Clearing Union to be controlled by the Bank of
England which would use the Bancor (exchangeable with national currencies) and serve as unit of
account to measure trade surpluses or deficits under the mathematical mandate of maintaining
"equilibrium" of the system.
Harry Dexter White, on the other hand, fought relentlessly to keep the City of London out of
the drivers' seat of global finance and instead defended the institution of national
sovereignty and sovereign currencies based on long term scientific and technological
growth.
Although White and FDR demanded that US dollars become the reserve currency in the new world
system of fixed exchange rates, it was not done to create a "new American Empire" as most
modern analysts have assumed, but rather was designed to use America's status as the strongest
productive global power to ensure an anti-speculative stability among international currencies
which entirely lacked stability in the wake of WWII.
Their fight for fixed exchange rates and principles of "parity pricing" were designed by FDR
and White strictly around the need to abolish the forms of chaotic flux of the un-regulated
markets which made speculation rampant under British Free Trade and destroyed the capacity to
think and plan for the sort of long term development needed to modernize nation states. Theirs
was not a drive for "mathematical equilibrium" but rather a drive to "end poverty" through REAL
physical economic growth of colonies who would thereby win real economic independence.
As figures like Henry Wallace (FDR's loyal Vice President and 1948 3rd party candidate),
Representative Wendell Wilkie (FDR's republican lieutenant and New Dealer), and Dexter White
all advocated repeatedly, the mechanisms of the World Bank, IMF, and United Nations were meant
to become drivers of an internationalization of the New Deal which transformed America from a
backwater cesspool in 1932 to becoming a modern advanced manufacturing powerhouse 12 years
later. All of these Interntional New Dealers were loud advocates of US-Russia –China
leadership in the post war world which is a forgotten fact of paramount importance.
It is vital to the United States, it is vital to China and
it is vital to Russia that there be peaceful and friendly relations between China and Russia,
China and America and Russia and America. China and Russia Complement and supplement each other
on the continent of Asia and the two together complement and supplement America's position in
the Pacific.
Contradicting the mythos that FDR was a Keynesian, FDR's assistant Francis Perkins
recorded the 1934 interaction between the two men when Roosevelt told her:
"I saw your friend Keynes. He left a whole rigmarole of figures. He must be a
mathematician rather than a political economist."
In response Keynes, who was then trying to coopt the intellectual narrative of the New Deal
stated he had "supposed the President was more literate, economically speaking."
In his 1936 German edition of his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
, Keynes wrote:
For I confess that much of the following book is illustrated and expounded
mainly with reference to the conditions existing in the Anglo Saxon countries. Nevertheless,
the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much
more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state.
While Keynes represented the "soft imperialism" for the "left" of Britain's intelligentsia,
Churchill represented the hard unapologetic imperialism of the Old, less sophisticated empire
that preferred the heavy fisted use of brute force to subdue the savages. Both however were
unapologetic racists and fascists (Churchill even wrote admiringly of Mussolini's black shirts)
and both represented the most vile practices of British Imperialism.
FDR's Forgotten
Anti-Colonial Vision Revited
FDR's battle with Churchill on the matter of empire is better known than his differences
with Keynes whom he only met on a few occasions. This well documented clash was best
illustrated in his son/assistant Elliot Roosevelt's book As He Saw It (1946) who quoted his
father:
I've tried to make it clear that while we're [Britain's] allies and in it to victory
by their side, they must never get the idea that we're in it just to help them hang on to their
archaic, medieval empire ideas I hope they realize they're not senior partner; that we are not
going to sit by and watch their system stultify the growth of every country in Asia and half
the countries in Europe to boot.
[ ]
The colonial system means war. Exploit the resources of an India, a Burma, a Java; take all
the wealth out of these countries, but never put anything back into them, things like
education, decent standards of living, minimum health requirements – all you're doing is
storing up the kind of trouble that leads to war. All you're doing is negating the value of any
kind of organizational structure for peace before it begins.
Writing from Washington in a hysteria to Churchill, Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden said that
Roosevelt "contemplates the dismantling of the British and Dutch empires."
Unfortunately for the world, FDR died on April 12, 1945. A coup within the Democratic
establishment, then replete with Fabians and Rhodes Scholars, had already ensured that Henry
Wallace would lose the 1944 Vice Presidency in favor of Anglophile Wall Street Stooge Harry
Truman.
Truman was quick to reverse all of FDR's intentions, cleansing American intelligence of all
remaining patriots with the shutdown of the OSS and creation of the CIA, the launching of
un-necessary nuclear bombs on Japan and establishment of the Anglo-American special
relationship.
Truman's embrace of Churchill's New World Order destroyed the positive relationship with
Russia and China which FDR, White and Wallace sought and soon America had become Britain's dumb
giant.
The Post 1945 Takeover of the Modern Deep State
FDR warned his son before his death of his understanding of the British takeover of American
foreign policy, but still could not reverse this agenda. His son recounted his father's ominous
insight:
You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal
messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats
over there aren't in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston.
As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of
'em: any number of 'em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is
to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!" I was told six years ago, to clean
out that State Department. It's like the British Foreign Office
Before being fired from Truman's cabinet for his advocacy of US-Russia friendship during the
Cold War, Wallace stated:
American fascism" which has come to be known in recent years as
the Deep State [ ] Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon
imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and
writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and
intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes.
In his 1946 Soviet Asia Mission, Wallace said:
Before the blood of our boys is scarcely
dry on the field of battle, these enemies of peace try to lay the foundation for World War III.
These people must not succeed in their foul enterprise. We must offset their poison by
following the policies of Roosevelt in cultivating the friendship of Russia in peace as well as
in war.
Indeed this is exactly what occurred. Dexter White's three year run as head of the
International Monetary Fund was clouded by his constant attacks as being a Soviet stooge which
haunted him until the day he died in 1948 after a grueling inquisition session at the House of
Un-American Activities.
White had previously been supporting the election of his friend Wallace for the presidency
alongside fellow patriots Paul Robeson and Albert Einstein.
Today the world has captured a second chance to revive the FDR's
dream of an anti-colonial world . In the 21st century, this great dream has taken the form
of the New Silk Road, led by Russia and China (and joined by a growing chorus of nations
yearning to exit the invisible cage of colonialism).
If western nations wish to survive the oncoming collapse, then they would do well to heed
Putin's call for a New International system, join the BRI, and reject the Keynesian technocrats
advocating a false "New Bretton Woods" and "Green New
Deal" .
[1] You may be thinking "wait! Wasn't FDR and his New Deal premised on Keynes' theories??"
How could Keynes have represented an opposing force to FDR's system if this is the case? This
paradox only exists in the minds of many people today due to the success of the Fabian
Society's and Round Table Movement's armada of revisionist historians who have consistently
created a lying narrative of history to make it appear to future generations trying to learn
from past mistakes that those figures like FDR who opposed empire were themselves following
imperial principles.
Another example of this sleight of hand can be seen by the sheer number of people who
sincerely think themselves informed and yet believe that America's 1776 revolution was driven
by British Imperial philosophical thought stemming from Adam Smith, Bentham and John Locke.
>The capitalists have painted themselves into a corner. There is no way out from this
crisis which does not
> involve the end of fifty years of neo-liberalism (and two centuries of the liberal
Political Economy).
I thought the same in 2008. Did not happen.
> Neo-liberalism, allied to warmongering in the MIC and dominating the political
process through its ownership
> of both its own party and the Opposition's, has so dominated US life that the kind of
reforms that Keynes saw
> as necessary to preserve the system from itself are unthinkable.
That's true but neoliberalism evolved in different direction: Trumpism ("national
neoliberalism") is essentially neoliberalism without neoliberal globalization. Domestically
it looks more and more like a unique "Americanized" flavor of neofascism. The latter
historically proved to be a resilient social system (Spain)
> The current policy of giving money in unlimited quantities to corporations, virtually
without condition,
> and invoicing the working class by pledging future tax revenues to repay the cost of
financing, is unsustainable.
OK. But what is the countervailing force ? There is none. By definition creating a viable
political opposition in a national security state is impossible. Note that the USSR crumbled
only when KGB changed sides. And that Nazi Germany did not crumbed until Soviets took Berlin,
and, despite all the misery of the last year of war, there were fierce fight for Berlin (and
heavy losses for Soviets)
> Neo-liberalism, the ideology of capitalist rule, has had its chance. The crisis that
we are in
> is showing how useless it is, how dangerous a society devoted to the profit of a few,
rather than the welfare
> of the many is. With every new twist and turn it demonstrates its inability to
govern.
Neoliberalism will most probably survive COVID-19 epidemic like it survived the crisis of
2008. You can argue whether quarantine was necessary or not and about the level of
incompetence of Trump administration, but you can't deny that the measures taken by the USA
government somewhat softened the blow and the social system remains intact.
Again, there is no viable countervailing force to MIC and financial oligarchy, and the two
party system is very resilient and essentially guarantee that the internal political
situation will stay this way. Looks like only external shocks or disintegration of the
country under the pressure from far right nationalists can crumble this system.
> What this adds up to- mass unemployment and increasing immiseration with no organised
voice to represent tens
> of millions of desperate workers and their families is the likelihood of a series of
explosions, riots,
> strikes, boycotts and direct actions.
In the USA the family of three can survive when each of the adults earn just $10 per hour
(which means income around $40K a year). Real misery is reserved mostly to single mothers and
unemployed. You can't compare the situation in the USA to the situation in "neoliberalized"
xUSSR countries where it is really about physical survival and large percentage of population
live of ~$2 a day. Do we see riots in those countries ?
> There is nobody to press reforms on the ruling class
I have been watching China's gradual rise in the world's GDP– as well as GDP-per-capita– charts and a concomitant fall in the United
States' position in these charts, for nearly 20 years now. The United States' decline is still relative rather than absolute. In
absolute terms, its GDP is still "Number 1!" But the decline was accelerated from 2003 on, when successive US presidents decided
to pour massive amounts of government revenues into large-scale and always disastrous military adventures all around the world. As
of last November, Brown University's "Costs of War" project
tallied the U.S. budgetary costs of these wars, FY2001-2020, to be $6.4 trillion. These were funds that could have been invested,
instead, in repair and upgrading of vital infrastructure here at home– including vital health infrastructure. But no. Instead, the
money was shoveled into the pockets of the large military contractors who then used a portion of it on expensive lobbying operations
designed to ensure that the sow of military spending continued feeding her offspring (them.)
When Donald Trump became president, in 2017, one of his early instincts was to pull back from the foreign wars. (This was about
his only sound instinct.) The military-industrial complex then proved able to slow-walk a lot of the military-retraction moves
he wanted to make One of the other abiding themes of Trump's presidency has been his desire to "decouple" the U.S. economy from the
tight integration it had developed at many levels with the economy of China, as part of broader push to halt or slow the rise of
China's power in the global system. At the economic level, we have seen the "tariff wars" and the campaign against Huawei. At the
military level, we have seen a slight escalation in the kinds of "demonstration operations" the U.S. Navy has been mounting in the
South China Sea. Mobilizing against "Chinese influence" also seems to come naturally to a president who shows no hesitation in denigrating
anyone– even US citizens and politicians– who happens not to be of pale-complected European-style hue.
With the eruption of Covid-19 in U.S. communities nationwide, Pres. Trump's pre-existing proclivity to demonize and denigrate
anything Chinese has escalated considerably– spurred on, it seems, by his evident desire to find an external scapegoat to blame for
the terrible situation Covid-19 has inflicted on Americans and to detract voters' attention from the grave responsibility he and
his administration bear for their plight.
He and his economic advisors clearly realize that, with the supply chains of major US industries still inextricably
tied
up with companies located in China and with China still
holding $1.1 trillion-worth of U.S. government debt, he
can't just cut the cord and decouple from China overnight. Yesterday, his Treasury Secretary and the US Trade Representative held
a
phone call with China's Vice Premier Liu He, the intent of which was to reassure both sides that a trade deal concluded four
months ago would still be adhered to.
But today, less than 12 hours after the reassuring joint statement released after the phone call, Trump
told Fox News that he was
"very torn" about the trade deal, and had "not decided" whether to maintain it. This, as he launches frequent verbal tirades against
China for having "caused" the coronavirus crisis. US GDP is highly inflated by counting financial moves on Wall Street (extracting
money from suckers and moving money from one hand to another) as productive activity. China's purchasing power parity already exceeds
the US and I suspect its actual GDP does as well. Only US financialization is able to mask the lack of actual productivity in the
US economy.
I am somewhat skeptical about China chances in this race. That will be much tougher environment for China from now on. And
other major technological powers such as Germany, Korea and Japan are still allied with the USA.
The major problem for China is two social systems in one box: state capitalism part controlled by completely corrupt Communist
Party (which completely abandoned the communist doctrine and became essentially a religious cult ) + no less corrupt neoliberalism
part created with the help of the West.
The level of corruption inherent in the current setup (first adopted in Soviet NEP -- New Economic Policy) is tremendous, as
the party has absolute political power and controls the major economic and financial areas while the entrepreneurs try to bribe
state officials to get the leverage and/or enrich themselves at the state expense or bypass the bureaucratic limitations/inefficiencies
imposed by the state, or offload some costs. So mafia style relationship between party officials and entrepreneurs is not an aberration,
it is a norm. And periodic "purges" of corrupt Party officials do not solve the problem. Ecological problems in China are just
one side effect of this.
Add to this the certain pre-existing tendencies within Chinese society to put greed above everything else, the tendency clearly
visible in some emigrants and to which Yen devoted one post recently. Riots in some Asians countries against Chinese diaspora
are often at least partially caused by this diaspora behavior, not only by xenophobia. Note that several African countries with
Chinese investments now intent to sue China for damages from COVID-19. This is not accidental.
Technologically the USA and its G7 satellites are still in the lead although outsourcing manufacturing to China helped Chinese
tremendously to narrow the gap. For example, Intel CPUs still dominate both desktops and servers. All major operating systems
(with the exception of some flavors of Linux) are all USA developed.
You rise important points, but I respectfully disagree with all of them.
1) I don't think China is a "State capitalism" country. The term "State capitalism" was first coined by Lenin for a very specific
situation the USSR was in. Yes, the similarities are striking - and Deng Xiaoping's reforms were clearly inspired by Lenin's NEP
- but it is important to state that the CCP actively avoided the term and built upon the concept both theoretically and in practice.
Besides, we don't need to read Lenin's works critically, an not take him as the second coming of Jesus: when he used the term
"State capitalism", he used it in a clearly desperate moment of the USSR, almost by improvisation. Lenin's last years were definitely
desperate times.
Besides, the NEP didn't culminate with the capitalist restoration of the USSR. On the contrary: it collapsed in 1926 (after
another bad harvest) and gave way to the rise of Stalin and the radical faction of the CPSU. The Five-year plans were born (1928),
and agriculture would be fully collectivized by the end of the 1930s (a process which catapulted Molotov to the second most powerful
man in the USSR during the period). By the end of WWII, the USSR had a fully collectivized economy.
2) The corruption hypothesis is an attractive one - specially for the liberal middle classes of the post-war and for the Trotskyists
- but it doesn't stand the empirical test. The USA was an extremely corrupt nation from its foundation to pre-war, and it never
stopped it from growing and reaching prosperity. The Roman Empire and Republic were so corrupt that it was considered normal.
There's no evidence the PRC is historically exceptionally corrupt. However, I can see why the CCP is worried about corruption,
as it is a flank through which the West can sabotage it from within.
3) The COCOM tactic will be much harder to apply against China than against the USSR. For starters, the USSR lost circa 35%
of its GDP in WWII. This gave it a delay from which it never recovered. Second, the USSR fought against capitalism when capitalism
was at its apex. Third, the USSR collectivized and closed its economy too early, not taking into account that it still lived in
a capitalist world.
China doesn't have that now. It is fighting against capitalism in a phase where it is weakened. It is open and intimately integrated
economically with its capitalist enemies. It closed or is about to close the technological gap in many strategic sectors during
a stage where the capitalists have low retaliation capacity. It found time to close at least the GDP gap. It found time to recover
fully from its civil war and the Japanese Invasion of the Northeast.
Germany, South Korea and Japan are not technologically more advanced than the USA. This is a myth. Plus, they are too small.
They may serve as very useful - even essential - pawns for the USA-side, but I don't see any of the three ever achieving Pax
.
"... the nations CEO's become sort of one big club, and the top of the club is the head parasites pulling the strings on the stock market (outfits like Goldman Sachs). ..."
"... NO ONE wants to cross the head parasites, the corrupt political class turns to them as their economic brain trust, and the propaganda class (MSM) spin narratives that comport to the corrupt political class' interests and the corrupt status quo. ..."
As our guest puts it, the recently passed Trump "Bank and Landlord Relief" bill,
mistakenly named the Coronavirus bill, starts by providing banks with an even larger giveaway
of wealth than they received from Obama in 2008. Helping the banks, financial and real estate
sectors in a so-called free market system is conflated with helping the industrial economy
and general living standards for most Americans. The essence of a parasite is not only to
drain the host's nourishment, but to dull the host's brain so that it does not recognize that
the parasite is there.
One of the ways it does this is to entice most of the biggest companies onto the stock
markets, which in turn subordinates them to the financial sector -- more specifically, the
investment bankers. And then the nations CEO's become sort of one big club, and the top of
the club is the head parasites pulling the strings on the stock market (outfits like Goldman
Sachs).
NO ONE wants to cross the head parasites, the corrupt political class turns to them as
their economic brain trust, and the propaganda class (MSM) spin narratives that comport to the
corrupt political class' interests and the corrupt status quo.
This is why [neo]liberalism and neoconservatism are the two sides of the one political coin
that Americans are allowed to choose. Lean left? You'll get a liberal who mostly uses identity
politics to divide and rule. Lean right? You'll get a neocon who mostly uses foreign affairs to
divide and rule. But increasingly, the two cross-over, hence you'll see liberals harping 24/7
about Russiagate and neocons harping 24/7 about Iran, Islam and now China.
None of this is to say that Russia, China and Iran aren't competitors, because they are. But
the liberal and neocon fanatics turn them into existential, kill or be killed
competitors...
"...Today, quite a number of alternative media commentators are ready to believe in the
absolute power not of God but of Mammon, of the powers of Wall Street and its partners in
politics, the media and the military. In this view, nothing major happens that hasn't been
planned by earthly powers for their own selfish interest.
"Mammon is wrecking the economy so a few oligarchs will own everything. Or else Mammon
created the hoax Coronavirus 19 in order to lock us all up and deprive us of what little is
left of our freedom. Or finally Mammon is using a virus in order to have a pretext to
vaccinate us all with secret substances and turn us all into zombies.
"Is this credible? In one sense, it is. We know that Mammon is unscrupulous, morally
capable of all crimes. But things do happen that Mammon did not plan, such as earthquakes,
floods and plagues. Dislike of our ruling class combined with dislike of being locked up
leads to the equation: They are simply using this (fake) crisis in order to lock us up!
"But what for? To whom is there any advantage in locking down the population? For the
pleasure of telling themselves, "Aha, we've got them where we want them, all stuck at home!"
Is this intended to suppress popular revolt? What popular revolt? Why repress people who
aren't doing anything that needs to be repressed?...
"What is the use of locking up a population – and I think especially of the United
States – that is disunited, disorganized, profoundly confused by generations of
ideological indoctrination telling them that their country is "the best" in every way, and
thus unable to formulate coherent demands on a system that exploits them ruthlessly? Do you
need to lock up your faithful Labrador so he won't bite you?...
"....Mammon is blinded by its own hubris, often stupid, incompetent, dumbed down by
getting away with so much so easily. Take a look at Mike Pompeo or Mike Pence – are
these all-powerful geniuses? No, they are semi-morons who have been able to crawl up a
corrupt system contemptuous of truth, virtue or intelligence – like the rest of the
gangsters in power in a system devoid of any ethical or intellectual standards.
"The power of creatures like that is merely the reflection of the abdication of social
responsibility by whole populations whose disinterest in politics has allowed the scum to
rise to the top.
The lockdown decreed by our Western governments reveals helplessness rather than power.
They did not rush to lock us down. The lockdown is disastrous for the economy which is their
prime concern. They hesitated and did so only when they had to do something and were
ill-equipped to do anything else. They saw that China had done so with good results. But
smart Asian governments did even more, deploying masks, tests and treatments Western
governments did not possess..."
"... Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the "Third World." ..."
"... In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70 nations – more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases, listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military personnel working in approximately 160 countries. ..."
"... Since then, the United States has overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments of approximately 50 countries, many of which (e.g. Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, and Chile) had elected leaders willing to nationalize their natural resources and industries. Often these interventions took the form of covert operations. Less frequently, the United States went to war to achieve these same ends (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq). ..."
"... In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget and over half of all discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit. ..."
This March, as COVID-19's capacity to overwhelm the American healthcare system was becoming
obvious, experts marveled at the scenario unfolding before their eyes. "We have Third World
countries who are better equipped than we are now in Seattle,"
noted one healthcare professional, her words echoed just a few days later by a shocked
doctor in New York who described
"a third-world country type of scenario." Donald Trump could similarly only grasp what was
happening through the same comparison. "I have seen things that I've never seen before," he
said
. "I mean I've seen them, but I've seen them on television and faraway lands, never in my
country."
At the same time, regardless of the fact that "Third World" terminology is outdated and
confusing, Trump's inept handling of the pandemic has itself elicited more than one "banana republic"
analogy, reflecting already well-worn, bipartisan comparisons of Trump to a "
third world dictator " (never mind that dictators and authoritarians have never been
confined solely to lower income countries).
And yet, while such comparisons provoke predictably nativist outrage from the right, what is
absent from any of
these responses to the situation is a sense of reflection or humility about the "Third
World" comparison itself. The doctor in New York who finds himself caught in a "third world"
scenario and the political commentators outraged when Trump behaves "like a third world
dictator" uniformly express themselves in terms of incredulous wonderment. One never hears the
potential second half of this comparison: "I am now experiencing what it is like to live in a
country that resembles the kind of nation upon whom the United States regularly imposes broken
economies and corrupt leaders."
Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or
lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and
political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the
"Third World."
In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70
nations –
more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases,
listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military
personnel working in approximately 160 countries. This is a globe-spanning military and
security apparatus organized into regional commands
that resemble the "proconsuls of the Roman empire and the governors-general of the
British." In other words, this apparatus is built not for deterrence, but for primacy.
The U.S.'s global primacy emerged from the wreckage of World War II when the United States
stepped into the shoes vacated by European empires. Throughout the Cold War, and in the name of
supporting "free peoples," the sprawling American security apparatus helped ensure that 300
years of imperial resource extraction and wealth distribution – from what was then called
the Third World to the First – remained undisturbed, despite decolonization.
Since then, the United States
has overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments of approximately 50 countries,
many of which (e.g. Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, and Chile) had elected leaders willing to
nationalize their natural resources and industries. Often these interventions
took the form of covert operations. Less frequently, the United States went to war to
achieve these same ends (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq).
In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more
on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our
nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget
and over half of all
discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the
Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit.
Trump's claim that Obama had
"hollowed out" defense spending was not only grossly untrue, it masked the consistency of the
security budget's metastasizing growth since the Vietnam War, regardless of who sits in the
White House. At $738 billion dollars, Trump's security budget was passed in December with the
overwhelming support of House Democrats.
And yet, from the perspective of public discourse in this country, our globe-spanning,
resource-draining military and security apparatus exists in an entirely parallel universe to
the one most Americans experience on a daily level. Occasionally, we wake up to the idea of
this parallel universe but only when the United States is involved in visible military actions.
The rest of the time, Americans leave thinking about international politics – and the
deaths, for instance, of 2.5 million
Iraqis since 2003 – to the legions of policy analysts and Pentagon employees who
largely accept American military primacy as an "article of faith," as Professor of
International Security and Strategy at the University of Birmingham Patrick Porter has said
.
Foreign policy is routinely the last issue Americans consider when they vote for presidents
even though the president has more discretionary power over foreign policy than any other area
of American politics. Thus, despite its size, impact, and expense, the world's military hegemon
exists somewhere on the periphery of most Americans' self-understanding, as though, like the
sun, it can't be looked upon directly for fear of blindness.
Why is our avoidance of the U.S.'s weighty impact on the world a problem in the midst of the
coronavirus pandemic? Most obviously, the fact that our massive security budget has gone so
long without being widely questioned means that one of the soundest courses of action for the
U.S. during this crisis remains resolutely out of sight.
The shock of discovering that our healthcare system is so quickly overwhelmed should
automatically trigger broader conversations about spending priorities that entail deep and
sustained cuts in an engorged security budget whose sole purpose is the maintenance of primacy.
And yet, not only has this not happened, $10.5 billion of the coronavirus aid package has been
earmarked for the Pentagon, with $2.4 billion of that
channeled to the "defense industrial base." Of the $500 billion aimed at corporate America,
$17.5 billion is
set aside "for businesses critical to maintaining national security" such as aerospace.
To make matters worse, our blindness to this bloated security complex makes it frighteningly
easy for champions of American primacy to sound the alarm when they even suspect a dip in
funding might be forthcoming. Indeed, before most of us had even glanced at the details of the
coronavirus bill, foreign policy hawks were already
issuing dark prediction s about the impact of still-imaginary cuts in the security budget
on the U.S.'s "ability to strike any target on the planet in response to hostile actions by any
actor" – as if that ability already did not exist many times over.
On a more existential level, a country that is collectively engaged in unseeing its own
global power cannot help but fail to make connections between that power and domestic politics,
particularly when a little of the outside world seeps in. For instance, because most Americans
are unaware of their government's sponsorship of fundamentalist Islamic groups in the Middle
East throughout the Cold War, 9/11 can only ever appear to have come from nowhere, or because
Muslims hate our way of life.
This "how did we get here?" attitude replicates itself at every level of political life
making it profoundly difficult for Americans to see the impact of their nation on the rest of
the world, and the blowback from that impact on the United States itself. Right now, the
outsized influence of American foreign policy is already encouraging the spread of coronavirus
itself as U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran severely hamper that
country's ability to respond to the virus at home and virtually
guarantee its spread throughout the region.
Closer to home, our shock at the healthcare system's inept response to the pandemic masks
the relationship between the U.S.'s imposition
of free-market totalitarianism on countries throughout the
Global South and the impact of free-market totalitarianism on our own welfare state .
Likewise, it is more than karmic comeuppance that the President of the United States now
resembles the self-serving authoritarians the U.S. forced on so many formerly colonized
nations. The modes of militarized policing American security experts exported to those
authoritarian regimes also contributed , on a
policy level, to both the rise of militarized policing in American cities and the rise of mass
incarceration in the 1980s and 90s. Both of these phenomena played a significant role in
radicalizing Trump's white nationalist base and decreasing their tolerance for democracy.
Most importantly, because the U.S. is blind to its power abroad, it cannot help but turn
that blindness on itself. This means that even during a pandemic when America's exceptionalism
– our lack of national healthcare – has profoundly negative consequences on the
population, the idea of looking to the rest of the world for solutions remains unthinkable.
Senator Bernie Sanders' reasonable suggestion that the U.S., like Denmark, should
nationalize its healthcare system is dismissed as the fanciful pipe dream of an aging socialist
rather than an obvious solution to a human problem embraced by nearly every other nation in the
world. The Seattle healthcare professional who expressed shock that even "Third World
countries" are "better equipped" than we are to confront COVID-19 betrays a stunning ignorance
of the diversity of healthcare systems within developing countries. Cuba, for instance,
has responded
to this crisis with an efficiency and humanity that puts the U.S. to shame.
Indeed, the U.S. is only beginning to feel the full impact of COVID-19's explosive
confrontation with our exceptionalism: if the unemployment rate really does reach 32 percent,
as has been predicted,
millions of people will not only lose their jobs but their health insurance as well. In the
middle of a pandemic.
Over 150 years apart, political commentators Edmund Burke and Aimé Césaire
referred to this blindness as the byproduct of imperialism. Both used the exact same language
to describe it; as a "gangrene" that "poisons" the colonizing body politic. From their
different historical perspectives, Burke and Césaire observed how colonization
boomerangs back on colonial society itself, causing irreversible damage to nations that
consider themselves humane and enlightened, drawing them deeper into denial and
self-delusion.
Perhaps right now there is a chance that COVID-19 – an actual, not metaphorical
contagion – can have the opposite effect on the U.S. by opening our eyes to the things
that go unseen. Perhaps the shock of recognizing the U.S. itself is less developed than our
imagined "Third World" might prompt Americans to tear our eyes away from ourselves and look
toward the actual world outside our borders for examples of the kinds of political, economic,
and social solidarity necessary to fight the spread of Coronavirus. And perhaps moving beyond
shock and incredulity to genuine recognition and empathy with people whose economies and
democracies have been decimated by American hegemony might begin the process of reckoning with
the costs of that hegemony, not just in "faraway lands" but at home. In our country.
Being "connected" is a huge part of the cause of this mess, before internet propaganda was
limited to newspapers and magazines, it was much slower and manageable.
I do find it funny how wealthy folks spread the "don't worry WE will all be fine" garbage.
WE....no, tell that to someone who has lost their business and has dependents.
I hate the "We're going to be ok. We're all in this together" ads. All of them
celebrities, pro athletes, and actors. Not one has to worry about whether they'll be able to
buy food next week. Elites telling the little people everything's ok.
It's really sad when Tucker Carlson is the only person who ever admitted he was wrong on
Fox News. Hannity still claims he never called the virus a hoax even though he did it on
TV.
On April 21, 2011, the region of Amazon Web Services covering eastern North America crashed.
The crash brought down the sites of large customers such as Quora, Foursquare, and Reddit. It
took Amazon over a week to bring its system fully back online, and some customer data was lost
permanently.
But one company whose site did not crash was Netflix. It turns out that Netflix had made
themselves "antifragile" by employing software they called "Chaos Monkey," which regularly and
randomly brought down Netflix servers. By continually crashing their own servers, Netflix
learned how to nevertheless keep other portions of their network running. And so when Amazon
US-East crashed, Netflix ran on, unfazed.
This phenomenon is discussed by Nassim Taleb in his book Antifragile : a system that
depends on the absence of change is fragile. The companies that focused on keeping all of their
servers up and running all the time went completely offline when Amazon crashed from under
them. But the company that had exposed itself to lots of little crashes could handle the big
crash. That is because the minor, "undesirable" changes stress the system in a way that can
make it stronger.
The idea of antifragility does not apply only to computer networks. For instance, by trying
to eliminate minor downturns in the economy, central bank policy can make that economy
extremely vulnerable to a major recession. Running only on treadmills or tracks makes the
joints extremely vulnerable when, say, one steps in a pothole in the sidewalk.
What does this have to do with trade policy? For many reasons, such as the recent
coronavirus outbreak, flows of goods are subject to unexpected shocks.
Both a regime of "unfettered" free trade, and its opposite, that of complete autarchy, are
fragile in the face of such shocks. A trade policy aimed not at complete free trade or
protectionism, but at making an economy better at absorbing and adapting to rapid change, is
more sane and salutary than either extreme. Furthermore, we suggest practicing for shocks can
help make an economy antifragile.
Amongst academic economists, the pure free-trade position is more popular. The case for
international trade, absent the artificial interference of government trade policy, is
generally based upon the "principle of comparative advantage," first formulated by the English
economist David Ricardo in the early 19th century. Ricardo pointed out, quite correctly, that
even if, among two potential trading partners looking to trade a pair of goods, one of them is
better at producing both of them, there still exist potential gains from trade -- so long as
one of them is relatively better at producing one of the goods, and the other (as a
consequence of this condition) relatively better at producing the other. For example,
Lebron James may be better than his local house painter at playing basketball, and at
painting houses, given his extreme athleticism and long reach. But he is so much more "better"
at basketball that it can still make sense for him to concentrate on basketball and pay the
painter to paint his house.
And so, per Ricardo, it is among nations: even if, say, Sweden can produce both cars and
wool sweaters more efficiently than Scotland, if Scotland is relatively less bad at
producing sweaters than cars, it still makes sense for Scotland to produce only wool sweaters,
and trade with Sweden for the cars it needs.
When we take comparative advantage to its logical conclusion at the global scale, it
suggests that each agent (say, nation) should focus on one major industry domestically and that
no two agents should specialize in the same industry. To do so would be to sacrifice the
supposed advantage of sourcing from the agent who is best positioned to produce a particular
good, with no gain for anyone.
Good so far, but Ricardo's case contains two critical hidden assumptions: first, that the
prices of the goods in question will remain more or less stable in the global marketplace, and
second that the availability of imported goods from specialized producers will remain
uninterrupted, such that sacrificing local capabilities for cheaper foreign alternatives.
So what happens in Scotland if the Swedes suddenly go crazy for yak hair sweaters (produced
in Tibet) and are no longer interested in Scottish sweaters at all? The price of those sweaters
crashes, and Scotland now finds itself with most of its productive capacity specialized in
making a product that can only be sold at a loss.
Or what transpires if Scotland is no longer able, for whatever reason, to produce sweaters,
but the Swedes need sweaters to keep warm? Swedes were perhaps once able to make their own
sweaters, but have since funneled all their resources into making cars, and have even lost the
knowledge of sweater-making. Now to keep warm, the Swedes have to rapidly build the
infrastructure and workforce needed to make sweaters, and regain the knowledge of how to do so,
as the Scots had not only been their sweater supplier, but the only global sweater
supplier.
So we see that the case for extreme specialization, based on a first-order understanding of
comparative advantage, collapses when faced with a second-order effect of a dramatic change in
relative prices or conditions of supply.
That all may sound very theoretical, but collapses due to over-specialization, prompted by
international agencies advising developing economies based on naive comparative-advantage
analysis, have happened all too often. For instance, a number of African economies, persuaded
to base their entire economy on a single good in which they had a comparative advantage (e.g,
gold, cocoa, oil, or bauxite), saw their economies crash when the price of that commodity fell.
People who had formerly been largely self-sufficient found themselves wage laborers for
multinationals in good times, and dependents on foreign charity during bad times.
While the case for extreme specialization in production collapses merely by letting prices
vary, it gets even worse for the "just specialize in the single thing you do best" folks once
we add in considerations of pandemics, wars, extreme climate change, and other such shocks. We
have just witnessed how relying on China for such a high percentage of our medical supplies and
manufacturing has proven unwise when faced with an epidemic originating in China.
On a smaller scale, the great urban theorist Jane Jacobs stressed the need for economic
diversity in a city if it is to flourish. Detroit's over-reliance on the automobile industry,
and its subsequent collapse when that industry largely deserted it, is a prominent example of
Jacobs' point. And while Detroit is perhaps the most famous example of a city collapsing due to
over-specialization, it is far from
the only one .
All of this suggests that trade policy, at any level, should have, as its primary goal, the
encouragement of diversity in that level's economic activity. To embrace the extremes of "pure
free trade" or "total self-sufficiency" is to become more susceptible to catastrophe from
changing conditions. A region that can produce only a few goods is fragile in the face of an
event, like the coronavirus, that disrupts the flow of outside goods. On the other hand,
turning completely inward, and cutting the region off from the outside, leaves it without
outside help when confronting a local disaster, like an extreme drought.
To be resilient as a social entity, whether a nation, region, city, or family, will have a
diverse mix of internal and external resources it can draw upon for sustenance. Even for an
individual, total specialization and complete autarchy are both bad bets. If your only skill is
repairing Sony Walkmen, you were probably pretty busy in 2000, but by today you likely don't
have much work. Complete individual autarchy isn't ever really even attempted: if you watch
YouTube videos of supposedly "self-reliant" people in the wilderness, you will find them using
axes, radios, saws, solar panels, pots and pans, shirts, shoes, tents, and many more goods
produced by others.
In the technical literature, having such diversity at multiple scales is referred to as
"multiscale variety." In a system that displays multiscale variety, no single scale accounts
for all of the diversity of behavior in the system. The practical importance of this is related
to the fact that shocks themselves come at different scales. Some shocks might be limited to a
town or a region, for instance local weather events, while others can be much more widespread,
such as the coronavirus pandemic we are currently facing.
A system with multiscale variety is able to respond to shocks at the scale at which they
occur: if one region experiences a drought while a neighboring region does not, agricultural
supplementation from the currently abundant region can be leveraged. At a smaller scale, if one
field of potatoes becomes infested with a pest, while the adjacent cows in pasture are spared,
the family who owns the farm will still be able to feed themselves and supply products to the
market.
Understanding this, the question becomes how can trade policy, conceived broadly, promote
the necessary variety and resiliency to mitigate and thrive in the face of the unexpected?
Crucially, we should learn from the tech companies: practice disconnecting, and do it randomly.
In our view there are two important components to the intentional disruption: (1) it is regular
enough to generate "muscle memory" type responses; and (2) it is random enough that responses
are not "overfit" to particular scenarios.
For an individual or family, implementing such a policy might create some hardships, but
there are few institutional barriers to doing so. One week, simply declare, "Let's pretend all
of the grocery stores are empty, and try getting by only on what we can produce in the yard or
have stockpiled in our house!" On another occasion, perhaps, see if you can keep your house
warm for a few days without input from utility companies.
Businesses are also largely free of institutional barriers to practicing disconnecting. A
company can simply say, "We are awfully dependent on supplier X: this week, we are not going to
order from them, and let's see what we can do instead!" A business can also seek out external
alternatives to over-reliance on crucial internal resources: for instance, if your top tech guy
can hold your business hostage, it is a good idea to find an outside consulting firm that could
potentially fill his role.
When we get up to the scale of the nation, things become (at least institutionally)
trickier. If Freedonia suddenly bans the import of goods from Ruritania, even for a week,
Ruritania is likely to regard this as a "trade war," and may very well go to the WTO and seek
relief. However, the point of this reorientation of trade policy is not to promote hostility to
other countries, but to make one's own country more resilient. A possible solution to this
problem is that a national government could periodically, at random times, buy all of the
imports of some good from some other country, and stockpile them. Then the foreign supplier
would have no cause for complaint: its goods are still being purchased! But domestic
manufacturers would have to learn to adjust to a disappearance of the supply of palm oil from
Indonesia, or tin from China, or oil from Norway.
Critics will complain that such government management of trade flows, even with the noble
aim of rendering an economy antifragile, will inevitably be turned to less pure purposes, like
protecting politically powerful industrialists. But so what? It is not as though the pursuit of
free trade hasn't itself yielded perverse outcomes, such as the NAFTA trade agreement that ran
to over one thousand pages. Any good aim is likely to suffer diversion as it passes
through the rough-and-tumble of political reality. Thus, we might as well set our sites on an
ideal policy, even though it won't be perfectly realized.
We must learn to deal with disruptions when success is not critical to survival. The better
we become at responding to unexpected shocks, the lower the cost will be each time we face an
event beyond our control that demands an adaptive response. To wait until adaptation is
necessary makes us fragile when a real crisis appears. We should begin to develop an
antifragile economy today, by causing our own disruptions and learning to overcome them.
Deliberately disrupting our own economy may sound crazy. But then, so did deliberately crashing
one's own servers, until Chaos Monkey proved that it works.
Gene Callahan teaches at the Tandon School of Engineering at New York University. Joe
Norman is a data scientist and researcher at the New England Complex Systems Institute.
Most disruptive force is own demographic change of which govts have known for decades.
Caronovirus challenge is nothing compared to what will happen because US ed system
discriminated against the poor who will be the majority!
What Winston Churchill once said about the Americans is in fact true of all humans: "Americans
always end up doing
the right thing once they have exhausted all other options". That's just as true of the French
(I write from France) since our government stopped stocking a strategic reserve of a billion
breathing-masks in 2013 because "we could buy them in Chine for a lower costs". Now we can't
produce enough masks even for our hospitals.
"... "Congress/staff who dumped stocks after private briefings on impending coronavirus epidemic should be investigated and prosecuted for insider trading," ..."
"... "Members of Congress should not be allowed to own stocks." ..."
"... "stomach churning," ..."
"... "For a public servant it's pretty hard to imagine many things more immoral than doing this," ..."
"... "Richard Burr had critical information that might have helped the people he is sworn to protect. But he hid that information and helped only himself." ..."
"... "If you find out about a nation-threatening pandemic and your first move is to adjust your stock portfolio you should probably not be in a job that serves the public interest," ..."
"... "calling for immediate investigations" ..."
"... "for possible violations of the STOCK Act and insider trading laws." ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
In a rare moment of bipartisanship, commenters from all sides have demanded swift punishment for US
senators who dumped stock after classified Covid-19 briefings. Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has called
for criminal prosecution.
As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) has received daily
briefings on the threat posed by Covid-19 since January. Burr insisted to the public that America was
ready to handle the virus, but sold up to $1.5 million in stocks on February 13, less than a week
before the stock market nosedived, according to Senate
filings
. Immediately before the sale, Burr wrote an
op-ed
assuring Americans that their government is
"better prepared than ever
" to handle
the virus.
After the sale, NPR
reported
that he told a closed-door meeting of North Carolina business leaders that the virus
actually posed a threat
"akin to the 1918 pandemic."
Burr does not dispute the NPR report.
In a tweet on Saturday, former 2020 presidential candidate and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard called for
criminal investigations.
"Congress/staff who dumped stocks after private briefings on impending
coronavirus epidemic should be investigated and prosecuted for insider trading,"
she wrote.
"Members of Congress should not be allowed to own stocks."
Congress/staff who dumped stocks after private briefings on impending
coronavirus epidemic should be investigated & prosecuted for insider trading (the STOCK Act). It
is illegal & abuse of power. Members of Congress should not be allowed to own stocks.
https://t.co/rbVfJxrk3r
Burr was not the only lawmaker on Capitol Hill to take precautions, it was reported. Fellow
Intelligence Committee member Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and her husband sold off more than a
million dollars of shares in a biotech company five days later, while Oklahoma's Jim Inhofe (R) made a
smaller sale around the same time. Both say their sales were routine.
Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Georgia) attended a Senate Health Committee briefing on the outbreak on
January 24. The very same day, she began offloading stock, dropping between $1.2 and $3.1 million in
shares over the following weeks. The companies whose stock she sold included airlines, retail outlets,
and Chinese tech firm Tencent.
She did, however, invest in cloud technology company Oracle, and Citrix, a teleworking company
whose value has increased by nearly a third last week, as social distancing measures forced more and
more Americans to work from home. All of Loeffler's transactions were made with her husband, Jeff
Sprecher, CEO of the New York Stock Exchange.
Meanwhile, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York) and Ilhan Omar (Minnesota) have joined the clamor of
voices demanding punishment. Ocasio-Cortez
described
the sales as
"stomach churning,"
while Omar reached across the aisle to side
with Fox News' Tucker Carlson in calling for Burr's resignation.
"For a public servant it's pretty hard to imagine many things more immoral than doing this,"
Carlson said during a Friday night monolog.
"Richard Burr had critical information that might have
helped the people he is sworn to protect. But he hid that information and helped only himself."
As of Saturday, there are nearly 25,000 cases of Covid-19 in the US, with the death toll heading
towards 300. Now both sides of the political aisle seem united in disgust at the apparent profiteering
of Burr, Loeffler, and Feinstein.
Right-wing news outlet Breitbart
savaged
Burr for voting against the STOCK Act in 2012, a piece of legislation that would have
barred members of Congress from using non-public information to profit on the stock market. At the
same time, a host of Democratic figures - including former presidential candidates
Andrew Yang
and
Kirsten Gillibrand
- weighed in with their own criticism too.
"If you find out about a nation-threatening pandemic and your first move is to adjust your
stock portfolio you should probably not be in a job that serves the public interest,"
Yang
tweeted on Friday.
If you find out about a nation-threatening pandemic and your first move
is to adjust your stock portfolio you should probably not be in a job that serves the public
interest.
Watchdog group Common Cause has filed complaints with the Justice Department, the Securities and
Exchange Commission and the Senate Ethics Committee
"calling for immediate investigations"
of
Burr, Loeffler, Feinstein and Inhofe
"for possible violations of the STOCK Act and insider trading
laws."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
DNC installing a man with obvious cognitive impairment is a staggering display of arrogance.
While Bush and Obama were empty suits this is completly another level.
In way I think Stupor Tuesday was a huge win for Trump.
The oldest organized political party on the planet is advancing a senile globalist meatpuppet
(with a son known to be a philandering crackhead) to handle nuclear launch codes.
Choosing Biden hands the election to Trump and that's a deal that has already been made. The
DNC don't like Sanders because they are adraid he might win, not because they are afraid he
might loose.
I agree with you that it is not going to be a slam dunk for Trump. Just like Trump wasn't
damaged by the Access Hollywood tapes, Biden's not going to be damaged by his senility,
gaffes and his prior plagiarism, Wall St cronyism and corruption. The vote for the "lesser
evil" mindset will consolidate along traditional lines. The Obama machine will run Biden's
campaign and consolidate the Democrat support. The election will hinge on a few states in
particular Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
US politicians and media are reporting approximately 500 cases of the virus in the US as
of March 8. The actual number is almost certainly much higher, however. Perhaps as much as
10-fold that number, according to some sources. Why?
There's the problem of reporting only tested cases so far, and there's still a lack of
available tests even to test and to verify all those infected without symptoms.. And even those
showing symptoms may have been determined initially as not infected by the tests, since
reportedly many of the early test kits were defective. Meanwhile, those without symptoms or
pre-symptomatic are not being tested at all.
The Fiction of Voluntary Quarantine
Then there's the policy of voluntary quarantining those who have come into contact with
someone who was tested and found infected. It's not working very well. Those who have come in
contact with carriers of the virus are asked simply to stay home. But do they? There's no way
to know, or even enforce that. The case example why voluntary quarantining doesn't work well is
Italy.
Most of the northern Lombardy region, including the financial center of Milan in that
country, is in 'lock down' right now. But all that means is voluntary quarantining. People are
asked not to leave their town, or the larger region. But is that stopping them traveling around
their town in public places? Or within the larger region? And spreading the virus there?
Apparently not. Reportedly, infection for those tested have risen in just two weeks to more
than 6,000 in Northern Italy. CNBC reports that, in just one day this weekend, that number
increased by 1200! So much for voluntary quarantines. There's no way, no sufficient personnel,
not even accepted procedures, with which to daily check on those (in Italy that means hundreds
of thousands) in voluntary quarantine.
The Real Costs to Workers
Average working class folks cannot afford to voluntary quarantine themselves. Or to stay
home from work for any reason. Even if they have symptoms. They will continue going to work.
They have to, in order to economically survive.
Consider the typical scenario in the US: there are literally tens of millions of workers who
have no more than $400 for an emergency. As many perhaps as half of the work force of 165
million. They live paycheck to paycheck. They can't afford to miss any days of work. Millions
of them have no paid sick leave. The US is the worst of all advanced economies in terms of
providing paid sick leave. Even union workers with some paid sick leave in their contracts
have, at best, only six days on average. If they stay home sick, they'll be asked by their
employer the reason for doing so in order to collect that paid sick leave. And even when they
don't have sick leave. Paid leave or not, many will be required to provide a doctor's slip
indicating the nature of the illness. But doctors are refusing to hold office visits for
patients who may have the virus. They can't do anything about it, so they don't want them to
come in and possibly contaminate others or themselves. So a worker sick has to go to the
hospital emergency room.
That raises another problem. A trip to the emergency room costs on average at least a
$1,000. More if special tests are done. If the worker has no health insurance (30 million still
don't), that's an out of pocket cost he/she can't afford. They know it. So they don't go to the
hospital emergency room, and they can't get an appointment at the doctor's office. Result: they
don't get tested, refuse to go get tested, and they continue to go to work. The virus
spreads.
Even if they have health insurance coverage, the deductible today is usually $500 to $2000.
Most don't have that kind of savings to spend either. Not to mention copays. So even those
insured take a pass on going to the hospital to get tested, even if they have symptoms.
The media doesn't help here either. Reports are typically that those who are young, middle
age, and in reasonable good health and without other complicating conditions don't die. It's
the older folks, retirees with Medicare, or with serious other conditions, that typically die
from the virus. Workers hear this and that supports their decision not to go to the hospital or
get tested as well.
Then there's the further complication concerning employment if they do go to the hospital.
The hospital will (soon) test them. If found infected, they will send them home for voluntary
quarantine for 14 days! Now the financial crises really begins. The hospital will inform their
employer. Staying at home for 14 days will result in financial disaster, since the employer has
no obligation to continue to pay them their wages while not at work, unless they have some
minimal paid sick leave which, as noted, the vast majority don't have. Nor does the employer
have any obligation legally to even keep them employed for 14 days (or even less) if the
employer determines they are not likely to return to work after 14 days (or even less). They
therefore get fired if they go to the hospital after it reports to the employer they have the
virus. Just another good reason not to go to the hospital.
In other words, here's all kind of major economic disincentives to keep an illness
confidential, to go to work, not go to the hospital (and can't go to the doctor). That risks
passing on the highly contagion bug to others–which has been happening and will continue
to happen.
Here's another financial hit for the working class: child care. Schools are beginning to
shut down. Even where no cases are yet confirmed. Stanford University just decided to
discontinue all in class sessions and revert to all online education. But what about K-6 and
pre-school? Or even Jr. high schools? When they shut down, kids must stay at home. But most
working class parents can't afford nannys or baby-sitters. Not everyone works in an occupation
or company where they can 'work from home'. Do they send the young kids to grandma's and
grandpa's, who are more susceptible to the virus? With their kids required to stay home, they
must miss work, and risk even losing their jobs. We're talking about millions of families with
6 to 12 year olds. And who knows how long the schools will remain shut down.
In short, wages lost due to self-quarantining, forced voluntary quarantining after hospital
testing, the cost of hospital emergency room visits (whether insured or not), the unknown cost
of the tests themselves (the government says it will reimburse them but they don't have the
$1,000 or more cash out of pocket in the first place), the cost of paying for nannys or
baby-sitters for young school age children when schools shut down–i.e. all result in a
massive out of pocket expense for most workers that they don't have.
Workers figure all these possibilities of financial disaster pretty quick and know that the
virus will mean a big financial hit if they miss a day's work, or even if they don't. So they
keep working, hoping they'll recover on their own, refusing to get tested because of the
potential loss of work, wages, and income, and crossing their fingers that their kids' school
districts don't shut down.
What this all means for the US economy is obvious. Household consumption was already
weakening at the end of last year. Most of consumption was driven by accelerating stock
valuations, which affect those in the top 10% who own stocks; or by taking on more
credit–credit cards, which affects the middle class and below.
Over $1 trillion in credit card debt is what has been largely driving middle income and
below consumption. Mainstream economists argue that defaults on credit card debt are only 3% or
so, and thus not a problem. But that's a gross average across all 130 million households. When
this data are broken down, middle income and below family credit card debt is around 9%, a very
high number more like 2007 when the last economic recession began.
Then there's auto debt. As of 2018, reportedly 7 million turned in their keys on their auto
loans. As in the case of credit cards, auto debt defaults will rise as well in 2020. Then
there's student debt, over $1.6 Trillion now. Defaults there are much higher than reported as
well, since actual defaults (defined as failure to pay either principal or interest) have been
redefined to something else other than actual default.
Add to all this the likelihood is very high that job layoffs will now begin by April, as the
global supply chain crisis due to virus-related cuts in production and trade. More job loss
means less wage income and thus less household spending and more inability to deal with the
costs of the virus for most working class families.
Let's not also forget the price gouging for certain products that is beginning now to
appear, both online and in stores. That reduces working class real incomes and thus consumption
too. Meanwhile, certain industries are already taking a big hit and layoffs are looming in
travel companies of all kinds (airlines, cruise ships, hotels, entertainment). In places where
the virus effect is already large, a big decline in restaurant, sports and concerts, movies,
etc. has also begun.
The two big economic contagion channels impacting employment thus far are supply chain
production and distribution reductions, and local demand for certain services (travel, retail,
hospitality, etc.).
But a third major channel has just begun to emerge: that's financial asset deflation in
stocks, oil & commodity futures, junk bonds & leveraged loans, and currency
devaluations.
Stocks' price collapse leads to business shelving investment and even cutting back
production. That means more job loss, reduced wage incomes, less spending, and economic
slowdown.
Oil and commodity prices now collapsing also lead to energy industry layoffs. More
importantly, in turn that will lead to energy junk bond market collapse–potentially
spreading to all junk bonds, leveraged loans, and even BBB grade corporate bonds (which are
really redefined junk bonds not investment grade bonds).
In other words, the collapse of supply chains, production-distribution, and industry by
industry demand in the US may become even worse should the financial markets price collapse can
lead to a general credit crunch. And that translates into a general economic real contraction.
That's precisely what happened in 2008, in a similar chain reaction from financial crisis to
real economic crisis.
Workers are aware of all this possibly leading to longer run economic stress. In the short
run, they consider possible wages loss if they reveal or report they have the virus, or get
tested: i.e. lost wage incomes: the cost of immediate medical care; the cost of child care,
etc. Better to tough it through and continue to go to work is a typical, and rational,
response.
This is already going on. Hundreds of thousands with, and without, symptoms are not being
tested; nor will most of them volunteer to be. Except for those on cruise ships who are forced
to be tested (and they're mostly retirees and elderly), few workers can afford to allow
themselves to be. The infection rate is thus already much higher and will continue to rise.
Voluntary quarantining doesn't work much (again just look at Italy, or even Germany, where in
one week cases (tested) rose from 66 to more than 1000). So out of economic necessity and to
avoid personal economic devastation, they continue to work. But that doesn't have to be.
US Policy Response: No Help for Working Class
US policy has been, is, and will continue to be a disaster. Trump's cuts to health and human
services in the past seriously hampered the US initial response. Tests had to be sent to
Atlanta and the CDC for processing. Early test kits often failed. Only now are they getting to
the states–to late to have a positive initial effect on the spread. Those suspected of
exposure to others confirmed infected were simply sent home for 'voluntary quarantine'. Initial
legislation of $8.3 billion just passed by Congress provides for 'reimbursement' for voluntary
testing, with no clarification if that covers the $1,000 hospital visit as well or just the
cost of the actual test!
There could be, however, a government response that financially supports workers and allows
them to be properly tested and treated.
An Alternative Policy Response
Why doesn't the government simply say 'go get tested for free' and the hospital will bill
the government for the costs? Not the worker pay up front with money he/she likely doesn't
have. Why isn't there emergency legislation by Congress or the states to require employers to
provide at least 14 days of paid sick leave, like other countries? And law guaranteeing
employers can't fire a worker sick with the virus for any reason? Or tax credits to working
class families for the full cost of child care–paid to a nanny or to the worker–if
they have to stay home in the event of a school district shutdown?
While business-investor tax cuts will almost certainly be the official government response,
few of the above measures for working class Americans are likely. In America working class
folks always get the short end of the economic stick. Congress and presidents pass trillions of
dollars in tax cut legislation ($15 trillion since 2001 to investors, businesses and the 1%),
but have raised taxes on the working class. Companies with billions of dollars in annual
profits pay nothing in taxes–and actually get a subsidy check from the government to
boot. Just ask Amazon, IBM, many big banks, pharmaceutical companies and more!
It can be expected the virus will have a large negative impact the standard of living and
wages of millions of working class families. They will have to bear the burden of the cost with
little help from their government. Meanwhile, businesses and investors will get bailed out,
'made whole', once again. In the process Consumption spending–the only area holding up
the economy in 2019–will take a big hit. That means recession starting next quarter is
more than a 50-50 likelihood.
In fact, the investment bank, Goldman Sachs, has just forecast that the effect on the US
economy in the coming second quarter of this year will be a collapse of GDP to 0% growth.
Jack Rasmus is author of the recently published book, 'Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes: Monetary Policy and
the Coming Depression', Clarity Press, August 2017. He blogs at
jackrasmus.com and his twitter handle is @drjackrasmus. His website is http://kyklosproductions.com .
. In the spirit of charity, we should give credit where it's due: Warren really did become
the "
unity candidate " that she always proclaimed herself to be. She displayed an astounding
capacity to bring together a polarized country around their shared distaste for her
candidacy.
Compiling a complete discography of Warren's detractors would be an impossible feat, but for
the sake of partisan schadenfreude, we should briefly revisit the greatest hits. These include
the Native American tribal leaders who weren't particularly fond of a wealthy white Harvard
professor claiming their ethnicity for personal gain (even co-authoring a cooking guide titled
The Pow Wow Chow Native American Cookbook ), the Bernie Sanders supporters infuriated
by Warren's cynical attempts to paint their candidate as a woman-hating misogynist,
police unions offended by Warren's
open dishonesty about violence in law enforcement, religious conservatives who found her
contemptuous dismissal of anyone with traditionalist views of sexual morality to be in
profoundly bad taste, and pro-lifers (who still comprise
34 percent of the Democratic electorate ) for whom Warren's
radically pro-abortion policy objectives were unconscionable.
It's worth noting, of course, that this is just a small slice of the groups that found
Warren enormously unlikeable. The senator's casual-at-best relationship with the truth (
listing herself as as "woman of color" in Harvard's faculty listing,
claiming that she was fired from a teaching position for being pregnant,
refusing to admit that her various spending plans would require raising taxes on the middle
class, and so on) probably didn't help. And shockingly, her painfully contrived attempts at
catering to the woke activist base (vocal
support for reparations,
pledging to let a transgender child pick her secretary of education,
endorsing affirmative action for non-binary people) paired with her technocratically
manicured professorial wonkiness -- she's got a plan for that! -- never caught fire in the
blue-collar neighborhoods in the Midwest and South.
... ... ...
Senator Warren, we hardly knew ye.
Nate Hochman is an undergraduate student at Colorado College and a Young Voices
contributor. You can follow him at Twitter
@njhochman .
Former DNC chairman who gave Hillary Clinton debate questions in advance during the 2016
election, exclaimed on Fox News that Biden's victory was "the most impressive 72 hours
I've ever seen in U.S. politics," and told another analyst to "
go to hell " for suggesting that the Democratic establishment was once again working to
manipulate a nominee into frontrunner status.
The Democrats are in chaos and melting down on live TV.
Donna Brazile just told the @GOPChairwoman to "go to hell"
when asked about the chaos.
"... the American-led takedown of the post-World War II international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. ..."
"... The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices that the political system does not. ..."
I think this would be very informative for anybody seriously interested in the USA foreign
policy. Listening to him is so sad to realize that instead of person of his caliber we have
Pompous Pompeo, who forever is frozen on the level of a tank repair mechanical engineer, as
the Secretary of State.
Published on Feb 24, 2020
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior.
The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly
disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job,
there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of
international best practices that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson
Institute for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of
Defense, ambassador to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm),
acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at
both Bangkok and Beijing. He began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in
Chinese affairs. (He was the principal American interpreter during President Nixon's visit
to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several
well-received books on statecraft and diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing
Misadventures in the Middle East was published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China,
America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige, appeared in March 2013. America's
Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the most recent revision of The
Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power: Statecraft and Diplomacy. He
was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on "diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the
Harvard Law School.
He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than three
decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions,
joint ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other
countries.
He is the author of several books including the most recent
Interesting times: China, America, and the shifting balance of prestige
(2013)
"... The key promise of neoliberalism, which came to power in the USA in 1980 with the election of Reagan (aka "the Quiet Coup")
was that "the rising tide lifts all boats." -- the redistribution of the wealth up somehow will lift the standard of living of lower
strata of the population too. This was a false promise from the very beginning (like everything about neoliberalism, which is based
on lies and fake economics in any case). So anger accumulated and now became the key factor in elections. This anger is directed against
the neoliberal establishment. ..."
"... The anger toward immigrants is, in fact, a displaced and projected anger against the elimination of meaningful and well-paid
jobs and replacing them with McJobs, the process that was the key factor in lowering the standard of living of the bottom 80% of the
population. ..."
"... The other part of this anger is directed toward the USA financial oligarchy (personified by such passionately hated figures
as Lloyd "we are doing God's" Blankfein, private equity sharks, and figures like Wexner/Epstein) and "political establishment" the key
figures of which many people would like to see hanging from street lamp posts (remember "Lock her up" movement in 2016). ..."
"... That's why the neoliberal establishment was forced to use to dirty tricks like Russiagate to patch the cracks in the neoliberal
façade. ..."
"... In Marxist terms, the USA entered the period called the "revolutionary situation" when the ruling neoliberal elite couldn't
govern "as usual" and "the deplorable" do not want to live "as usual". The situation when according to Hegel, "quantity turns into quality,"
or as Marx said "ideas become a material force when they grip the mind of the masses." ..."
I am old enough to remember when many very serious people ascribed the rise of Donald Trump to economic anxiety. The hypthesis
never fit the facts (his supporters had higher incomes on average than Clinton's) but it has become absurd. The level of self reported
economic anxiety is extraordinarily low
Yet now the Democratic party has an insurgent candidate candidate in the lead. I hasten to stress that I am not saying Sanders
supporters have much in common with Trump supporters (young vs old, strong hispanic support vs they hate Trump etc etc etc). But
both appeal to anger and advocate a radical break with business as usual. Both reject party establishments. Also Warren if a little
bit less so.
Trump's 2016 angry supporters still support him *and* they are still angry. He remains unpopular in spite of an economy performing
very well (and perceived to be performing very well).
Whatever is going on in 2020, it sure isn't economic anxiety.
Yet there is clearly anger and desire for radical change.
I don't pretend to understand it, but I think it probably has a lot to do with relative economic performance and increased
inequality. I can't understand why the reaction of so many Americans to this would be to hate immigrants and vote for Trump,
but, then I don't watch Fox News.
Trump's 2016 angry supporters still support him *and* they are still angry.
Many Trump "angry supporters" in 2016 used to belong to "anybody but Hillary" class (and they included a noticeable percentage
of Bernie supporters, who felt betrayed by DNC) .
They are lost for Trump as he now in many aspects represents the "new Hillary" and the slogan "anybody but Trump" is growing
in popularity. Even among Republicans: Trump definitely already lost a large part of anti-war Republicans and independents. As
well as. most probably, a part of working class as he did very little for them outside of effects of military Keynesianism.
I suspect he also lost a part of military voters, those who supported Tulsi. They will never vote for Trump.
He also lost a part of "technocratic" voters resentful of the rule of financial oligarchy (anti-swampers), as his incompetence
is now an undisputable fact.
He also lost Ron Paul's libertarians, who voted for him in 2016.
How "Coronavirus recession", if any, might affect 2020 elections is difficult to say, but in any case this is an unfavorable
for Trump event.
EMichael , February 25, 2020 10:39 am
"I can't understand why the reaction of so many Americans to this would be to hate immigrants and vote for Trump, but, then
I don't watch Fox News."
Coming to you since 1965. It's just that immigrants are now added to blacks. Trump took 50 years of the Southern Strategy,
took the dogwhistles completely out of the closet and wore his racism right on his chest. Helped that he had over 50 years of
experience as a racist, it came naturally to him.
And he attracted a new rw base, those who were not satisfied with dog whistles and/or did not hear them.
likbez , February 25, 2020 12:19 pm
I don't pretend to understand it, but I think it probably has a lot to do with relative economic performance and increased
inequality.
It is actually very easy to understand: the middle class fared very poorly since 1991. See
https://www.cnbc.com/id/44962589 . Now "the chickens come home
to roost," so to speak.
The key promise of neoliberalism, which came to power in the USA in 1980 with the election of Reagan (aka "the Quiet Coup")
was that "the rising tide lifts all boats." -- the redistribution of the wealth up somehow will lift the standard of living of
lower strata of the population too. This was a false promise from the very beginning (like everything about neoliberalism, which
is based on lies and fake economics in any case). So anger accumulated and now became the key factor in elections. This anger
is directed against the neoliberal establishment.
The anger toward immigrants is, in fact, a displaced and projected anger against the elimination of meaningful and well-paid
jobs and replacing them with McJobs, the process that was the key factor in lowering the standard of living of the bottom 80%
of the population.
The other part of this anger is directed toward the USA financial oligarchy (personified by such passionately hated figures
as Lloyd "we are doing God's" Blankfein, private equity sharks, and figures like Wexner/Epstein) and "political establishment"
the key figures of which many people would like to see hanging from street lamp posts (remember "Lock her up" movement in 2016).
Resentment against spending huge amounts of money for wars for sustaining and enlarging the global USA-centered neoliberal
empire is another factor. In this sense, impoverishment and shrinking of the middle class in the USA is similar to the same impoverishment
during the last days of the British colonial empire.
That's why the neoliberal establishment was forced to use to dirty tricks like Russiagate to patch the cracks in the neoliberal
façade.
In Marxist terms, the USA entered the period called the "revolutionary situation" when the ruling neoliberal elite couldn't
govern "as usual" and "the deplorable" do not want to live "as usual". The situation when according to Hegel, "quantity turns
into quality," or as Marx said "ideas become a material force when they grip the mind of the masses."
In 2016 that resulted in the election of Trump.
Add to this the fact that the neoliberal establishment (represented by both parties) now is clearly anti-social (the fact
that a private equity shark Romney was a presidential candidate and then was elected as senator tells a lot about the level of
degradation) and is unwilling to solve burning problems with medical insurance, minimal wage and other "the New Deal" elements
of social infrastructure.
Democratic Party platform now is to the right of Eisenhower republicans.
That dooms the party candidates like CIA-democrat Major Pete, or "the senator from the credit card companies" Biden,
and create an opening for political figures like Sanders (which are passionately hated by DNC)
Yes, neo-McCarthyism is a sign of the collapse of neoliberal ideology and the crisis within
the neoliberal ruling elite, which is trying to patch the cracks int he neoliberal facade of the
US society and require the control over the population (which rejected neoliberalism at voting
booth in 2016) with Russophobia
There's always a bit of judgment and vengeance inherent to the factional shenanigans of
Australia's Liberal party, but its refreshed vocabulary warrants inclusion as the fifth sign.
Michael Sukkar, the member for Deakin, has been
recorded in a dazzling rant declaring war on a "socialist" incursion into a party whose
leader is a former merchant banker who pledged to rule for "freedom, the individual and the
market" the very day he was anointed.
The reds may not
be under the beds quite yet, but if Sukkar's convinced some commie pinkos are already
gatecrashing cocktail events with the blue-tie set, they're certainly on his mind.
Bloomberg is revealed as having said in public that all the disposable income of the poor
should be taxed away so that they will not have funds with which to do mischief like buying
fast food or sugary drinks.
Bloomberg described Sanders as a Communist who cannot be elected. In this he was
correct.
Bloomberg was described by Warren as a cold-hearted and insulting man who openly scorns
women, gays and minorities.
Mayor Pete mocked Klobuchar for her inability to remember the name of the president of
Mexico. She asked if he was calling her "stupid."
These six dwarves will probably persist in their quest for the brass ring all the way to the
convention. In the mayhem there, the "winner" will probably have to choose one of the "losers"
to be his VP running mate.
This was an outright declaration of "class war" against working-class voters by a
"university-credentialed overclass" -- "managerial elite" which changed sides and allied with
financial oligrchy. See "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite" by
Michael Lind
Notable quotes:
"... By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama factions in CIA and FBI. ..."
It looks like Bloomberg is finished. He just committed political suicide with his comments
about farmers and metal workers.
BTW Bloomberg's plan is highly hypocritical -- like is Bloomberg himself.
During the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" was
staged in the USA by "managerial elite" which like Soviet nomenklatura (which also staged a
neoliberal coup d'état) changed sides and betrayed the working class.
So those neoliberal scoundrels reversed the class compromise embodied in the New Deal.
The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the neoliberal managerial class and financial
oligarchy who got to power via the "Quiet Coup" was the global labor arbitrage in which
production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations.
So all those "improving education" plans are, to a large extent, the smoke screen over the
fact that the US workers now need to compete against highly qualified and lower cost
immigrants and outsourced workforce.
The fact is that it is very difficult to find for US graduates in STEM disciplines a
decent job, and this is by design.
Also, after the "Reagan neoliberal revolution" ( actually a coup d'état ), profits
were maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of the
immigrant workforce (the collapse of the USSR helped greatly ). They push down wages and
compete for jobs with their domestic counterparts, including the recent graduates. So the
situation since 1991 was never too bright for STEM graduates.
By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War
II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft
neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms
with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US
population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism
campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama
factions in CIA and FBI.
See also recently published "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial
Elite" by Michael Lind.
One of his quotes:
The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist,
but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of
an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is
hidden in plain sight.
"... To writer Michael Lind, Trump's victory, along with Brexit and other populist stirrings in Europe, was an outright declaration of "class war" by alienated working-class voters against what he calls a "university-credentialed overclass" of managerial elites. ..."
"... Lind cautions against a turn to populism, which he believes to be too personality-centered and intellectually incoherent -- not to mention, too demagogic -- to help solve the terminal crisis of "technocratic neoliberalism" with its rule by self-righteous and democratically unaccountable "experts" with hyperactive Twitter handles. Only a return to what Lind calls "democratic pluralism" will help stem the tide of the populist revolt. ..."
"... Many on the left have been incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat. The result has been the stifling climate of a neo-McCarthyism, in which the only explanation for Trump's success was an unholy alliance of "Putin stooges" and unrepentant "white supremacists." ..."
"... To Lind, the case is much more straightforward: while the vast majority of Americans supports Social Security spending and containing unskilled immigration, the elites of the bipartisan swamp favor libertarian free trade policies combined with the steady influx of unskilled migrants to help suppress wage levels in the United States. Trump had outflanked his opponents in the Republican primaries and Clinton in the general election by tacking left on the economy (he refused to lay hands on Social Security) and right on immigration. ..."
"... Then, in the 1930s, while the world was writhing from the consequences of the Great Depression, a series of fascist parties took the reigns in countries from Germany to Spain. To spare the United States a similar descent into barbarism, President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, in which the working class would find a seat at the bargaining table under a government-supervised tripartite system where business and organized labor met seemingly as equals and in which collective bargaining would help the working class set sector-wide wages. ..."
"... This class compromise ruled unquestioned for the first decades of the postwar era. It was made possible thanks to the system of democratic pluralism, which allowed working-class and rural constituencies to actively partake in mass-membership organizations like unions as well as civic and religious institutions that would empower these communities to shape society from the ground up. ..."
"... But then, amid the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" set in that sought to reverse the class compromise. The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the newly emboldened managerial class was "global labor arbitrage" in which production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations; alternatively, profits can be maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of an unskilled, non-unionized immigrant workforce that competes for jobs with its unionized domestic counterparts. By one-sidedly canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, Lind concludes, the managerial elite had brought the recent populist backlash on itself. ..."
"... American parties are not organized parties built around active members and policy platforms; they are shifting coalitions of entrepreneurial candidate campaign organizations. Hence, the Democratic and Republican Parties are not only capitalist ideologically; they are capitalistically run enterprises. ..."
"... In the epigraph to the book, Lind cites approvingly the 1949 treatise The Vital Center by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who wrote that "class conflict, pursued to excess, may well destroy the underlying fabric of common principle which sustains free society." Schlesinger was just one among many voices who believed that Western societies after World War II were experiencing the "end of ideology." From now on, the reasoning went, the ideological battles of yesteryear were settled in favor of a more disinterested capitalist (albeit New Deal–inflected) governance. This, in turn, gave rise to the managerial forces in government, the military, and business whose unchecked hold on power Lind laments. The midcentury social-democratic thinker Michael Harrington had it right when he wrote that "[t]he end of ideology is a shorthand way of saying the end of socialism." ..."
"... A cursory glance at the recent impeachment hearings bears witness to this, as career bureaucrats complained that President Trump unjustifiably sought to change the course of an American foreign policy that had been nobly steered by them since the onset of the Cold War. In their eyes, Trump, like the Brexiteers or the French yellow vest protesters, are vulgar usurpers who threaten the stability of the vital center from polar extremes. ..."
A FEW DAYS AFTER Donald Trump's electoral upset in 2016, Club for Growth co-founder Stephen
Moore told an
audience of Republican House members that the GOP was "now officially a Trump working class
party." No longer the party of traditional Reaganite conservatism, the GOP had been converted
instead "into a populist America First party." As he uttered these words, Moore says, "the
shock was palpable" in the room.
The Club for Growth had long dominated Republican orthodoxy by promoting low tax rates and
limited government. Any conservative candidate for political office wanting to reap the
benefits of the Club's massive fundraising arm had to pay homage to this doctrine. For one of
its formerly leading voices to pronounce the transformation of this orthodoxy toward a more
populist nationalism showed just how much the ground had shifted on election night.
To writer Michael Lind, Trump's victory, along with Brexit and other populist stirrings
in Europe, was an outright declaration of "class war" by alienated working-class voters against
what he calls a "university-credentialed overclass" of managerial elites. The title of
Lind's new book, The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite ,
leaves no doubt as to where his sympathies lie, though he's adamant that he's not some sort of
guru for a " smarter
Trumpism ," as some have labeled him.
Lind cautions against a turn to populism, which he believes to be too
personality-centered and intellectually incoherent -- not to mention, too demagogic -- to help
solve the terminal crisis of "technocratic neoliberalism" with its rule by self-righteous and
democratically unaccountable "experts" with hyperactive Twitter handles. Only a return to what
Lind calls "democratic pluralism" will help stem the tide of the populist revolt.
The New Class War is a breath of fresh air. Many on the left have been incapable of
coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat. The result has been the stifling climate of a
neo-McCarthyism, in which the only explanation for Trump's success was an unholy alliance of
"Putin stooges" and unrepentant "white supremacists."
To Lind, the case is much more
straightforward: while the vast majority of Americans supports Social Security spending and
containing unskilled immigration, the elites of the bipartisan swamp favor libertarian free
trade policies combined with the steady influx of unskilled migrants to help suppress wage
levels in the United States. Trump had outflanked his opponents in the Republican primaries and
Clinton in the general election by tacking left on the economy (he refused to lay hands on
Social Security) and right on immigration.
The strategy has since been successfully repeated in the United Kingdom by Boris Johnson,
and it looks, for now, like a foolproof way for conservative parties in the West to capture or
defend their majorities against center-left parties that are too beholden to wealthy,
metropolitan interests to seriously attract working-class support. Berating the latter as
irredeemably racist certainly doesn't help either.
What happened in the preceding decades to produce this divide in Western democracies? Lind's
narrative begins with the New Deal, which had brought to an end what he calls "the first class
war" in favor of a class compromise between management and labor. This first class war is the
one we are the most familiar with: originating in the Industrial Revolution, which had produced
the wretchedly poor proletariat, it soon led to the rise of competing parties of organized
workers on the one hand and the liberal bourgeoisie on the other, a clash that came to a head
in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Then, in the 1930s, while the world was writhing from the
consequences of the Great Depression, a series of fascist parties took the reigns in countries
from Germany to Spain. To spare the United States a similar descent into barbarism, President
Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, in which the working class would find a seat at
the bargaining table under a government-supervised tripartite system where business and
organized labor met seemingly as equals and in which collective bargaining would help the
working class set sector-wide wages.
This class compromise ruled unquestioned for the first decades of the postwar era. It was
made possible thanks to the system of democratic pluralism, which allowed working-class and
rural constituencies to actively partake in mass-membership organizations like unions as well
as civic and religious institutions that would empower these communities to shape society from
the ground up.
But then, amid the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" set
in that sought to reverse the class compromise. The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the
newly emboldened managerial class was "global labor arbitrage" in which production is
outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations; alternatively, profits
can be maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of an
unskilled, non-unionized immigrant workforce that competes for jobs with its unionized domestic
counterparts. By one-sidedly canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist
societies after World War II, Lind concludes, the managerial elite had brought the recent
populist backlash on itself.
Likewise, only it can contain this backlash by returning to the bargaining table and
reestablishing the tripartite system it had walked away from. According to Lind, the new class
peace can only come about on the level of the individual nation-state because transnational
treaty organizations like the EU cannot allow the various national working classes to escape
the curse of labor arbitrage. This will mean that unskilled immigration will necessarily have
to be curbed to strengthen the bargaining power of domestic workers. The free-market orthodoxy
of the Club for Growth will also have to take a backseat, to be replaced by government-promoted
industrial strategies that invest in innovation to help modernize their national economies.
Under which circumstances would the managerial elites ever return to the bargaining table?
"The answer is fear," Lind suggests -- fear of working-class resentment of hyper-woke,
authoritarian elites. Ironically, this leaves all the agency with the ruling class, who first
acceded to the class compromise, then canceled it, and is now called on to forge a new one lest
its underlings revolt.
Lind rightly complains all throughout the book that the old mass-membership based
organizations of the 20th century have collapsed. He's coy, however, about who would
reconstitute them and how. At best, Lind argues for a return to the old system where party
bosses and ward captains served their local constituencies through patronage, but once more
this leaves the agency with entities like the Republicans and Democrats who have a combined
zero members. As the third-party activist Howie Hawkins remarked cunningly elsewhere ,
American parties are not organized parties built around active members and policy platforms;
they are shifting coalitions of entrepreneurial candidate campaign organizations. Hence, the
Democratic and Republican Parties are not only capitalist ideologically; they are
capitalistically run enterprises.
Thus, they would hardly be the first options one would think of to reinvigorate the forces
of civil society toward self-rule from the bottom up.
The key to Lind's fraught logic lies hidden in plain sight -- in the book's title. Lind does
not speak of "class struggle ," the heroic Marxist narrative in which an organized
proletariat strove for global power; no, "class war " smacks of a gloomy, Hobbesian
war of all against all in which no side truly stands to win.
In the epigraph to the book, Lind cites approvingly the 1949 treatise The Vital
Center by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who wrote that "class conflict, pursued to
excess, may well destroy the underlying fabric of common principle which sustains free
society." Schlesinger was just one among many voices who believed that Western societies after
World War II were experiencing the "end of ideology." From now on, the reasoning went, the
ideological battles of yesteryear were settled in favor of a more disinterested capitalist
(albeit New Deal–inflected) governance. This, in turn, gave rise to the managerial forces
in government, the military, and business whose unchecked hold on power Lind laments. The
midcentury social-democratic thinker Michael Harrington had it right when he wrote that "[t]he
end of ideology is a shorthand way of saying the end of socialism."
Looked at from this perspective, the break between the postwar Fordist regime and
technocratic neoliberalism isn't as massive as one would suppose. The overclass antagonists of The New Class War believe that they derive their power from the same "liberal order"
of the first-class peace that Lind upholds as a positive utopia. A cursory glance at the recent
impeachment hearings bears witness to this, as career bureaucrats complained that President
Trump unjustifiably sought to change the course of an American foreign policy that had been
nobly steered by them since the onset of the Cold War. In their eyes, Trump, like the Brexiteers or the French yellow vest protesters, are vulgar usurpers who threaten the stability
of the vital center from polar extremes.
A more honest account of capitalism would also acknowledge its natural tendencies to
persistently contract and to disrupt the social fabric. There is thus no reason to believe why
some future class compromise would once and for all quell these tendencies -- and why
nationalistically operating capitalist states would not be inclined to confront each other
again in war.
Reagan was a free-trader and a union buster. Lind's people jumped the Democratic ship
to vote for Reagan in (lemming-like) droves. As Republicans consolidated power over labor
with cheap goods from China and the meth of deficit spending Democrats struggled with
being necklaced as the party of civil rights.
The idea that people who are well-informed ought not to govern is a sad and sick cover
story that the culpable are forced to chant in their caves until their days are done, the
reckoning being too great.
You would not ever have seen this on Fox at the last election. Best high voltage spit by
Jimmy Dore I have seen.
Tucker shows a great smirk especially when Jimmy dumps on Guaido.
"... The thoughtless people who constructed " globalism " overlooked that interdependence is dangerous and can have massive unintended consequences . With or without an epidemic, supplies can be cut off for a number of reasons. For example, strikes, political instability, natural catastrophes, sanctions and other hostilities such as wars, and so forth. Clearly, these dangers to the system are not justified by the lower labor cost and consequent capital gains to shareholders and bonuses to corporate executives. Only the one percent benefits from globalism. ..."
"... Globalism was constructed by people motivated by short-term greed. None of the promises of globalism have been delivered. Globalism is a massive mistake. Yet, almost everywhere political leaders and economists are protective of globalism. So much for human intelligence. ..."
If the coronavirus proves to be serious, as it does not appear to be at the present time,
many economies could be adversely affected. China is the source of many parts supplied to
producers in other countries, and China is the source of the finished products of many US firms
such as Apple. If shipments cannot be made, sales and production outside of China are affected.
Without revenues, employees cannot be paid. Unlike the financial crisis of 2008, this would be
an unemployment crisis and bankruptcy of large manufacturing and marketing corporations.
This is the danger to which globalism makes us vulnerable. If US corporations produced in
the US the products that they market in the US and the world, an epidemic in China would affect
only their Chinese sales, not threaten the companies' revenues.
The thoughtless people who constructed " globalism " overlooked that interdependence is
dangerous and can have massive unintended consequences . With or without an epidemic, supplies
can be cut off for a number of reasons. For example, strikes, political instability, natural
catastrophes, sanctions and other hostilities such as wars, and so forth. Clearly, these
dangers to the system are not justified by the lower labor cost and consequent capital gains to
shareholders and bonuses to corporate executives. Only the one percent benefits from
globalism.
Globalism was constructed by people motivated by short-term greed. None of the promises
of globalism have been delivered. Globalism is a massive mistake. Yet, almost everywhere
political leaders and economists are protective of globalism. So much for human
intelligence.
At this point of time, it is difficult to understand the hysteria over coronavirus and
predictions of global pandemic. In China there are about 24,000 infections and 500 deaths in a
population of 1.3 billion people. This is an inconsequential illness. Compared to the ordinary
seasonal flu that infects millions of people worldwide and kills 600,000, the coronavirus so
far amounts to nothing. Infections outside of China are miniscule and appear to be limited to
Chinese people. It is difficult to know for certain, because of the reluctance to identify
people by race.
Perhaps the coronavirus is just warming up and much worse is to come. If so, world Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) will take a hit. Quarantines prevent work. Finished products and parts
cannot be made and shipped. Sales cannot take place without products to sell. Without revenues
companies cannot pay employees and other expenses. Incomes decline across the world. Companies
go bankrupt.
You can take it from here.
If a deadly coronavirus pandemic or some other one does erupt and there is a world
depression, we should be very clear in our mind that globalism was the cause. Countries whose
governments are so thoughtless or corrupt as to make their populations vulnerable to disruptive
events abroad are medically, economically, socially, and politically unstable.
The consequence of globalism is world instability.
It makes sense for rich countries elites to leverage poor backwards shithole countries to
manufacture the things they need because the elites then don't have to worry about anyone but
themselves. Globalism is wonder as it bypasses all that crazy western nonsense like jobs and
wages and society and hope and such.
Globalism is nothing more than the major central banks finding ways to dump off their
inflation which is the deflation of an ever increasing number countries which the major cb's
used to deflate their currencies. The older the cb you are the worse off yo are. From a since
A.D. perspective only the Sterling is what you have to worry. From my last fiat currency
perspective its the Venisthaler that is un doing everything.
To get more zero's you have to add more nine's. They can not be added as nausem like
people think zero's are. The compensation pool has been shrinking for centuries on end now.
Globalism is an attempt to keep the pool growing at all cost which results relentless asset
appreciation. We are out of nine's. The end result of that is hyper deflation for the man and
hyper reflation for the people. Easily provable at a store named Vons owned by the treasury
retired.
That ladies and gents is your simplified street fed explanation. I am not trying to even
remotely write out the longer technical version.
Having said that meet me at what is known as the small walmart around here, which is the
home of what does MU do, what does MU do at walmart it never gets old fame for a real life
walk thru of what globalism is and looks like. We will then progress to the "Big Walmart" not
even a mile away and I will show you what an out of control system looks like.
So we are clear of what I just said. I live in the only place in the world where when a
tourist ask you where Wal Mart is, you get your choice of size. Whats the difference you
ask??? The small Wal Mart has one main entrance, the big one has three. The lady almost
smacked the **** out of the guy I got that from when she asked what the difference was. The
hand came up. You really had to be there.
Regional trade blocks with relatively balanced resource and production capabilities make
more sense. Globalisation just lead to one country seeking to 'DOMINATE' in every sphere of
global activity, raising the threats of economic and military conflict, as clearly
demonstrated and this with the aim of global enslavement to multinational corporations, the
aim of Globalism, really sick psychopathic stuff.
Regional trade blocks relatively balanced for resource and production, provide stability
within each block and lesson competition for outside resource and commercial competitiveness,
and represents a far more long term stable structure.
Within each trade block, as it is economic rather than socio-political the original
identities of each distinct region can be preserved for the long term, so that future
generations can enjoy and share in the different cultures. Race ******** is race ********,
there is only one race and all of it's people are free to share in which ever culture they
choose or combinations there of. Whether you get to move to those regions and enjoy those
cultures will be done to your personal worth, character and ability to contribute to those
societies, just the way it will be.
Some economic blocks will be far more preferable to others and will attract higher worth
individuals (character and ability to contribute to society), the least and most desirable
will become more so as higher worth individuals move to the most preferable away from the
least preferable and make the most preferable more preferable by their active presence.
I would tip the Japan Australia one to be the most preferable for this century, the next
hard to tell (there are real deep problems in the Americas caused by the USA, the EU had an
bad immigrant problem as in they let in too many bad unvetted immigrants, Africa will be what
Africa will be corrupt and Russia China it depends upon how quickly the modernise and
socially advance, the middle of the middles south east to mid east it depends how long it
takes them to come together and religion is a real problem for them).
I've been wondering if this might be some kind of Globalist Drill. It doesn't make sense,
although there is always the potential it could become worse than it is.
I thought so, too. Strangely enough, Wuhan Chinese are now repatriated from Bali back to
Wuhan?!
Instability is a necessary condition to get more conflicts and then wars going. Weapons
production must be kept up; peace and stability would make make weapons production an
expensive hobby.
Bolton is a war mongering narcissist that wanted his war, didn't get it, & is now
acting like a spoilt child that didn't get his way & is laying on the floor kicking &
screaming!
lizabeth Warren wrote an
article
outlining in general terms how she would bring America's current foreign wars to an end. Perhaps the most significant part of the
article is her commitment to respect Congress' constitutional role in matters of war:
We will hold ourselves to this by recommitting to a simple idea: the constitutional requirement that Congress play a primary
role in deciding to engage militarily. The United States should not fight and cannot win wars without deep public support.
Successive administrations and Congresses have taken the easy way out by choosing military action without proper authorizations
or transparency with the American people. The failure to debate these military missions in public is one of the reasons
they have been allowed to continue without real prospect of success [bold mine-DL].
On my watch, that will end. I am committed to seeking congressional authorization if the use of force is required. Seeking
constrained authorizations with limited time frames will force the executive branch to be open with the American people and
Congress about our objectives, how the operation is progressing, how much it is costing, and whether it should continue.
Warren's commitment on this point is welcome, and it is what Americans should expect and demand from their presidential
candidates. It should be the bare minimum requirement for anyone seeking to be president, and any candidate who won't commit to
respecting the Constitution should never be allowed to have the powers of that office. The president is not permitted to launch
attacks and start wars alone, but Congress and the public have allowed several presidents to do just that without any consequences.
It is time to put a stop to illegal presidential wars, and it is also time to put a stop to open-ended authorizations of military
force. Warren's point about asking for "constrained authorizations with limited time frames" is important, and it is something that
we should insist on in any future debate over the use of force. The 2001 and 2002 AUMFs are still on the books and have been abused
and stretched beyond recognition to apply to groups that didn't exist when they were passed so that the U.S. can fight wars in
countries that don't threaten our security. Those need to be repealed as soon as possible to eliminate the opening that they have
provided the executive to make war at will.
Michael Brendan Dougherty is
unimpressed with Warren's rhetoric:
But what has Warren offered to do differently, or better? She's made no notable break with the class of experts who run our
failing foreign policy. Unlike Bernie Sanders, and like Trump or Obama, she hasn't hired a foreign-policy staff committed to a
different vision. And so her promise to turn war powers back to Congress should be considered as empty as Obama's promise to do
the same. Her promise to bring troops home would turn out to be as meaningless as a Trump tweet saying the same.
We shouldn't discount Warren's statements so easily. When a candidate makes specific commitments about ending U.S. wars during a
campaign, that is different from making vague statements about having a "humble" foreign policy. Bush ran on a conventional hawkish
foreign policy platform, and there were also no ongoing wars for him to campaign against, so we can't say that he ever ran as a
"dove." Obama campaigned against the Iraq war and ran on ending the U.S. military presence there, and before his first term was
finished almost all U.S. troops were out of Iraq. It is important to remember that he did not campaign against the war in
Afghanistan, and instead argued in support of it. His subsequent decision to commit many more troops there was a mistake, but it was
entirely consistent with what he campaigned on. In other words, he withdrew from the country he promised to withdraw from, and
escalated in the country where he said the U.S. should be fighting. Trump didn't actually campaign on ending any wars, but he did
talk about "bombing the hell" out of ISIS, and after he was elected he escalated the war on ISIS. His anti-Iranian obsession was out
in the open from the start if anyone cared to pay attention to it. In short, what candidates commit to doing during a campaign does
matter and it usually gives you a good idea of what a candidate will do once elected.
If Warren and some of the other Democratic candidates are committing to ending U.S. wars, we shouldn't assume that they won't
follow through on those commitments because previous presidents proved to be the hawks that they admitted to being all along.
Presidential candidates often tell us exactly what they mean to do, but we have to be paying attention to everything they say and
not just one catchphrase that they said a few times. If voters want a more peaceful foreign policy, they should vote for candidates
that actually campaign against ongoing wars instead of rewarding the ones that promise and then deliver escalation. But just voting
for the candidates that promise an end to wars is not enough if Americans want Congress to start doing its job by reining in the
executive. If we don't want presidents to run amok on war powers, there have to be political consequences for the ones that have
done that and there needs to be steady pressure on Congress to take back their role in matters of war. Voters should select
genuinely antiwar candidates, but then they also have to hold those candidates accountable once they're in office.
The deep state clearly is running the show (with some people unexpected imput -- see Trump
;-)
Elections now serve mainly for the legitimizing of the deep state rule; election of a
particular individual can change little, although there is some space of change due to the power
of executive branch. If the individual stray too much form the elite "forign policy consensus" he
ether will be JFKed or Russiagated (with the Special Prosecutor as the fist act and impeachment
as the second act of the same Russiagate drama)
But a talented (or reckless) individual can speed up some process that are already under way.
For example, Trump managed to speed up the process of destruction of the USA-centered neoliberal
empire considerably. Especially by launching the trade war with China. He also managed to
discredit the USA foreign policy as no other president before him. Even Bush II.
>This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
> Posted by: Circe | Jan 23 2020 17:46 utc | 36
Hmmm, I've been hearing the same siren song every four years for the past fifty. How is it
that people still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of
murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?
Bureaucracies are reactionary and conservative by nature, so any new and more repressive
policy Trumpy wants is readily adapted, as shown by the continuing barbarity of ICE and the
growth of prisons and refugee concentration camps. Policies that go against the grain are
easily shrugged off and ignored using time-tested passive-aggressive tactics.
One of Trump's insurmountable problems is that he has no loyal organization behind him
whose members he can appoint throughout the massive Federal bureaucracy. Any Dummycrat whose
name is not "Biden" has the same problem. Without a real mass-movement political party to
pressure reluctant bureaucrats, no politician of any name or stripe will ever substantially
change the direction of US policy.
But the last thing Dummycrats want is a real mass movement, because they might not be able
to control it. Instead Uncle Sam will keep heading towards the cliff, which may be coming
into view...
The amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me.
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE to believe A politician will/can change anything and give your consent to
war criminals and traitors?
NO person(s) WILL EVER get to the top in imperial/vassal state politics without being on the
rentier class side, the cognitive dissonans in voting for known liars, war criminals and
traitors would kill me or fry my brain. TINA is a lie and "she" is a real bitch that deserves
to be thrown on the dump off history, YOUR vote is YOUR consent to murder, theft and
treason.
DONT be a rentier class enabler STOP voting and start making your local communities better
and independent instead.
The amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me. <-
Norway
Of course, There Is Another Way, for example, kvetching. We can boldly show that we are
upset, and pessimistic. One upset pessimists reach critical mass we will think about some
actions.
But being upset and pessimistic does fully justify inactivity. In particular, given the
nature of social interaction networks, with spokes and hubs, dominating the network requires
the control of relatively few nodes. The nature of democracy always allows for leverage
takeover, starting from dominating within small to the entire nation in few steps. As it was
nicely explained by Prof. Overton, there is a window of positions that the vast majority
regards as reasonable, non-radical etc. One reason that powers to be invest so much energy
vilifying dissenters, Russian assets of late, is to keep them outside the Overton window.
Having a candidate elected that the curators of Overton window hate definitely shakes the
situation with the potential of shifting the window. There were some positive symptoms after
Trump was elected, but negatives prevail. "Why not we just kill him" idea entered the window,
together with "we took their oil because we have guts and common sense".
From that point of view, visibility of Tulsi and election of Sanders will solve some
problems but most of all, it will make big changes in Overton window.
Is Warren Warren the Jussie Smollet of politics. I wonder if she claims Bernie attacked her
while wearing a red hat and screaming, "A woman can't win! This is MAGA country!"
Being one of Liz' constituents and familiar with her career and her base (consisting of
people like me,) I think she faces so little consequence for her "embellishments" at least in
part because "we" (her base) inhabit an environment in which, with ease, we adjust facts and
perceptions to conform to whatever our self-serving narrative of the moment may be.
We know that Liz will say anything she imagines will be to her advantage and it's okay
with "us" that she does. In a way, she's our ideal candidate and media darling because she
reflects and affirms our plastic values.
...if nothing had happened in the US-China trade war. Well, me might have gotten to where we
are supposed to be with the deal
..a honest question. In terms of the environment and global climate, is it a good thing that
farmers will be producing more monoculture grains, dairy, beef and pork for export?
The future of the U.S.'s involvement in the Middle East is in Iraq. The exchange of
hostilities between the U.S. and Iran occurred wholly on Iraqi soil and it has become the site
on which that war will continue.
Israel continues to up the ante on Iran, following President Trump's lead by bombing Shia
militias stationed near the Al Bukumai border crossing between Syria and Iraq.
The U.S. and Israel are determined this border crossing remains closed and have demonstrated
just how far they are willing to go to prevent the free flow of goods and people across this
border.
The regional allies of Iran are to be kept weak, divided and constantly under
harassment.
Iraq is the battleground because the U.S. lost in Syria. Despite the presence of U.S. troops
squatting on Syrian oil fields in Deir Ezzor province or the troops sitting in the desert
protecting the Syrian border with Jordan, the Russians, Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds forces
continue to reclaim territory previously lost to the Syrian government.
Now with Turkey redeploying its pet Salafist head-choppers from Idlib to Libya to fight
General Haftar's forces there to legitimize its claim to eastern Mediterannean gas deposits,
the restoration of Syria's territorial integrity west of the Euphrates River is nearly
complete.
The defenders of Syria can soon transition into the rebuilders thereof, if allowed. And they
didn't do this alone, they had a silent partner in China the entire time.
And, if I look at this situation honestly, it was China stepping out from behind the shadows
into the light that is your inciting incident for this chapter in Iraq's story.
China moving in to sign a $10.1 billion deal with the Iraqi government to begin the
reconstruction of its ruined oil and gas industry in exchange for oil is of vital
importance.
It doubles China's investment in Iraq while denying the U.S. that money and influence.
This happened after a massive $53 billion deal between Exxon-Mobil and Petrochina was put on
hold after the incident involving Iran shooting down a U.S. Global Hawk drone in June.
With the U.S balking over the Exxon/Petrochina big deal, Iraqi Prime Minster Adel Abdul
Mahdi signed the new one with China in October. Mahdi brought up the circumstances surrounding
that in Iraqi parliaments during the session in which it passed the resolution recommending
removal of all foreign forces from Iraq.
Did Trump openly threaten Mahdi over this deal as I covered in my
podcast on this? Did the U.S. gin up protests in Baghdad, amplifying unrest over growing
Iranian influence in the country?
And, if not, were these threats simply implied or carried by a minion (Pompeo, Esper, a
diplomat)? Because the U.S.'s history of regime change operations is well documented. Well
understood color revolution
tactics used successfully in
places like Ukraine , where snipers were deployed to shoot protesters and police alike to
foment violence between them at the opportune time were on display in Baghdad.
Mahdi openly accused Trump of threatening him, but that sounds more like Mahdi using the
current impeachment script to invoke the sinister side of Trump and sell his case.
It's not that I don't think Trump capable of that kind of threat, I just don't think he's
stupid enough to voice it on an open call. Donald Trump is capable of many impulsive things,
openly threatening to remove an elected Prime Minister on a recorded line is not one of
them.
Mahdi has been under the U.S.'s fire since he came to power in late 2018. He was the man who
refused Trump during
Trump's impromptu Christmas visit to Iraq in 2018 , refusing to be summoned to a
clandestine meeting at the U.S. embassy rather than Trump visit him as a head of state, an
equal.
He was the man who declared the Iraqi air space closed after Israeli air attacks on Popular
Mobilization Force (PMF) positions in September.
And he's the person, at the same time, being asked by Trump to act as a mediator between
Saudi Arabia and Iran in peace talks for Yemen.
So, the more we look at this situation the more it is clear that Abdul Madhi, the first
Iraqi prime minister since the 2003 U.S. invasion push for more Iraqi sovereignty, is emerging
as the pivotal figure in what led up to the attack on General Soleimani and what comes after
Iran's subsequent retaliation.
It's clear that Trump doesn't want to fight a war with Iran in Iran. He wants them to
acquiesce to his unreasonable demands and begin negotiating a new nuclear deal which
definitively stops the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon, and as P
atrick Henningsen at 21st Century Wire thinks ,
Trump now wants a new deal which features a prohibition on Iran's medium range missiles ,
and after events this week, it's obvious why. Wednesday's missile strike by Iran demonstrates
that the US can no longer operate in the region so long as Iran has the ability to extend its
own deterrence envelope westwards to Syria, Israel, and southwards to the Arabian Peninsula,
and that includes all US military installations located within that radius.
Iraq doesn't want to be that battlefield. And Iran sent the message with those two missile
strikes that the U.S. presence in Iraq is unsustainable and that any thought of retreating to
the autonomous Kurdish region around the air base at Erbil is also a non-starter.
The big question, after this attack, is whether U.S. air defenses around the Ain al Assad
airbase west of Ramadi were active or not. If they were then Trump's standing down after the
air strikes signals what Patrick suggests, a new Middle East in the making.
If they were not turned on then the next question is why? To allow Iran to save face after
Trump screwed up murdering Soleimani?
I'm not capable of believing such Q-tard drivel at this point. It's far more likely that the
spectre of Russian electronics warfare and radar evasion is lurking in the subtext of this
story and the U.S. truly now finds itself after a second example of Iranian missile technology
in a nascent 360 degree war in the region.
It means that Iran's threats against the cities of Haifa and Dubai were real.
In short, it means the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq now measures in months not
years.
Because both China and Russia stand to gain ground with a newly-united Shi'ite Iraqi
population. Mahdi is now courting Russia to sell him S-300 missile defense systems to allow him
to enforce his demands about Iraqi airspace.
Moqtada al-Sadr is mobilizing his Madhi Army to oust the U.S. from Iraq. Iraq is key to the
U.S. presence in the region. Without Iraq the U.S. position in Syria is unsustainable.
If the U.S. tries to retreat to Kurdish territory and push again for Masoud Barzani and his
Peshmerga forces to declare independence Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will go
ballistic.
And you can expect him to make good on his threat to close the Incerlik airbase, another
critical logistical juncture for U.S. force projection in the region.
But it all starts with Mahdi's and Iraq's moves in the coming weeks. But, with Trump rightly
backing down from escalating things further and not following through on his outlandish threats
against Iran, it may be we're nearing the end of this intractable standoff.
Back in June I told you
that Iran had the ability to fight asymmetrically against the U.S., not through direct
military confrontation but through the after-effects of a brief, yet violent period of war in
which all U.S., Israeli and Arab assets in the Middle East come under fire from all
directions.
It sent this same message then that by attacking oil tankers it could make the transport of
oil untenable and not insurable. We got a taste of it back then and Trump, then, backed
down.
And the resultant upheaval in the financial markets creating an abyss of losses, cross-asset
defaults, bank failures and government collapses.
Trump has no real option now but to negotiate while Iraq puts domestic pressure on him to
leave and Russia/China come in to provide critical economic and military support to assist
Mahdi rally his country back towards some semblance of sovereignty
How about "what is the goal?" There is none of course. The assholes in the Washington/MIC
just need war to keep them relevant. What if the US were to closed down all those wars and
foreign bases? THEN the taxpayer could demand some accounting for the trillions that are
wasted on complete CRAP. There are too many old leftovers from the cold war who seem to think
there is benefit to fighting wars in shithole places just because those wars are the only
ones going on right now. The stupidity of the ****** in the US military/MIC/Washington is
beyond belief. JUST LEAVE you ******* idiots.
Sometimes, in treading thru the opaque, sandstorm o ******** swept wastes of the '
desert of the really real '...
one must rely upon a marking... some kind of guidepost, however tenuous, to show you to be
still... on the trail, not lost in the vast haunted reaches of post-reality. And you know,
Tommy is that sort of guide; the sort of guy who you take to the fairgrounds, set him up with
the 'THROW THE BALL THRU THE HOOP... GUARANTEED PRIZE TO SCOOP' kiosk...
and he misses every time. Just by watching Tom run through his paces here... zeroing in on
the exact WRONG interpretation of events ... every dawg gone time... one resets their compass
to tru course and relaxes into the flow agin! Thanks Tom! Let's break down ... the Schlitzy
shopping list of sloppy errors:
Despite the presence of U.S. troops squatting on Syrian oil fields in Deir Ezzor
province or the troops sitting in the desert protecting the Syrian border with Jordan, the
Russians, Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds forces continue to reclaim territory previously
lost to the Syrian government. / umm Tom... the Russkies just ONCE AGIN... at Ankaras
request .. imposed a stop on the IDLIB CAMPAIGN. Which by the way... is being conducted
chiefly by the SAA. Or was that's to say. To the east... the Russkies have likewise become
the guarantors of .... STATIS... that is a term implying no changes on the map. Remember
that word Tom... "map" ... I recommend you to find one... and learn how to use it!
Now with Turkey redeploying its pet Salafist head-choppers from Idlib to Libya to fight
General Haftar's forces there to legitimize its claim to eastern Mediterannean gas
deposits, the restoration of Syria's territorial integrity west of the Euphrates River is
nearly complete. See above... with gravy Tom. Two hundred jihadists moving to Libya has not
changed the status quo... except in dreamland.
Israel continues to up the ante on Iran, f ollowing President Trump's lead by bombing
Shia militias stationed near the Al Bukumai border crossing between Syria and Iraq.
Urusalem.. and its pathetically obedient dogsbody USSA ... are busy setting up RIMFISTAN
Tom.. you really need to start expanding your reading list; On both sides of that border
you mention .. they will be running - and guarding - pipeline running to the mothership.
Shia miitias and that project just don't mix. Nobody gives a frying fluck bout your
imaginary 'land bridge to the Med'... except you and the gomers. And you and they aren't
ANYWHERES near to here.
Abdul Madhi, the first Iraqi prime minister since the 2003 U.S. invasion push for
more Iraqi sovereignty, is emerging as the pivotal figure in what led up to the attack on
General Soleimani and what comes after Iran's subsequent retaliation.
Ok... this is getting completely embarrassing. The man is a 'caretaker' Tom...
that's similar to a 'janitor' - he's on the way out. If you really think thats' being
pivotal... I'm gonna suggest that you've 'pivoted' on one of your goats too many
times.
Look, Tom... I did sincerely undertake to hold your arm, and guide you through this to a
happier place. But you... are underwater my man. And that's quite an accomplishment, since we
be traveling through the deserts of the really real. You've enumerated a list of things which
has helped me to understand just how completely distorted is the picture of the situation
here in mudded east.. is... in the minds of the myriad victims of your alt-media madness. And
I thank you for that. But its time we part company.
These whirring klaidescope glasses I put on, in order to help me see how you see things,
have given me a bit of a headache. Time to return to seeing the world... as it really
works!
The whole *target and destroy* Iran (and Iraq) clusterfuck has always been about creating
new profit scenarios, profit theaters, for the MIC.
If the US govt was suddenly forced to stop making and selling **** designed to kill
people... if the govt were forced to stopping selling **** to other people so
they can kill people... if the govt were forced to stop stockpiling **** designed to
kill people just so other people would stop building and stockpiling **** designed to kill
people... first the US then the world would collapse... everyone would finally see... the US
is a nation of people that allows itself to be propped up by the worst sort of people... an
infinitesimally small group of gangsters who legally make insane amounts of money... by
creating in perpetuity... forever new scenarios that allow them to kill other people.
Jesus ******* Christ ZeroHedge software ******* sucks.
Why has Trump no real option? What do you believe are the limits of Trump's options that
assure he must negotiate? Perhaps all out war is not yet possible politically in the US, but
public sentiment has been manipulated before. Why not now?
One must not yet reject the idea that the road to Moscow and Beijing does not run through
Iran. Throwing the US out of the Middle East would be a grievous failure for the deep state
which has demonstrated itself to be absolutely ruthless. It is hard to believe the US will
leave without a much more serious war forcing the issue.
So far Trump has appeared artless and that may continue but that artlessness may well
bring a day when Trump will not back down.
The motivation behind Trump pulling out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action wasn't
because, after careful analytical study of the plan, he decided it was a bad deal. It was
because Israel demanded it as it didn't fit into their best interests and, as with the
refreezing of relationships with Cuba, it was a easier way to undo Obama policy rather than
tackling Obamacare. Hardly sound judgement.
The war will continue in Iraq as the Shia majority mobilize against an occupying force
that has been asked to leave, but refuse. What will quickly become apparent is that this war
is about to become far more multifaceted with Iraqi and Iranian proxies targeting American
interests across numerous fronts.
Trump is the head of a business empire; Downsizing is not a strategy that he's ever
employed; His business history is a case study in go big or go bust.
trump's zionist overlords have demanded he destroy iran.
as a simple lackey, he agreed, but he does need political cover to do so.
thus the equating of any attack or threat of attack by any group of any political
persuasion as originating from iran.
any resistance by the shia in iraq will be considered as being directed from iran, thus an
attack on iran is warranted.
any resistance by the currect governement of iraq will be considered as being directed
from iran, thus an attack on iran is warranted.
any resistance by the sunni in iraq will be considered subversion by iran, or a false flag
by iran, thus an attack on iran is warranted.
trump's refusal to follow the SOFA agreement, and heed the call of the democratic
government we claim to have gone in to install, is specifically designed to lead to more
violence, which in turn can be blamed on iran's "malign" influence, which gives the entity
lackeys cover to spread more democracy.
I'm more positive that Iraq can resolve its issues without starting a Global War.
The information
shared by the Iraqi Prime Minister goes part way to awakening the population as to what
is happening and why.
Once more information starts to leak out (and it will from those individuals who want to
avoid extinction) the broad mass of the global population can take action to protect
themselves from the psychopaths.
China moving in to sign a $10.1 billion deal with the Iraqi government to begin the
reconstruction of its ruined oil and gas industry in exchange for oil is of vital
importance.
Come on Tom, you should know better than that: the U.S will destroy any agreements between
China and the people of Iraq.
The oil will continue to be stolen and sent to Occupied Palestine to administer and the
people of Iraq will be in constant revolt, protest mode and subjugation- but they will never
know they are being manipulated by the thieving zionists in D.C and Tel aviv.
Agreed. It will take nothing short of a miracle to stop this. Time isnt on their side
though so they better get on it. They will do something big to get it going.
This isn't "humanity." Few people are psychopathic killers. It is being run by a small
cliche of Satanists who are well on their way to enslaving humanity in a dystopia even George
Orwell could not imagine. They control most of the levers of power and influence and have
done so for centuries.
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to
risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one
piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor
for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
any country.
- Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring's testimony before the Nuremberg tribunal on crimes
against humanity
And again, if we do win despite all the structural injustices in the system the Rs inherited and seek to expand, well, those
injustices don't really absolutely need to be corrected, because we will still have gotten the right result from the system
as is.
This is a pretty apt description of the mindset of Corporate Democrats. Thank you !
May I recommend you to listen to Chris Hedge 2011 talk
On Death of the Liberal Class At least to the first
part of it.
Corporate Dems definitely lack courage, and as such are probably doomed in 2020.
Of course, the impeachment process will weight on Trump, but the Senate hold all trump cards, and might reverse those effects
very quickly and destroy, or at lease greatly diminish, any chances for Corporate Demorats even complete on equal footing in 2020
elections. IMHO Pelosi gambit is a really dangerous gambit, a desperate move, a kind of "Heil Mary" pass.
Despair is a very powerful factor in the resurgence of far right forces. And that's what happening right now and that's why
I suspect that far right populism probably will be the decisive factor in 2020 elections.
IMHO Chris explains what the most probable result on 2020 elections with be with amazing clarity.
Bill Clinton destroyed the USA economy and middle class like no president has ever done.
Bush II and Obama exacerbated the destruction by the hundred folds.
I believe Hedges statement that "the true correctives to society were social movements
that never achieved formal political power" is perhaps one of the most important things for
each of us to understand.
I watched this with interest and curiosity and growing skepticism although he makes some
killer points and cites some extremely disturbing facts; above all he accepts and
uncritically so the American narrative of history.
The message from democrats is "hey we're not bigots". Most people (repubs+dems) aren't. If
they keep calling on that for energy the Dems will forever continue to lose. If they don't
come back to the working class they might as well just call themselves conservatives.
Those of us who seek the truth can't stop looking under every stone. The truth will set
you free but you must share it with those who are ready to hear it and hide it from those who
can hurt you for exposing it. MT
"A Society that looses the capacity for the sacred cannibalizes itself until it dies
because it exploits the natural world as well as human beings to the point of collapse."
I believe Hedges statement that "the true correctives to society were social movements
that never achieved formal political power" is perhaps one of the most important things for
each of us to understand.
I watched this with interest and curiosity and growing skepticism although he makes some
killer points and cites some extremely disturbing facts; above all he accepts and
uncritically so the American narrative of history. The Progressive movement, for example,
(written into American history as being far more important that it ever really was,) unlike
Socialism or Communism was primarily just a literary and a trendy intellectually movement
that attempted, (unconvincingly,) to persuade poor, exploited and abused Americans that non
of those other political movements, (reactive and grass-roots,) were needed here and that
capitalism could and might of itself, cure itself; it conceded little, promised much and
unlike either Communism or Socialism delivered fuck all. Personally I remain unconvinced also
by, "climate science," (which he takes as given,) and which seems to to me to depend far too
much on faith and self important repeatedly insisting that it's true backed by lurid and
hysterical propaganda and not nearly enough on rational scientific argument, personally I
can't make head nor tail of the science behind it ? (it may well be true, or not; I can't
tell.) But above all and stripped of it his pretensions his argument is just typical theist,
(of any flavor you like,) end of times claptrap all the other systems have failed, (China for
example somewhat gives the lie to death of Communism by the way and so on,) the end is neigh
and all that is left to do is for people to turn to character out of first century fairly
story. I wish him luck with that.
The message from democrats is "hey we're not bigots". Most people (repubs+dems) aren't. If
they keep calling on that for energy the Dems will forever continue to lose. If they don't
come back to the working class they might as well just call themselves conservatives.
I have always loved Chris Hedges, but ever since becoming fully awake it pains me to see
how he will take gigantic detours of imagination to never mention Israel, AIPAC or Zionism,
and their complete takeover of the US. What a shame.
The continued growth of unproductive debt against the low or nonexistent growth of GDP is
the recipe for collapse, for the whole world economic system.
I agree with Chris about the tragedy of the Liberal Church. Making good through identity
politics however, is every bit as heretical and tragic as Evangelical Republican corrupted
church think, in my humble, Christian opinion.
The death of the present western hemisphere governments and "democratic" institutions must
die right now for humanity to be saved from the zombies that rule it. 'Cannibalization" of
oikonomia was my idea, as well as of William Engdahl. l am glad hearing Hedges to adopt the
expression of truth. ( November 2019. from Phthia , Hellas ).
ass="comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> Gosh , especially that last conclusion
,was terrific so I want to paste the whole of that Auden poem here:- September 1, 1939 W. H.
Auden - 1907-1973
... ... ...
I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.
"... Neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality. ..."
"... This apocalyptic populism was rooted in a profound discontent for the empty promises of a neoliberal ideology that made capitalism and democracy synonymous, and markets the model for all social relations. In addition, the Democratic proponents of neoliberalism, such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, participated in the dismantling of the social contract, widening economic inequality, and burgeoning landscapes of joblessness, misery, anger and despair. ..."
"... Liberal democracies across the globe appeared out of touch with not only the misery and suffering caused by neoliberal policies, they also produced an insular and arrogant group of politicians who regarded themselves as an enlightened political formation that worked " on behalf of an ignorant public ." ..."
"... As a regime of affective management, neoliberalism created a culture in which everyone was trapped in his or her own feelings, emotions and orbits of privatization. One consequence was that legitimate political claims could only be pursued by individuals and families rather than social groups. ..."
Talk of a looming recession is heating up as the global economy slows and President Trump's tiff with China unsettles financial
markets. As world trade contracts, stock markets drop, the manufacturing sector in the United States is
in decline for the first time in a decade , and farmers and steel workers continue losing their income and jobs.
Rumors of a coming recession accentuate fears about the further deterioration of conditions faced by workers and the poor, who
are already suffering from precarious employment, poverty, lack of meaningful work and dwindling pensions. A global economic slump
would make living standards for the poor even worse. As
Ashley Smith points out
, levels of impoverishment in the United States are already shocking, with "four out of every ten families [struggling] to meet the
costs of food, housing, health care, and utilities every month."
Just as the 2008 global economic crisis revealed the failures of liberal democracy and the scourge of neoliberalism, a new economic
recession in 2019 could also reveal how institutions meant to serve the public interest and offer support for a progressive politics
now serve authoritarian ideologies and a ruling elite that views democracy as the enemy of market-based freedoms and white nationalism.
What has not been learned from the 2008 crisis is that an economic crisis neither unites those most affected in favor of a progressive
politics nor does it offer any political guarantees regarding the direction of social change. Instead, the emotions that fueled massive
public anger toward elites and globalization gave rise to the celebration of populist demagogues and a right-wing tsunami of misdirected
anger, hate and violence toward undocumented immigrants, refugees, Muslims and people of color.
The 2008 financial crisis wreaked havoc in multiple ways. Yet there was another crisis that received little attention: a crisis
of agency. This crisis centered around matters of identity, self-determination and collective resistance, which were undermined in
profound ways, giving rise to and legitimating the emergence of authoritarian populist movements in many parts of the world, such
as United States, Hungary, Poland and Brazil.
At the heart of this shift was the declining belief in the legitimacy of both liberal democracy and its pledges about trickle-down
wealth, economic security and broadening equal opportunities preached by the apostles of neoliberalism. In many ways, public faith
in the welfare state, quality employment opportunities, institutional possibilities and a secure future for each generation collapsed.
In part, this was a consequence of the post-war economic boom giving way to massive degrees of inequality, the off-shoring of wealth
and power, the enactment of cruel austerity measures, an expanding regime of precarity, and a cut-throat economic and social environment
in which individual interests and needs prevailed over any consideration of the common good. As liberalism aligned itself with corporate
and political power, both the Democratic and Republican Parties embraced financial reforms that increased the wealth of the bankers
and corporate elite while doing nothing to prevent people from losing their homes, being strapped with chronic debt, seeing their
pensions disappear, and facing a future of uncertainty and no long-term prospects or guarantees.
Neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality.
In an age of economic anxiety, existential insecurity and a growing culture of fear, liberalism's overheated emphasis on individual
liberties "made human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed," as
noted by Pankaj Mishra. In this instance, neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely
by economic inequality. The latter was the outcome of a growing cultural and political polarization that made "it possible for haters
to come out from the margins, form larger groups and make political trouble." This toxic polarization and surge of right-wing populism
produced by casino capitalism was accentuated with the growth of fascist groups that
shared a skepticism
of international organizations, supported a militant right-wing nationalism, and championed a surge of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim
and anti-democratic values.
This apocalyptic populism was rooted in a profound discontent for the empty promises of a neoliberal ideology that made capitalism
and democracy synonymous, and markets the model for all social relations. In addition, the Democratic proponents of neoliberalism,
such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, participated in the dismantling of the social contract, widening economic inequality, and
burgeoning landscapes of joblessness, misery, anger and despair.
At the same time, they enacted policies that dismantled civic culture and undermined a wide range of democratic institutions that
extended from the media to public goods such as public and higher education. Under such circumstances, democratic narratives, values
and modes of solidarity, which traded in shared responsibilities and shared hopes, were replaced by a market-based focus on a regressive
notion of hyper-individualism, ego-centered values and a view of individual responsibility that eviscerated any broader notion of
social, systemic, and corporate problems and accountability.
Ways of imagining society through a collective ethos became fractured, and a comprehensive understanding of politics as inclusive
and participatory morphed into an anti-politics marked by an investment in the language of individual rights, individual choice and
the power of rights-bearing individuals.
Under the reign of neoliberalism, language became thinner and more individualistic, detached from history and more self-oriented,
all the while undermining viable democratic social spheres as spaces where politics bring people together as collective agents and
critically engaged citizens. Neoliberal language is written in the discourse of economics and market values, not ethics. Under such
circumstances, shallowness becomes an asset rather than a liability. Increasingly, the watered-down language of liberal democracy,
with its over-emphasis on individual rights and its neoliberal coddling of the financial elite, gave way to a regressive notion of
the social marked by rising authoritarian tendencies, unchecked nativism, unapologetic expressions of bigotry, misdirected anger
and the language of resentment-filled revolt. Liberal democracies across the globe appeared out of touch with not only the misery
and suffering caused by neoliberal policies, they also produced an insular and arrogant group of politicians who regarded themselves
as an enlightened political formation that worked "
on behalf of an ignorant public ."
The ultimate consequence was to produce later what Wolfgang Merkel describes as "a rebellion of the disenfranchised." A series
of political uprisings made it clear that neoliberalism was suffering from a crisis of legitimacy further accentuated by the Brexit
vote in the United Kingdom, the election of Donald Trump, support for the National Rally (
formerly known as the
National Front ) in France, and the emergence of powerful right-wing populist movements across the globe.
What has been vastly underestimated in the rise of right-wing populism is the capture of the media by authoritarian populists.
As a regime of affective management, neoliberalism created a culture in which everyone was trapped in his or her own feelings,
emotions and orbits of privatization. One consequence was that legitimate political claims could only be pursued by individuals and
families rather than social groups. In this instance, power was removed from the social sphere and placed almost entirely in
the hands of corporate and political demagogues who used it to enrich themselves for their own personal gain.
Power was now used to produce muscular authority in order "to secure order, boundaries, and to divert the growing anger of a declining
middle and working-class," Wendy Brown observes . Both
classes increasingly came to blame their economic and political conditions that produced their misery and ravaged ways of life on
"'others': immigrants, minority races, 'external' predators and attackers ranging from terrorists to refugees." Liberal-individualistic
views lost their legitimacy as they refused to indict the underlying structures of capitalism and its winner-take-all ethos.
Functioning largely as a ruthless form of social Darwinism, economic activity was removed from a concern with social costs, and
replaced by a culture of cruelty and resentment that disdained any notion of compassion or ethical concern for those deemed as "other"
because of their class, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and religion. This is a culture marked by gigantic hypocrisies, "the
gloomy tabulation of unspeakable violent events," widespread viciousness, "great concentrations of wealth," "surveillance overkill,"
and the "unceasing despoliation of biospheres for profit."
George Monbiot sums up well some of the more toxic elements of neoliberalism, which remained largely hidden since it was in the
mainstream press less as an ideology than as an economic policy. He
writes :
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 minimized, public services should be privatized. The organization of labor 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.
In the neoliberal worldview, those who are unemployed, poor consumers or outside of the reach of a market in search of insatiable
profits are considered disposable. Increasingly more people were viewed as anti-human, unknowable, faceless and symbols of fear and
pathology. This included undocumented immigrants in the United States and refugees in Europe, as well as those who were considered
of no value to a market society, and thus eligible to be deprived of the most basic rights and subject to the terror of state violence.
Marking selected groups as disposable in both symbolic and material forms, the neoliberal politics of disposability became a machinery
of political and social death -- producing spaces where undesirable members are abused,
put in cages
, separated from their children and subject to a massive violation of their human rights. Under a neoliberal politics of disposability,
people live in spaces of ever-present danger and risk where nothing is certain; human beings considered excess are denied a social
function and relegated to what Étienne Balibar calls the "death zones
of humanity." These are the 21st century workstations designed for the creation and process of elimination; a death-haunted mode
of production rooted in the "absolute triumph of irrationality."
Economic and cultural nationalism has become a rallying cry to create the conditions for merging a regressive neoliberalism and populism
into a war machine.
Within this new political formation, older forms of exploitation are now matched, if not exceeded, by a politics of racial and
social cleansing, as entire populations are removed from ethical assessments, producing zones of social abandonment. In this new
world, there is a merging of finance capital and a war culture that speaks to a moral and political collapse in which the welfare
state is replaced by forms of economic nationalism and a
burgeoning carceral state .
Furthermore, elements of this crisis can be seen in the ongoing militarization of everyday life as more and more institutions
take on the model of the prison. Additionally, there is also the increased arming of the police, the criminalization of a wide range
of behaviors related to social problems, the rise of the surveillance state, and the ongoing war on youth, undocumented immigrants,
Muslims and others deemed enemies of the state.
Under the aegis of a neoliberal war culture, we have witnessed increasing immiseration for the working and middle classes, massive
tax cuts for the rich, the outsourcing of public services, a full-fledged attack on unions, the defunding of public goods, and the
privatization of public services extending from health and education to roads and prisons. This ongoing transfer of public resources
and services to the rich, hedge fund managers, and corporate elite was matched by the corporate takeover of the commanding institutions
of culture, including the digital, print and broadcast media. What has been vastly underestimated in the rise of right-wing populism
is the capture of the media by authoritarian populists and its flip side, which amounts to a full-fledged political attack on independent
digital, online and oppositional journalists.
While it is generally acknowledged that neoliberalism was responsible for the worldwide economic crisis of 2008, what is less
acknowledged is that structural crisis produced by a capitalism on steroids was not matched by subjective crisis and consequently
gave rise to new reactionary political populist movements. As economic collapse became visceral, people's lives were upended and
sometimes destroyed. Moreover, as the social contract was shredded along with the need for socially constructed roles, norms and
public goods, the "social" no longer occupied a thick and important pedagogical space of solidarity, dialogue, political expression,
dissent and politics.
As public spheres disappeared, communal bonds were weakened and social provisions withered. Under neoliberalism, the social sphere
regresses into a privatized society of consumers in which individuals are atomized, alienated, and increasingly removed from the
variety of social connections and communal bonds that give meaning to the degree to which societies are good and just.
Establishment politics lost its legitimacy, as voters rejected the conditions produced by financialized capitalism.
People became isolated, segregated and unable "
to negotiate democratic dilemmas in a democratic
way " as power became more abstract and removed from public participation and accountability. As the neoliberal net of privilege
was cast wider without apology for the rich and exclusion of others, it became more obvious to growing elements of the public that
appeals to liberal democracy had failed to keep its promise of a better life for all. It could no longer demand, without qualification,
that working people should work harder for less, and that democratic participation is exclusively about elections. What could not
be hidden from many disenfranchised groups was that ruling elites produced what
Adam Tooze describes
as "a disastrous slide from the hypocrisies and compromises of the previous status quo into something even [more dangerous]."
As the global crisis has intensified since 2008, elements of a political and moral collapse at the heart of an authoritarian society
are more obvious and find their most transparent expression of ruthlessness, greed and unchecked power in the rule of Donald Trump.
As Chris Hedges points out :
The ruling corporate elites no longer seek to build. They seek to destroy. They are agents of death. They crave the unimpeded
power to cannibalize the country and pollute and degrade the ecosystem to feed an insatiable lust for wealth, power and hedonism.
Wars and military "virtues" are celebrated. Intelligence, empathy and the common good are banished. Culture is degraded to patriotic
kitsch . Those branded as unproductive or redundant are discarded and left to struggle in poverty or locked away in cages.
The slide into authoritarianism was made all the easier by the absence of a broad-based left mass movement in the United States,
which failed to provide both a comprehensive vision of change and an alignment of single-issue groups and smaller movements into
one mass movement. Nancy Fraser
rightly observes that following Occupy, "potential links between labour and new social movements were left to languish. Split
off from one another, those indispensable poles of a viable left were miles apart, waiting to be counterposed as antithetical."
Since the 1970s, there has been a profound backlash by economic, financial, political and religious fundamentalists and their
allied media establishments against labor, an oppositional press, people of color and others who have attempted to extend the workings
of democracy and equality.
As the narrative of class and class struggle disappeared along with the absence of a vibrant socialist movement, the call for
democracy no longer provided a unifying narrative to bring different oppressed groups together. Instead, economic and cultural nationalism
has become a rallying cry to create the conditions for merging a regressive neoliberalism and populism into a war machine. Under
such circumstances, politics is imagined as a form of war, repelling immigrants and refugees who are described by President Trump
as "invaders," "vermin" and "rapists." The emergence of neoliberalism as a war machine is evident in the current status of the Republican
Party and the Trump administration, which wage assaults on anything that does not mimic the values of the market. Such assaults take
the form of fixing whole categories of people as disposable, as enemies, and force them into conditions of extreme precarity -- and
in increasingly more instances, conditions of danger. Neoliberal capitalism radiates violence, evident in its endless instances of
mass shooting, such as those that took place most recently in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. This should not be surprising for
a society that measures power by the speed that it removes itself from any sense of ethical and social responsibility. As Beatrix
Campbell puts it ,
The richest society on the planet is armed. And it invests in one of the largest prison systems in the world. Violence circulates
between state and citizen. Drilled to kill, doomed to die: mastery and martyrdom is the heartbreaking dialectic of the manufacture
of militarized, violent masculinity . The making and maintaining of militarised masculinities is vital to these new modes of armed
conflict that are proliferating across the flexible frontiers of globalized capitalism, between and within states.
What has become clear is that
the neoliberal agenda has been a spectacular failure . Moreover, it has mobilized on a global level the violent political, social,
racial and economic energies of a resurgent fascist politics. Across the globe, right-wing modes of governance are appearing in which
the line collapses between "outside foreign enemies" such as refugees and undocumented immigrants, on the one hand, and on the other,
inside "dangerous" or "treasonous" classes such as critical journalists, educators and dissidents.
As neoliberal economies increasingly resort to violence and repression, fear replaces any sense of shared responsibilities, as
violence is not only elevated to an organizing principle of society, but also expands a network of extreme cruelty. Imagining politics
as a war machine, more and more groups are treated as excess and inscribed in an order of power as disposable, enemies, and [forced]
into conditions of extreme precarity. This is a particularly vicious form of state violence that undermines and constrains agency,
and subjects individuals to zones of abandonment, as evident in the growth of immigrant jails and an expanding carceral complex in
the United States and other countries, such as Hungary.
As neoliberalism's promise of social mobility and expanding economic progress collapsed, it gave way to an authoritarian right-wing
populism looking for narratives on which to pin the hatred of governing elites who, as Paul Mason
notes , "capped health and welfare
spending, [imposed] punitive benefit withdraws [that] forced many families to rely on food banks [and] withdraw sickness and disability
benefits from one million former workers below retirement age."
Across the globe, a series of uprisings have appeared that signal new political formations that rejected the notion that there
was no alternative to neoliberal hegemony. This was evident not only with the election of Donald Trump and the Brexit vote in the
United Kingdom, but also with the election of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and support for popular movements such as the National Rally
in France. Establishment politics lost its legitimacy, as voters rejected the conditions produced by financialized capitalism.
In the United States, both major political parties were more than willing to turn the economy over to the bankers and hedge fund
managers while producing policies that shaped radical forms of industrial and social restructuring, all of which caused massive pain,
suffering and rage among large segments of the working class and other disenfranchised groups. Right-wing populist leaders across
the globe recognized that national economies were in the hands of foreign investors, a mobile financial elite and transnational capital.
In a masterful act of political diversion, populist leaders attacked all vestiges of liberal capitalism while refusing to name neoliberal
inequities in wealth and power as a basic threat to their societies. Instead of calling for an acceleration of the democratic ideals
of popular sovereignty and equality, right-wing populist leaders, such as Trump, Bolsonaro and Hungary's Viktor Orbán defined democracy
as the enemy of those who wish for unaccountable power. They also diverted genuine popular anger into the abyss of cultural chauvinism,
anti-immigrant hatred, a contempt of Muslims and a targeted attack on the environment, health care, education, public institutions,
social provisions and other basic life resources. As Arjun Appadurai
observes , such authoritarian leaders
hate democracy, capture the political emotions of those treated as disposable, and do everything they can to hide the deep contradictions
of neoliberal capitalism.
In this scenario, we have the resurgence of a fascist politics that capitalizes on the immiseration, fears and anxieties produced
by neoliberalism without naming the underlying conditions that create and legitimate its policies and social costs. While such populists
comment on certain elements of neoliberalism such as globalization, they largely embrace those ideological and economic elements
that concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a political, corporate and financial elite, thus reinforcing in the end an extreme
form of capitalism. Moreover, right-wing populists may condemn globalization, but they do so by blaming those considered outside
the inclusive boundaries of a white homeland even though
the same forces victimize them . At the same
time, such leaders mobilize passions that deny critical understanding while simultaneously creating desires and affects that produce
toxic and hypermasculine forms of identification.
Authoritarian leaders hate democracy and do everything they can to hide the deep contradictions of neoliberal capitalism.
In this instance, an oppressive form of education becomes central to politics and is
used as a tool of power in the struggle over
power, agency and politics. What is at stake here is not simply a struggle between authoritarian ideas and democratic ideals, but
also a fierce battle on the part of demagogues to destroy the institutions and conditions that make critical thought and oppositional
accounts of power possible. This is evident, for example, in Trump's constant attack on the critical media, often
referring to them as "'the enemy of the people' pushing 'Radical Left Democrat views,'" even as journalists are subject to expulsion,
mass jailing and assassination across the world by some of Trump's allies.
Waging war on democracy and the institutions that produce it, neoliberalism has tapped into a combination of fear and cathartic
cruelty that has once again unleashed the mobilizing passions of fascism, especially the historically distinct registers of extreme
nationalism, nativism, white supremacy, racial and ethnic cleansing, voter suppression, and an attack on a civic culture of critique
and resistance. The result is a new political formation that I have called neoliberal fascism, in which the principles and practices
of a fascist past and neoliberal present have merged, connecting the worst dimensions and excesses of gangster capitalism with the
fascist ideals of white nationalism and racial supremacy associated with the horrors of a fascist past.
Neoliberal fascism hollows out democracy from within, breaks down the separation of power while increasing the power of the presidency,
and saturates cultural and social life with its ideology of self-interest, a survival-of-the-fittest ethos, and regressive notions
of freedom and individual responsibility.
What needs to be acknowledged is that neoliberalism as an extreme form of capitalism has produced the conditions for a fascist
politics that is updated to serve the interest of a concentrated class of financial elite and a rising tide of political demagogues
across the globe.
The mass anger fueling neoliberal fascism is a diversion of genuine resistance into what amounts to a pathology, which empties
politics of any substance. This is evident also in its support of a right-wing populism and its focus on the immigrants and refugees
as "dangerous outsiders," which serves to eliminate class politics and camouflage its own authoritarian ruling class interests and
relentless attacks on social welfare.
A new economic slump would further fuel forces of repression and strengthen the forces of white supremacy.
In the face of a looming global recession, it is crucial to understand the connection between the rise of right-wing populism
and neoliberalism, which emerged in the late 1970s as a commanding ideology fueling a punitive form of globalization. This historical
moment is marked by unique ideological, economic and political formations produced by ever-increasing brutal forms of capitalism,
however diverse.
Governing economic and political thinking everywhere, neoliberalism's unprecedented concentration of economic and political power
has produced a toxic state modeled after the models of finance and unchecked market forces. It has also produced a profound shift
in human consciousness, agency and modes of identification. The consequences have become familiar and include cruel austerity measures,
adulation of self-regulating markets, the liberating of capital from any constraints, deregulation, privatization of public goods,
the commodification of everyday life and the gutting of environmental, health and safety laws. It has also paved the way for a merging
of extreme market principles and the sordid and mushrooming elements of white supremacy, racial cleansing and ultranationalism that
have become specific to updated forms of fascist politics.
Such policies have produced massive inequities in wealth, power and income, while further accelerating mass misery, human suffering,
the rise of state-sanctioned violence and ever-expanding sites of terminal exclusion in the forms of walls, detention centers and
an expanding carceral state. An impending recession accentuates the antagonisms, instabilities and crisis produced by the long history
and reach of neoliberal ideologies and policies.
A new economic slump would further fuel forces of repression and strengthen the forces of white supremacy, Islamophobia, nativism
and misogyny. In the face of such reactionary forces, it is crucial to unite various progressive forces of opposition into a powerful
anti-capitalist movement that speaks not only to the range of oppressions exacerbated by neoliberalism, but also to the need for
new narratives that speak to overturning a system steeped in the machineries of war, militarization, repression and death.
Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair
for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is the Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar
in Critical Pedagogy. His most recent books include: Neoliberalism's War on Higher Education (Haymarket 2014), The Violence of Organized
Forgetting (City Lights 2014), Dangerous Thinking in the Age of the New Authoritarianism (Routledge, 2015), America's Addiction to
Terrorism (Monthly Review Press, 2016), America at War with Itself (City Lights, 2017), The Public in Peril (Routledge, 2018) and
American Nightmare: Facing the Challenge of Fascism (City Lights, 2018) and The Terror of the Unforeseen (LARB Books, 2019). Giroux is also a member of Truthout 's Board of Directors.
"... The credibility of neoliberalism's faith in unfettered markets as the surest road to shared prosperity is on life-support these days. And well it should be. The simultaneous waning of confidence in neoliberalism and in democracy is no coincidence or mere correlation. Neoliberalism has undermined democracy for 40 years. ..."
"... The effects of capital-market liberalization were particularly odious: If a leading presidential candidate in an emerging market lost favor with Wall Street, the banks would pull their money out of the country. Voters then faced a stark choice: Give in to Wall Street or face a severe financial crisis. It was as if Wall Street had more political power than the country's citizens. 1 ..."
"... Even in rich countries, ordinary citizens were told, "You can't pursue the policies you want" – whether adequate social protection, decent wages, progressive taxation, or a well-regulated financial system – "because the country will lose competitiveness, jobs will disappear, and you will suffer." 1 ..."
"... How can wage restraint – to attain or maintain competitiveness – and reduced government programs possibly add up to higher standards of living? Ordinary citizens felt like they had been sold a bill of goods. They were right to feel conned. ..."
"... If the 2008 financial crisis failed to make us realize that unfettered markets don't work, the climate crisis certainly should: neoliberalism will literally bring an end to our civilization. But it is also clear that demagogues who would have us turn our back on science and tolerance will only make matters worse. ..."
"... The sad truth is, human nature is selfish, and the elites will always do whatever it takes to protect their own interests. With this being the basis of all political systems, it only comes down to how the elites can best serve their own interests. In democracies, it relies on creating an illusion of people's power. ..."
For 40 years, elites
in rich and poor countries alike promised that neoliberal policies would lead to faster economic growth, and that the benefits would
trickle down so that everyone, including the poorest, would be better off. Now that the evidence is in, is it any wonder that trust
in elites and confidence in democracy have plummeted?
NEW YORK – At the end of the Cold War, political scientist
Francis Fukuyama wrote a celebrated essay
called " The End of History?
" Communism's collapse, he argued, would clear the last obstacle separating the entire world from its destiny of liberal democracy
and market economies. Many people agreed.
Today, as we face a retreat from the rules-based, liberal global order, with autocratic rulers and demagogues leading countries
that contain well over half the world's population, Fukuyama's idea seems quaint and naive. But it reinforced the neoliberal economic
doctrine that has prevailed for the last 40 years.
The credibility of neoliberalism's faith in unfettered markets as the surest road to shared prosperity is on life-support these
days. And well it should be. The simultaneous waning of confidence in neoliberalism and in democracy is no coincidence or mere correlation.
Neoliberalism has undermined democracy for 40 years.
The form of globalization prescribed by neoliberalism left individuals and entire societies unable to control an important part
of their own destiny, as Dani Rodrik of Harvard
University has explained
so clearly , and as I argue in my recent books Globalization and Its Discontents
Revisited and People, Power, and Profits
. The effects of capital-market liberalization were particularly odious: If a leading presidential candidate in an emerging
market lost favor with Wall Street, the banks would pull their money out of the country. Voters then faced a stark choice: Give in
to Wall Street or face a severe financial crisis. It was as if Wall Street had more political power than the country's citizens.
1
Even in rich countries, ordinary citizens were told, "You can't pursue the policies you want" – whether adequate social protection,
decent wages, progressive taxation, or a well-regulated financial system – "because the country will lose competitiveness, jobs will
disappear, and you will suffer." 1
In rich and poor countries alike, elites promised that neoliberal policies would lead to faster economic growth, and that the
benefits would trickle down so that everyone, including the poorest, would be better off. To get there, though, workers would have
to accept lower wages, and all citizens would have to accept cutbacks in important government programs.
The elites claimed that their promises were based on scientific economic models and "evidence-based research." Well, after 40
years, the numbers are in: growth has slowed, and the fruits of that growth went overwhelmingly to a very few at the top. As wages
stagnated and the stock market soared, income and wealth flowed up, rather than trickling down.
How can wage restraint – to attain or maintain competitiveness – and reduced government programs possibly add up to higher standards
of living? Ordinary citizens felt like they had been sold a bill of goods. They were right to feel conned.
We are now experiencing the political consequences of this grand deception: distrust of the elites, of the economic "science"
on which neoliberalism was based, and of the money-corrupted political system that made it all possible.
The reality is that, despite its name, the era of neoliberalism was far from liberal. It imposed an intellectual orthodoxy whose
guardians were utterly intolerant of dissent. Economists with heterodox views were treated as heretics to be shunned, or at best
shunted off to a few isolated institutions. Neoliberalism bore little resemblance to the "open society" that Karl Popper had advocated.
As George Soros has
emphasized , Popper
recognized that our society is a complex, ever-evolving system in which the more we learn, the more our knowledge changes the behavior
of the system. 2
Nowhere was this intolerance greater than in macroeconomics, where the prevailing models ruled out the possibility of a crisis
like the one we experienced in 2008. When the impossible happened, it was treated as if it were a 500-year flood – a freak occurrence
that no model could have predicted. Even today, advocates of these theories refuse to accept that their belief in self-regulating
markets and their dismissal of externalities as either nonexistent or unimportant led to the deregulation that was pivotal in fueling
the crisis. The theory continues to survive, with Ptolemaic attempts to make it fit the facts, which attests to the reality that
bad ideas, once established, often have a slow death. 3
If the 2008 financial crisis failed to make us realize that unfettered markets don't work, the climate crisis certainly should:
neoliberalism will literally bring an end to our civilization. But it is also clear that demagogues who would have us turn our back
on science and tolerance will only make matters worse.
The only way forward, the only way to save our planet and our civilization, is a rebirth of history. We must revitalize the Enlightenment
and recommit to honoring its values of freedom, respect for knowledge, and democracy.
Follow Joseph E. Stiglitz, University Professor at Columbia University, is the co-winner of the 2001 Nobel Memorial Prize, former
chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, and former Chief Economist of the World Bank. His most recent book is People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age
of Discontent .
In his 'After
Neoliberalism' essay of May 30, 2019, Joseph Stiglitz (like many PS contributors) excoriated the 4-decade neoliberal episode in
the US and many other Western Democracies. He advocated development of a progressive capitalism focusing on true sources of national
wealth built on public investment in education, health, research and other basic functions of government. This time (PS, November
4, 2019, 'The End of Neoliberalism') )in a similar vein, he describes how neoliberalism has "undermined democracy for the last
40 years," and advocates a 'rebirth of history as the only way forward. I, like many others, wholly agree with his characterization
of the economics profession's descent into neoliberal ideology and generally admire his body of work. However, the calls to 'progressive
capitalism' and even more to a 'rebirth of history' are quite puzzling. A much more detailed development of the challenges to
be overcome and the steps to be taken is sorely needed.
Regrettably, Stiglitz and his eminent colleagues Amartya Sen, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi failed to propose what could have been a
body blow to neoliberal theory and practice -- an in-depth revision of the concept and accounting measures embedded in the System
of National Accounts (SNA) measure of GDP. But the Stiglitz-led report, issued in 2009 -- only shortly after the GFC -- avoided
direct criticism of neoliberal failures and shied away from proposing fundamental reform to GDP accounting and consequent biased
decision processes. The report did identify major problems with current GDP accounting, but tamely recommended only to supplement
current GDP measures with a dashboard of supplementary indicators. An opportunity badly missed. Stiglitz' December 2018 essay
"Beyond GDP," (on which I commented), however, extolled the virtues, and indeed the necessity, of accurate measures of social
impact of government and economic activity, but a critical follow-through has been lacking. Though a range of alternative measures
of social wellbeing are being used by a several countries none have had much impact on the centrality of GDP growth and stability
as the measure of social policy success or failure. Current GDP measures allow neoliberal values, based on promotion of commercial
capitalism and reduction of public-interest spending by government, to continue to dominate US Republican policies -- taken to
near-incredible extremes by the Trump administration -- as well as condone austerity policies in much of the western world.
As I advocated in my 2018 comment on Stiglitz PS essay and in more detail in my 2017 book, responsibility for outputs and outcomes
from use of all forms of capital (commercial, environmental, human, and social and relationship) should be borne by all public
and private enterprises, results of all uses of these capitals should be incorporated in annual reports, and ultimately should
be incorporated in the SNA to guide economic, social and security policies nationally and internationally. Promotion of these
concepts has been taken up by a not-for-profit organization the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). Stiglitz and
like-minded economists would do well to examine these issues further via readily accessible internet sites.
In support
of Stiglitz' Theory, I would note that the power of the combined of the US Middle Class and Upper Middle class still supersedes
the power of the combined wealth of the US 1% and the lower 50%. This is enough wealth and power to defeat Centrism (the rule
of the 1% by appeasing the lower 50% through subsidies (think the current Egyptian government ruled by Assisi in support of Egyptian
Elites.)
With proper organization and political fusion of the middle class and upper middle class in America, they together have the
power to overthrow Centrism controlled by Plutocrats, and re-institute a Democratic State in America.
In this regard, the power of Financialism has reached its limits, but only if the US middle class and upper middle class fusion
can create a political power that opposes Centrism.
The enemy of this theory is that the US upper middle class is so proud of its ability to supersede the middle class that it
cannot fuse with the standard middle class politically, and believes its financial power comes from the condolences of the 1%
upper class in America that supports it because it supports them.
Clearly, the "Responsibility of the Middle Class" to maintain American Idealism will be destroyed if the Upper Middle Class
denigrates its ideal, and the US middle class joins the lower US worker class in demanding revolution against the 1% Elites.
The Responsibility of the Middle Class in America to preserve the American Nation as an affluent class, through its political
power is now sadly waning. The US Middle Class has lost all three sociological important powers: 1) Status; 2) Power; 3) Economic
equality.
The failure of the US Middle Class to re-obtain its previous power as a political/social/economic entity in America would be
the destruction/obviation of the previous American ideal (a house with a white picket fence, a dog or can, children, financial
security and raising children who will do better than their parents).
Nobody in
the World can say that the Civil Rights movement led by Martin Luther King did not succeed in creating a better life for Blacks
and other minorities in the United States.
We now need a Middle Class movement to accomplish the same feat: the politically equivalent equality of the US Middle
Class to the US Upper Class
D. V. Gendre Nov 11, 2019 Only a blind
and ignorant like Mr. Stiglitz (elitist) can claim that we live in a neoliberal world.
In reality there were never so many regulations upon us as today. Not only businesses but also the private person is crushed by
ever more regulations! Year over year those regulations are getting more complex then ever.
In ancient times people lived together only guided by 10 Commandments on two stone tablets. Today the first page of any legal
code contains more then ten commandments, laws etc.
Mr. Stiglitz should be advisor to Kim Jong-un. He certainly beliefs the fairytale of neoliberalims.
Read More Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
The biggest harm to the capital market was done by two things:
1. The monopoly on money supply, i. e. central banks
2. The abandoning of the gold standard without any adequate replacement
Both measures have nothing to do with neoliberalism or deregulation but with socialistic achievments!
Already in the communist manifesto from 1848 the monopoly on the money supply was a central goal.
Both measures have been introduced without resistance because not only banks were benefitig but more so politicians!
Read More Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
Animesh Ghoshal Nov 11, 2019 I read
with interest Prof. Stiglitz's assertion that in "economists with heterodox views were treated as heretics to be shunned, or at
best shunted off to a few isolated institutions". These institutions presumably include Columbia University, the World Bank, and
the Council of Economic Advisors.
John Hansen Nov 11, 2019 Excellent,
timely, and thought-provoking. Thank you.
As you note, "The credibility of neoliberalism's faith in unfettered markets as the surest road to shared prosperity is on
life-support these days," and, "The effects of capital-market liberalization [have been] particularly odious."
I totally agree. In fact, I spent thirty years at the World Bank fighting for "shared prosperity" in countries around the world
and was always concerned that excessive capital market liberalization could be a serious barrier to balanced, sustainable growth.
(By the way, I am still most grateful to you for speaking out against the Washington Consensus and other neoliberal ideas that
don't work while you were our Chief Economist.)
Since retiring, I have focused on fighting inequality in America. A major source of our inequality is the overvalued dollar
that destroys farms, factories, jobs, and entire communities by destroying the international competitiveness of America's producers
and workers.
The overvalued dollar is caused by excessive inflows of foreign capital seeking to purchase dollars and dollar-based assets
-- a reflection to the excessive global demand for dollars that is part of today's globalization. This overvaluation makes our
exports artificially expensive and our imports artificially cheap. Thus, for example, we borrow money from China to pay them to
make things for us that we could be making for ourselves at internationally competitive prices -- were it not for the dollar's
overvaluation.
The overvalued dollar shifts both domestic and foreign demand from made-in-America to foreign-made goods, leaving American
producers without the demand needed to grow, invest, employ more workers, and boost wages. Hence our increased inequality and
polarization.
You rightly conclude that the "belief in self-regulating markets and [the] dismissal of externalities as either nonexistent
or unimportant led to the deregulation that was pivotal in fueling the [2008] crisis" and that "unfettered markets don't work."
I am pleased to note that a new macroeconomic policy, which is designed to put appropriate fetters on excessive capital flows
into our financial markets, is central to the "Competitive Dollar for Jobs and Prosperity Act" (S. 2357) that Senators Baldwin
and Hawley recently presented to the US Senate on a bipartisan basis.
This legislation will implement a Market Access Charge (MAC). The MAC will restore the long-broken link between exchange rates
and balanced trade by imposing a moderate charge on foreign capital inflows whenever America is suffering job-killing, wage-killing
trade deficits -- a clear indication that the dollar is overvalued.
By dampening foreign demand for dollars and dollar-based assets, the MAC will allow the USD to return to a rate that balances
trade. With a fully competitive dollar, Americans will be able to earn as much producing exports as they spend on imports. And
because the size of the MAC charge will be linked to the size of the trade deficit, the MAC will always work to keep the dollar
at a trade-balancing level.
In addition to the higher output, employment, and wages that the MAC will make possible for America's producers and workers,
the MAC will help moderate the out-of-control financialization that will continue to cause serious damage like the Crash of 2008
unless appropriate regulations are put in place.
On the international front, eliminating US trade deficits will reduce the trade surpluses of mercantilist countries like China
and Germany. In fact, the MAC will help pave the way to the long-held goal of the G-8 and other international bodies -- growth
for all nations that is stable, balanced, sustainable, and equitably shared.
Thanks again for your thought-provoking article. Let us hope that, with the support of concrete proposals such as the Market
Access Charge, your article will become the clarion call to action that our country so urgently needs to take.
The sad truth is,
human nature is selfish, and the elites will always do whatever it takes to protect their own interests. With this being the basis
of all political systems, it only comes down to how the elites can best serve their own interests. In democracies, it relies on
creating an illusion of people's power.
The electorate is of average intelligence and education, by definition, whereas the elites
are superior. It goes without saying that the electorate would be played like a fiddle by the elites whilst believing that they
are acting out of their own free will. In an autocracy, the populace is either subdued by the threats of violence, or brainwashed
into believing that those in power act for the good of the whole society. On rare occasions, this might even be true, such as
Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore, and the various noble emperors throughout Chinese history. In democracies, this is more difficult,
as those seduced by power are often more ruthless and more ready to deceive the public than those with noble intentions, and consequently
always have the upper hand.
There is a far deeper
and more profound issues that underlies the ills wrought by Neoliberalism, but which is not limited to Neoliberalism.
That great issue facing the world today is that a significant portion of the population, if not the vast majority of the population
and including the Elite, appear to be unable to distinguish between reality, and the abstractions/tools/models that we create
for ourselves in order to be able to manipulate and or predict future events.
We have enough experimental experience to know that that given a certain specific and limited set of input conditions that
Neoliberalism has a pretty good track record of predicting what will happen next. We also have the experimental data that shows
that outside of the abovementioned narrow range of input conditions, the ability of Neoliberalism to predict what happens next
in the real world simply sucks balls.
The same is true of socialism. Given an exceedingly narrow and specific set of input conditions, yeah it works OK as a predictor
of future real world events. Anything outside of that input range however is a total train wreck.
The same is true of economics more generally.
And physics, medicine, geology, whatever....
So the real question is why do people feel the need to confuse their abstractions/tools/models, with reality? Why do people
confuse the abstractions/tools/models that we make for ourselves to help us predict what the world will do next, with what the
universe actually is? Why do people write libraries fully of convoluted arguments 'proving' why this or that abstraction/tool/model
must work in reality, when the experimental truth that it simply does not work has been made plain to see by thousands upon thousands
of real world experimental results?
Perhaps the answer to the above question is that most bodies of abstract knowledge, such as economics and political theory
and many of the 'sciences', have more in common to religion than they do to actual science.
Well that's the hypothesis... It would be great to see the experimental results.
Alfred Korzybski
attempted to confront this confusion several decades ago, with little success. But you might enjoy his book, Science and Sanity.
Reply
There is
nothing wrong with neoliberalism!!! Fix the drug problem, fix the education system by getting back to the basics of english grammer,
math and sciences. Create a culture among the young of learning to study and try, try again when they fail a test. Give them generous
amounts one on one tutoring. Teach them social media have destroyed their attention span and that is why they cannot learn from
a book and do their homework. Explain to them that embracing drugs, tattoos and social media is a cancer. Until this happens,
my money is on China winning the race (no drug problem, motivated hard working people).
"Neoliberalism"
is neither. It is not attached to liberty, but to slavery. And it is nothing new. Plutocracy is the cancer of civilizations, and
kills them readily. But this time, the entire biosphere is going down.
A better name for "Neoliberalism" would be "plutophilia", the love of the darkest passions, the love of plutocracy, which is
etymologically and in reality, the rule of evil (as this is exactly what pluto-kratia means: the rule of wealth being a particular
case of Pluto's propensities).
"Neoliberalism", was initially called "trickle down". One of its axioms was as professor Stiglitz says: "the credibility of
neoliberalism's faith in unfettered markets as the surest road to shared prosperity". However, by "markets" one really meant "merchants".
Indeed, what is a market? Who dominates a market? Well, those with enough capital to do so. In other words, the wealthy, or
those that banks have decided to lend to typically, again, those with collateral, namely the wealthy. So the banking system, if
it looks for a profit, makes the wealthy wealthier. Hence the so-called "unfettered markets" were, in truth, the unfettered wealthiest,
while the fetters were put on everybody else.
But, unfettered, wealth grows exponentially (as the wealthiest have nearly all the money and lend it, leveraged, to the wealthiest,
namely themselves).
This is exactly what happened: the wealthy got wealthier. And what is wealth? It is power onto others. So the powers of a few
grew, onto most people, helped along by a government by "representatives" which learned to act in its own best interest, serving
power, that is, wealth.
"Neoliberalism" fostered, in turn, other myths, first of which was that, unfettered globalization, worldwide, was good for
the Republic. Actually, globalization was a disaster: it undermined social rights and taxation.
The last spectacular example of the disaster engineered by unfettered globalization was the Roman Republic. The Roman REPUBLIC,
which lasted 5 centuries, had an absolute wealth limit. And it lasted 5 centuries because it had an absolute wealth limit. The
Florence Republic fell to plutocrats, the Medicis, within three centuries, precisely because it had no wealth limit.
There was an absolute wealth limit, because the wealth tax, during the Roman Republic, was 100% above a threshold (the threshold
was pretty low, at most 30 million 2019 dollars, and maybe as low as ten million).
However, after 200 BCE, and the Second Punic war, having had to fight in Greece, Spain, Africa, the Roman republic became global.
Yet, taxation was still local, so wealthy Romans were able to escape the wealth limit, and Roman billionaires appeared. They immediately
started to plot against the Republic. The best way to do that was to corrupt it, by buying politicians. It took many generations,
but the Republic declined and collapsed, in spite of the life endangering efforts of many heroes, including the Gracchi brothers,
Marius, and his nephew Caesar (Caesar passed a wealth distribution law in 59 BCE).
Plutocracy expects We The People to believe that a few know best, and deserve all the wealth, all the powers. As a result calamitous
policies are engaged into, because only a few brains, without debate, devoured by greed, don't think too well. Moreover, plutocratic
policies look accidentally bad, but they are actually so by design: the worse things get, the more the worst gets going.
A particular example of these satanic policies is the climate catastrophe, which is part of a mass extinction, the likes of
which have not been seen in 70 million years. There were technologies, at the ready already in 1990, to prevent the CO2 catastrophe:
in 2019, France pollutes 5 tons of CO2 per capita (the world average), California 9.2 tons, the USA 16 tons, Canada and Australia
more than 16 So France knows how to do it, and the others chose not to (the UK, Spain and Italy are around 6 tons; whereas hysterically
pro-coal Germany is at 10 tons...) The mood in France is more ecological, more egalitarian, more social... All this is related:
respect the environment, just as, and because, you respect your neighbor. Disrespect the environment, as countries like the US,
Australia and Canada do, disrespect the neighbor.
The global plutocracy is indeed intensely related to its fossil fuel component: fossil fuel money is recycled through Wall
Street. US President FD Roosevelt set-up that system, meeting with Ibn Saud on the Great Bitter lake in Egypt, shortly before
his death. Similarly, when Obama became president, he presented fracking as "the bridge fuel to the future", and Wall Street,
applauding, made massive fracking investments on the lands and water Obama put at its disposal. Thus, once again, the US is the
world's greatest fossil fuel producer: alleluia, say the "America First" crowd, and one expects them to make dark secret masses
to their hero Obama, who made fracking into the lifeblood of the US.
Plutocracy rules through minds. Careful disinformation, and lack of significant information needs to be fed to the masses.
Here is an example:
The New York Times just woke up to the fact that climate scientists systematically underestimated the gravity of the climate
crisis we are in. The paper couldn't explain why this happened, but showed with great clarity how much it happened. I sent a comment
basically explaining that the "Neoliberal" regime paid the salaries of those scientists, so they couldn't be too alarmist, if
they wanted to be employed.
The New York Times apparently found my explanation alarming, and refused to publish it. Just as, over the years, much of the
MainStream Media has found any discourse against the "Neoliberal" order deranged and alarming (and censored thousands of my comments).
Here my comment explaining why scientists were not too alarmed by the climate catastrophe:
The problem has been that scientists are paid by governments which are manipulated by plutocrats, most of them part of the
establishment And the establishment is fossil fuel plutocracy dependent (say, Wall Street, as an example).
So scientists do not want to bite the hand that feed them. And this is still true. The real truth is that the giant masses
of ice of Antarctica will melt with a warming of just a few more degrees. I have explained the exact mechanism in essays on my
site, in great detail, for more than a decade. The reason is that half of Antarctica is under water And the densest water is at
4 degrees Centigrade (roughly 40 Fahrenheit)
Thus a hyper catastrophic melting is entirely possible Millennia before what the old, baseless, "scientific" analyses pretended.
Also a serious diminution of the oxygen content of the atmosphere, ridiculed by well-fed scientists, is actually entirely possible
under very plausible (yet complex) scenarios. And so on.
The plutocracy which rules over us is mostly fossil-fuel based. Any plutocracy knows that it needs to control the minds. Nowadays
this means controlling the scientists. The gross attack, "climate denier" style, are there only to confuse us.
The real danger is the subtle disinformation that the situation is not dire, that we have time, it's a question for the grandchildren.
I have lived in smoke for weeks on end in the tech metropolis of the San Francisco Bay Area: the burning climate catastrophe is
upon us now. One can see it very clearly when one looks outside, and all one sees is smoke.
To free ourselves from "Neoliberalism", which is economic neofascism by another name, will require a great intellectual effort.
I don't see our schools, including universities, committed to it. Yet. Thank, prof. Stiglitz, for the effort!
Your etymology is almost as bad as your economics. In Plato's dialogue Cratylus Socrates argues that the etymology of Hades
is "his knowledge (eidenai) of all noble things" rather than, as widely believed, "unseen."
Later on Greeks began to refer to Hades as Plouton. The root of Plouton is "wealthy" meaning that from below (the soil)
come riches (e.g., fertile crops, metals and so on). Not only that but Plouton became the Roman god Pluto who distributed riches
from below. Call that "trickle up" rather than "trickle down."
So stop maligning plutocrats. It is a vulgar habit.
Read More Reply
Patrice Ayme Nov 11, 2019 Dear
Ian:
Thanks for the comment. It doesn't address any of the very deep reasons I presented to object to have a few individuals
exert huge amounts of power on others, and thus, automatically corrupt democracy, pervert the economic system, and bring
us back to the collapse of the Republic the Romans went through (before the monstrous plutocracy known as the Roman empire
itself collapsed soon afterwards).
Socrates was practicing traditional euphemism science about Hades. The question of the etymology of Hades (Hell, but
also the enemy, in Hebrew, Satan), Pluto, Ploutos, etc. is fascinating. I have long pondered the question, I am a specialist.
I am actually going to write an essay on the subject, just in your honor. The confusion between the god of riches (Ploutos)
and the god of the underground (Pluto) was deliberately made, and as many ways to NOT say the word "Hades" (there were nearly
50 euphemisms for Hades). The New Testament mentions "Hades" in its Greek original many times (now translated as "Hell").
Also Hades is represented as a dark figure, with long wings...
The existence of plutocracy is intrinsically evil, because no species, and certainly no species of primate, is made to
be ruled by a few having the powers of millions. When Obama was president at some point he put the Gates (of hell) in command
of US education. In Obama Reagan perverted mind, the hyper wealthy had, assuredly, achieved supreme wisdom. Never mind that
Gates (of hell) never finished college. Same Gates (of hell) are now telling us they won't work, it they had only ten billion
dollars plus a 50 billion dollar foundation under their command. Such individuals are therefore only motivated by greed,
they have no appreciation for the glory of the human spirit. For them, only greed is the motivation, not care, love, thinking,
etc. And they impose their ways on the entire planet, and their emotional, not to say nervous, system, reduced to greed.
That's evil. Even Jesus noticed. But now, as the biosphere implodes under their greedy blows, we should all be able to notice.
Read More Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
As the mathematics of economics seldom seems to use complex math (real and imaginary numbers) that is required to properly
describe a system with feedback/feedforward characteristics (ie supply/demand markets where demand drives supply, etc.), the observation
that the models didn't "see" instabilities is a bit of a DUH. Just adding a time delay, like putting a pillow over a thermostat,
will make a feedback control system unstable. Adding bureaucratic delay (zoning, EIR's, etc.) to housing development makes housing
prices unstable creating boom/bust cycles. It is all just simple math but you need a dynamic equation to describe a dynamic problem.
Read More Reply
ron smith Nov 12, 2019 You mistake
complex variables for the mathematics of complexity. Complex variables is standard fare but there has been no Newton to create
a "calculus" of Complexity. The events you describe are real and, it seems, cause probability distribution function instability
which makes a mess of the math tools we now have. Those fond of science fiction often say that we are awaiting Hari Seldon,
who was the creator of an (imaginary -- it is sci fi) approach to statistics that had accurate application to certain social
situations. [Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" trilogy.]
Read More Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
Jay Kay Nov 11, 2019 More generally,
the most important character of the equation or black-box or digital model or whatever, is that it exhibits a useful degree
of predictive ability as to how the real world will operate given a specific set of input conditions when tested experimentally.
That's what a successful hypothesis is, it's a useful predictor of future events.
Sure, once you have a usefully predictive model of how the real experimental world works, you can open up your model to
investigation to see whether the architecture of the model can give you clues as to what may be in play in the real world,
and what future experiments to design based on that.
However too often what passes for 'science' or economics or politics science modelling:
- has essentially no useful predictive ability when tested experimentally. It just fails constantly. Global Warming models
anyone?
- has no measurable input conditions that can be used to experimentally test the model. It is essentially a philosophy.
Much economic theory falls into this category.
- has a degree of useful predictive ability over a narrow set of input conditions, but then fails miserable in every other
circumstance and yet people insist on constantly applying said model outside of its useful range as a predictor of future events.
Communism works just fine on the nuclear family scale, and implodes at every other scale.
Read More Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
Most of the so-called Heterodox views are really just warmed-over versions of economic concepts from long-dead economists containing
internal assumptions that "wise economists and politicians" are smart enough to understand and direct the system. Meanwhile, the
complexity of the connection between the economic system and technology is further increasing the rate of change as technology
changes. As none of these heterodox economists seem to have a real understanding of the technology revolution with the creation
of "free" goods and goods with high R&D costs combined with insignificant production costs and how that interacts with economic
statistics and how this all relates to economic growth and its measurement, I am less confident that they can give better results
than markets.
Read More Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
Raghaba Sahu Nov 10, 2019 The real questions:
1. Are Capitalism and Democracy compatible?
2. What type of economic model will be compatible with Democracy?
3.Should the influence of money on political choices be curbed?
Ian Maitland Nov 10, 2019 "If a leading
presidential candidate in an emerging market lost favor with Wall Street, the banks would pull their money out of the country.
Voters then faced a stark choice: Give in to Wall Street or face a severe financial crisis. It was as if Wall Street had more
political power than the country's citizens" (Stiglitz).
Folks, try a simple thought experiment. For Wall Street substitute "IMF."
Now, do you see any difference? Try this one: "It was as if the IMF had more political power than the country's citizens."
Does Stiglitz propose to put the IMF out of business? No. So why is it OK by Stiglitz if countries get themselves in hock to
the IMF but not if they get themselves in hock to Wall Street? In either case, their people's sovereignty is diluted.
In fact, it gets even worse. Stiglitz has been a consistent advocate of throwing more money at deadbeats. He is a dinosaur
who really believes that foreign aid from rich countries will help poor countries grow rather than encourage them to get deeper
into debt. He has called for debt relief for Puerto Rico to make the island's debt sustainable! Hasn't he heard of moral hazard?
If he gets his way, why should Puerto Rico stop issuing debt to fund its expenses -- something it has done since 1973.
Read More Reply
Patrice Ayme Nov 11, 2019 IMF, under
Lagarde, has forbidden governments to cut down on basic social services when they get help. The IMF functions like a charity.
Wall Street functions like sharks. Greed comes naturally to the lowest critters, and that is very good to make a global ecology,
yet, we, humans, aspire for more. This is the problem with plutocracy: reduction to the lowest, biggest sharks. Reduction not
just of the economy to this lowest realm, but even reductions of highest human aspirations to this. Sharks are hungry, yet,
not too smart, and, in a Pluto economy, they control the flow, and even the genesis, of ideas (or lack thereof).
Another problem is the reduction of incentives: Gates (of hell) just said (semi-joking) he won't work if he had just ten
billion dollars plus a 50 million dollars foundation he controls. Question: what about the rest of us? Should we stop working,
because we have no prospect to make ten billions?
Read More Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
Patrice Ayme Nov 11, 2019 IMF, under
Lagarde, has forbidden governments to cut down on basic social services when they get help. The IMF functions like a charity.
Wall Street functions like sharks. Greed comes naturally to the lowest critters, we, humans, aspire for more. This the problem
with plutocracy: reduction to the lowest, biggest sharks. Reduction not just of the economy to this lowest realm, but even
reductions of highest human aspirations to this.
Another problem is the reduction of incentives: Gates (of hell) just said he won't work if he had just ten billion dollars
plus a 50 million dollars foundation. Question: what about the rest of us? Should we stop working, because we don't have ten
billions?
Read More Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
Adrian Wu Nov 11, 2019 IMF, Wall Street,
what is the difference ? Still the same old bunch of elites. Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
"Even in rich countries, ordinary citizens were told..." describes what I felt coming back from years abroad: What happened?
Who gave these people authority to tell me what (and especially what not) to think and say? Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
David Schraa Nov 10, 2019 That's right,
but watch out for what you ask for. "History" can mean nationalist exaggerations about things such as Kosovo, or unionism in Northern
Ireland, or nostalgia for Russian greatness. We need real, responsible history that would, for example, illuminate the incredible
contributions of the EU to prosperity, solidarity and peace. But in so doing, we need to have history that can not only inform
but touch people emotionally, whereas much academic or "woke" history does the opposite today, in the rare event that it breaks
out of narrow academic or activist discussions. The NYT was right to broaden knowledge about the history of slavery, but utterly
wrong if the conclusion is to take the view that "1619" is the essence of the US story and leave the profoundly important intellectual
history of "1776" and its legacy to the right.
That's absolutely right, but the populist paradox is that "the people" rebel against complexity and the evolution of society
by voting right, not left. The left has to find a voice that reorients the discussion, but hasn't managed to do so in a way that
touches many voters.
Read More Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
Except that, at least in the US and the UK, and to a certain extent in the rest of Europe as well, people seem to be voting
against "adequate social protection, decent wages, progressive taxation, or a well-regulated financial system" ... those are not
the issues voters are pounding drums about (left-wing activists, yes, but not lots of votes). So how do we overcome the suspicion,
resentment of "elites" and low information that motivates those positions?
Read More Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
Jonathan Willinger Nov 10, 2019
Part of any reexamination of neo-liberal orthodoxy must be a consideration of Keynes' view that currency exchange rates need to
be controlled to curtail excess trade surplus and deficits. Firstly, if we had listened to Keynes there would be no way that the
American manufacturing base would have been so hollowed out. Secondly, as Keynes foresaw, without an international body controlling
cross currency valuation nations would incur continual surplus and deficits thereby leading to a return to the protectionism of
the '30's. I have never understood why Keynesians like Krugman and Somers have forgotten or dropped this extremely important part
of Keynes' thinking. I would like to know what Prof. Stieglitz' view on this point is....
nigel southway Nov 10, 2019 Stiggy
and the base of economists that went along with global free trade are the main problem. They brainwashed our leadership to allow
the finanialization of our economies now thank god we have some leadership such as trump to call a halt and start the question
of what's next
It's certainly a more nationalistic future and away from multilateralism and we also need to question the myth of man made climate
change which is fast looking like a huge hoax
Joe Ryan Nov 10, 2019 Prof. Stiglitz's essay
recommends discrimination on the basis of national origin as a way of reforming capitalism. Which is a bad idea.
The way the essay ends up in this bad situation is, at least in part, due to poor choice of words.
The essay re-phrases the idea of discrimination on the basis of national origin (which is bad), calling it opposition to globalism
(which is popular).
The essay also falls for the rhetorical trap of identifying capitalism with free markets, a confusion that is inherent in the
term, "neoliberalism." For capitalism, however, "free markets" (and "laissez faire") isn't about "perfectly competitive markets,"
which capitalists hate. It's about delegitimizing any interference in capitalists' control of firms.
We need less inventive vocabulary in order to have clearer thinking about how to both regulate and use the market mechanism.
Read More Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
John Tegner Nov 10, 2019 Moving quickly
to matters at hand, we know what to do, can we act with urgency?
1. reform the US tax code, dramatically simplifying it and increasing rates of taxation based on income levels to a max rate of
50% for top earners (both income and capital gains)
2. implement strict term limits for politicians
3. make education and health care our nation's top priority after defense leveraging technology to reach the masses (we already
have the tools, we need to apply them with intent)
4. return to a policy of sustainability, deliberately incentivizing and investing to secure the future
Who's ready to take these steps?
Douglas Leyendecker Nov 10, 2019
Maybe Stiglitz wasn't aware that..."Over the last 25 years, more than a billion people have lifted themselves out of extreme poverty,
and the global poverty rate is now lower than it has ever been in recorded history. This is one of the greatest human achievements
of our time," World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim said.
Read More Reply
nigel southway Nov 10, 2019 This
was at OUR expense.... mass wealth transfer not any wealth creation.... we did not sign up to build a middle class in china
you need to get educated as to how much damage has been done. Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
Ian Maitland Nov 10, 2019 Shout it
from the rooftops!
As 2015 economics Nobelist Angus Deaton says: "Life is better now than at almost any time in history. More people are richer
and fewer people live in dire poverty. Lives are longer and parents no longer routinely watch a quarter of their children die."
And little or none of the credit for that belongs to Stiglitz and his fellow mandarins at the World Bank and IMF.
Read More Reply
nigel southway Nov 10, 2019 wealth
transfer.. from us to "them" Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
mtcmom222a Loppy Nov 10, 2019 Free
Market? That's a JOKE...ONLY a Superliberal can be so deluded.. Governments consume 40 to 60 % of the People's Time/Money/Resources.....and
over regulate another big chunk... what Planet are you living on?? Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
Louis Woodhill Nov 10, 2019 Capitalism
depends upon stable money, which we have not had since 2001. The 2008 financial/economic crisis was the result of the most violent
monetary deflation in U.S. history, and this was 100% the result of Federal Reserve incompetence. Right now, world economic growth
is being suppressed by dollar deflation. Right now, the CRB Index is at 180. If the Fed were to increase total world dollar liquidity
enough to bring it up to 250 (its 10-year average) and keep it there, the problems Stiglitz decries would disappear.
Dirk Faegre Nov 10, 2019 I'm always surprised
when reading (most) economists take on the 2008 financial crisis. From this non-economists view it was shockingly simple and not
some complex, deep gray matter, academic, blah, blah, blah ...
For it to happen it took: Greed on Wall Street, idiocy in the housing market (to include mortgage brokers, retail banks, investment
houses, and the like) and a total collapse of the stated processes by rating agencies, along with a lapse of reason by The Fed
(Greenspan especially, who believed, in the face of the obvious, that banks would never, ever work against their own self interests
-- it took him years to apologize for his willful blindness), and the public who fell for the ponzie scheme of: "housing prices
will soar forever".
It was the perfect storm where almost all involved simply got stupid. Blazingly stupid. A reasonably wise 5th grader could
see and describe why it was going to blow up.
It seems to me Stiglitz got ahead of his skis with overly complex thinking here.
The argument that we can't raise wages so low level earners can make a livable wage is crazy. You want that people should work
hard to become homeless? That's as dumb as the housing crisis! If restaurants and convenience stores were to pay a living wage
the world economy would not collapse in a pile of rubble. They'd just have to raise prices. Full stop. What's so horrible about
that -- we've been doing it for centuries.
Sometimes the obvious is staring us right in the face!
Inflation you say? Tax the hell out of the filthy rich. No one should ever be allowed to become a billionaire - that's simply
a bridge too far and only brings negative value to society. No individual can supply anywhere near enough value to justify having
been paid a thousand millions (or, God forbid, multiples of that!!). Not even close. Check with the 5th grader again. She'll tell
you.
Read More Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
Waleed Addas Nov 10, 2019 " We are all
Keynesians Now "! If the end (of neoliberalism) is near, then what should or will replace it? The article by of James K. Galbraith
"the new great transformation " may provide a hint (along with my modest comment, as usual :) Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
Jose M. R. Nov
10, 2019 Although I do not disagree completely I do see this debate as too western centric. Asia is faring very well, even Latam
despite political chaos. Maybe all that is happening to the West is historical decay: the End of the Roman Empire... Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
John Alexander Nov 10, 2019 'Even
in rich countries, ordinary citizens were told, "You can't pursue the policies you want" – whether adequate social protection,
decent wages, progressive taxation, or a well-regulated financial system – "because the country will lose competitiveness, jobs
will disappear, and you will suffer."'
Thomas Piketty has pointed out, and for all I know Prof. Stiglitz has also pointed out, a significant fact regarding the years
1930-1980: the top rate of income tax in the US was on average astronomical by today's standards, but the American economy was
humming very nicely. The idea that progressive taxation would result in all manner of catastrophe is just another of those baseless
dogmas that are perpetuated by rightwing thinkers, or, more accurately, by rightwing propagandists.
Read More Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
Vincent Catalano Nov 10, 2019 Articulating
the problem is all well and good but not describing (or at least hinting at) the successor to Friedmanism/neoliberalism leaves
the reader no closer to the truth. The only way forward is an economic theory to replace Friedmanism/neoliberalism, not some broad
stroke statements like a rebirth of history. Economists need a justification to act based on a theory for it takes a theory to
beat a theory.
Read More Reply
Andrés Galia Nov 10, 2019 No you are
wrong. It does not take a theory to defeat another theory. It takes empirical evidence that the theory is wrong, and the empirical
evidence is in front of our eyes, unless you are not willing to see it. Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
G B Nov 10, 2019 Please go and read all the
related books written by J. Stiglitz and I'm sure you can find good answers for your questions... Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
jagjeet sinha Nov 9, 2019 NEOLIBARALISM
PLUS PLUS - CONFIDENCE IN DEMOCRACY
The end of Economics of/for/by The Elite is perhaps more appropriate title.
The Professor as usual hits the nail on its head.
The departures from Neoliberalism rightly reflecting in Democracy.
The Realignment of Economics demanded by The Marginalized Majority.
Both in The West and in The Emerging markets - where Democracy reigns.
The self correction that Neoliberalism ought to possess - was missing.
The Marginalized Majority had enough - Inequalities were bequeathed.
The Marginalized Majority was bypassed - and Democracy gave answers.
Brexit and Trump were inevitable - as were Modi and Macron.
Germany and China, Brussels and Beijing - emerged.
The Rebirth of History that Stiglitz foresees is Return to Enlightenment.
The Elites in America had met their match in Brussels and Beijing.
The Elites in America had found partners in London and Delhi.
Because Brussels and Beijing both never detached from The Church within.
Whereas London and Delhi were semi-detached from their Hinterlands.
Europe's reticence in accepting London over Brussels - rooted in The Church.
India's reticence in accepting its First Family in Delhi - rooted in The Heartlands.
Both Brussels and Beijing - rooted in The Heartlands within.
The Washington Consensus had alienated The Heartlands within.
The Anglosphere however was always underwritten by its Wealth Machine.
Democracy warranted Realignment of Economics within - for sustainability.
The return to Enlightenment that Stiglitz sees - is as inevitable as Brexit n Trump.
The sooner it happens - the better for The Anglosphere.
Having become the World's Economic Epicentre - demands nothing less.
Both Brussels and Beijing - are now being confronted by this Return.
The shape of The Return to Enlightenment - is a correction long overdue.
And Neoliberalism plus plus - is in fact reiterating confidence in Democracy.
Read More Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
M Guiffre Nov
8, 2019 Professor: It seems that much of the U.S. population may not distinguish between the meaning of terms liberalism and elites.
I suspect this common misunderstanding is used to divide the population. Would you mind distinguishing between social liberalism
and economic liberalism? Would you mind distinguishing between intellectual elites and wealth elites? With respects.
vivek iyer Nov 7, 2019 Voters in emerging
markets- like India or Indonesia- have never heard of 'neo-liberalism' or even 'liberalism' come to that. Stiglitz must be utterly
mad if he really believes that the Bihari peasant votes on the basis of Wall Street's preferences!
Stiglitz writes- ' If a leading presidential candidate in an emerging market lost favor with Wall Street, the banks would pull
their money out of the country. Voters then faced a stark choice: Give in to Wall Street or face a severe financial crisis. It
was as if Wall Street had more political power than the country's citizens.'
I'm Indian. Unlike 99.99 percent of the Indian electorate, I know what Wall Street is. I also know that its preferences are irrelevant
for India. Dr. Manmohan Singh, whatever his other faults, knew this too. If American voters don't care what Wall St. thinks, why
does Stiglitz imagine it can have any power in 'emerging markets' where very few people know anything about it? What is the 'transmission
mechanism' he has in mind? Does he really believe
1) f.d.i is linked to market sentiment?
2) Voters take account of it?
There is no evidence for either view. The truth is f.d.i depends on structural and institutional factors. Short term jitters can
affect hot flows but only if there is structural balance sheet weakness.
Furthermore, in the one case where Stiglitz opposed 'neo-liberalism' with something more than an op-ed - i.e. Indonesia- he
was wrong. The IMF was right to squeeze Suharto and his kleptocrats out. Stiglitz very foolishly argued that the IMF ought to
prop up dictators in the pretense that this helped the poor.
Ordinary citizens everywhere, even in rich countries, know that 'adequate social protection' for every workshy loser and hordes
of bogus asylum seekers means high taxes and national insurance. Working for a living becomes a mug's game. Reagan got voters
to accept high unemployment because he was promising to cut taxes and squeeze the 'Welfare Queens'. Clinton did a U turn on gaining
office and went for 'Workfare'. He was also the 'deporter in chief'.
In rich and poor countries alike, elites did not promise 'neoliberal policies'. What they did was gas on about how we must
spend trillions fighting for democracy and human rights and the environment. Voters didn't want this because it meant higher taxes
and reduced public services. Germany, it is true, did adopt wage-restraint when other European countries were borrowing and spending
like drunken sailors- but that paid off big time! No doubt, the genius of Merkel turned this affluence into a curse. Her own native
East Germany is rife with discontent. But this has nothing to do with 'neo-liberalism' and everything to do with elitist virtue
signalling.
Elites don't talk about 'evidence-based research'. Their paid lackeys do it for them. Instead, elites pretend to be caring and
compassionate and committed to a new world order.
Stiglitz asks how wage restrain can lead to higher standards of living. The Harz reforms in Germany shows how- though of course
Merkel wasted much of the gain. Why ask for a 'rebirth of history' if you can't learn from the one we already have? What 'Enligtenment'
can be rekindled by recycling the same nonsense year after year? Rothbard's Law states that great economists specialize in what
they are worst at. They double down on their greatest follies. When will people stop pretending that ordinary people can be stirred
up against the bogeyman of 'neo-liberalism' rather than immigration or multi-culti or political correctness gone mad?
Read More Reply
G B Nov 10, 2019 With all due respect, Sir,
i think your post is, shall i say, long-winded with twists and turns, difficult to follow and hard to wrap one's head around...
I suggest you read all the related books written by J. Stiglitz and I'm sure you can better understand J. Stiglitz.
Read More Reply
vivek iyer Nov 10, 2019 To understand
an economist's theory it is not sufficient to read his books and articles. You have to be aware of criticisms and refutations
of his theses. You also need to do some empirical work of your own so as to determine how and why that economist has ended
up illustrating Rothbard's Law. In the case of Stiglitz, it is because he genuinely believes that there is a bias within
his profession. However, his profession is not influential. He himself is considered a virtue signaller and polemicist,
not a serious thinker.
Read More Reply
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
A new reply to this comment has been posted. Load?
JOSE GERARDO TRASLOSHEROS
HERNANDEZ Nov 6, 2019 Agree that elites should contribute significantly more to social justice everywhere and be less selfish.
This will help save democracy and open markets. China and many in the developing world did benefit greatly in the process pulling
hundreds of millions out of poverty.
Ariel Tejera Nov 6, 2019 I think there
is a bit more to add: Your honor, the notion that the global trade an finance monster can be tamed by mere nation states, is ...
surreal. And the tragedy is that, so far, the people´ s reaction consists on entrenching themselves, behind increasingly tribal
insularity (literally, Brexit).
If I were ultra-rich, I couldn't ask for more. Real.
Mirek Fatyga Nov 6, 2019 So, as neoliberalism
gets stripped of it's clothes, can we have a return of actual economic science to economic profession?
What is the effect of global resource constraints on attainable world growth, and how does the slow but steady rise of "developing"
countries affect the distribution of the standards of living in "developed" countries?
Please, a return to reality, instead of money games, whether neoliberalism or modern monetary theory (aka burst of inflation)?
Can we return to relity before wars begin? Prof Stiglitz?
john zac Nov 5, 2019 Yes, yes and yes, professor,
you got it right. But you didn't address the issue, or the degree of psychological damage this neoliberal world created. Which
stood as collateral damage in our war against truth. Where "what suits me/us was always favored to what suits you/them" The truth
has now sadly devolved to whatever suits the most powerful narcissist in the room and the rest, preferably outside the room,and
miles away, should not complain, watch Apple TV or Disney, or put headphones on and listen to Eminem, Allison Krause or even Jesus
loving Kanye
Also kindly. We not only take orders from Wall Street and those that have the money, but we also take orders from those that have
the guns.
I seriously doubt the nerds in Silicon Valley can continue to clumsily lead without any muscle and that muscle unfortunately comes
at a price--You must also allow them to create the stories they need in order to help create the world your math calls for. Which
comically dumbs down the narrative (Iran WMD, contras, etc) Anyway, this dangerous alliance of tech/money/guns serves as an imposing,
probably unbeatable force of a managing agent. As this engine manages to build superior narratives as an exhaust,making sure nothing
stands in its way. Professor Fukuyama, I'm sure is tossing and turning but I always thought of him as a man with ethics, so I
feel for him. I don't think he intended it this way.
Stephen Banicki Nov 5, 2019 Well said
and the near depression of 2008 proves that a market not properly regulated can result in a disaster. 2008 was a good example
where sub-prime lending went unregulated, corruption prevailed with the result being a near depression.
Raising the minimum wage, food stamps and other social programs are short term band aids to the real solutions of bringing
back free markets and significantly improving our ability to provide a good education to all Americans.
These social programs should be used to buy time so we can get things right. Getting things right is going to take a while;
at least a generation. There are no quick fixes. The President needs to be like Teddy. Teddy Roosevelt who busted up Standard
Oil and took on the railroads. Free markets help the consumer and worker. More competition keeps prices low and increases the
demand for labor which will raise wages. For that to happen Citizens United needs to be reversed.
The Supreme Court recently said that limiting what one can spend on elections goes against free speech. I say uncontrolled
spending by the rich on elections drowns out my right to voice my opinion. We were a nation based on the principle of one man,
one vote. Today we are a nation living by the motto one dollar, one vote. If you don't have lots of dollars too bad. Your vote
does not count for much. So I am in favor of raising the minimum wage as long as we will also address the longer term problems
of improving education and truly seeking free markets. Just like the vote, free markets have been bought. ... http://lstrn.us/1hkN2ll
Yoshimichi Moriyama Nov 5, 2019
We must not be deceived by economics theories; they are more often than not propaganda selfishly committed to protecting class
or group interests.
Excuse me for my senile nostalgia for the days at college. In my first year I had to attend two English classes and the reading
assignment for one of them was Henry S. Commager/The American Mind. "The most realistic of American economists, he (Veblen) never
failed to ask of the institutions which he examined: how do they work? This question he aske explicitly; it is relevant to add
that he asked only implicitly: how should they work?"
A friend of my wife's brought a lot of books a month ago, said his father had bought them and asked if I was interested in
any of them; she told me to dispose of the rest. The following is from Samuel Koenig/Sociology:An Introduction to the Science
of Society, published in 1964.
"The structure of economic institutions and the ideas upon which they are based are the primary concern of economics. Economic
institutions, however, do not have a separate, independent existence. They are part and parcel of the culture of a society, being
influenced by the other constituents of a culture and, in turn, influencing them. In other words, economic activities are inseparable
from social life and cannot be understood apart from it. Many economic activities are themselve social in character..."
Alongside respect for knowledge, knowledge of respect might be useful at some point, as it is often difficult to build a second
floor before the first floor is build. Reply
Thank you, @BlackWomxnFor ! Black trans and
cis women, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy and I
don't take this endorsement lightly. I'm committed to fighting alongside you for the big,
structural change our country needs. https://t.co/KqWsVoRYMb
People need to remember that we literally didn't even have democracy until the trans
movement started and finally brought us to The Right Side of History.
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.
"... Trying to head off redivision of the world into nationalist trade blocks by removing Trump via dubiously democratic upheavals (like color revolutions) with more or less fictional quasi-scandals as pro-Russian treason or anti-Ukrainian treason (which is "Huh?" on the face of it,) is futile. It stems from a desire to keep on "free" trading despite the secular stagnation that has set in, hoping that the sociopolitical nowhere (major at least) doesn't collapse until God or Nature or something restores the supposedly natural order of economic growth without end/crisis. ..."
"... I think efforts to keep the neoliberal international WTO/IMF/World Bank "free" trading system is futile because the lower orders are being ordered to be satisfied with a permanent, rigid class system ..."
"... If the pie is to shrink forever, all the vile masses (the deplorables) are going to hang together in their various ways, clinging to shared identity in race or religion or nationality, which will leave the international capitalists hanging, period. "Greed is good" mantra, and the redistribution of the wealth up at the end proved to be very destructive. Saying "Greed is good," then expecting selflessness from the lowers is not high-minded but self-serving. Redistribution of wealth upward has been terribly destructive to social cohesion, both domestically and in the sense of generosity towards foreigners. ..."
"... The pervasive feeling that "we" are going down and drastic action has to be taken is probably why there hasn't been much traction for impeachment til now. If Biden, shown to be shady in regards to Hunter, is nominated to lead the Democratic Party into four/eight years of Obama-esque promise to continue shrinking the status quo for the lowers, Trump will probably win. Warren might have a better chance to convince voters she means to change things (despite the example of Obama,) but she's not very appealing. And she is almost certainly likely to be manipulated like Trump. ..."
"... I *think* that's more or less what likbez, said, though obviously it's not the way likbez wanted to express it. I disagree strenuously on some details, like Warren's problem being a schoolmarm, rather than being a believer in capitalism who shares Trump's moral values against socialism, no matter what voters say. ..."
The headline will become operative in December, if as expected, the Trump Administration
maintains its refusal to nominate new judges
to the WTO appellate panel . That will render the WTO unable to take on new cases, and
bring about an effective return to the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) which
preceded the WTO .
An interesting sidelight is that Brexit No-Dealers have been keen on the merits of trading
"on WTO terms", but those terms will probably be unenforceable by the time No Deal happens (if
it does).
likbez 10.27.19 at 11:22 pm
That's another manifestation of the ascendance of "national neoliberalism," which now is
displacing "classic neoliberalism."
Attempts to remove Trump via color revolution mechanisms (Russiagate, Ukrainegate) are
essentially connected with the desire of adherents of classic neoliberalism to return to the
old paradigm and kick the can down the road until the cliff. I think it is impossible because
the neoliberal elite lost popular support (aka support of deplorables) and now is hanging in
the air. "Greed is good" mantra, and the redistribution of the wealth up at the end proved to
be very destructive.
That's why probably previous attempts to remove Trump were unsuccessful. And if corrupt
classic neoliberal Biden wins Neoliberal Dem Party nomination, the USA probably will get the
second term of Trump. Warren might have a chance as "Better Trump then Trump" although she
proved so far to be pretty inept politician, and like "original" Trump probably can be easily
coerced by the establishment, if she wins.
All this weeping and gnashing of teeth by "neoliberal Intelligentsia" does not change the
fact that neoliberalism entered the period of structural crisis demonstrated by "secular
stagnation," and, as such, its survival is far from certain. We probably can argue only about
how long it will take for the "national neoliberalism" to dismantle it and what shape or form
the new social order will take.
That does not mean that replacing the classic neoliberalism the new social order will be
better, or more just. Neoliberalism was actually two steps back in comparison with the New
Deal Capitalism that it replaced. It clearly was a social regress.
John, I am legitimate curious what you find "exactly right" in the comment above. Other than
the obvious bit in the last line about new deal vs neoliberalism, I would say it is
completely wrong, band presenting an amazingly distorted view of both the last few years and
recent history.
Neo-liberalism is not a unified thing. Right wing parties are not following the original
(the value of choice) paradigm of Milton Friedman that won the argument during the 1970s
inflation panic, but have implemented a deceitful bait and switch strategy, followed by
continually shifting the goalposts – claiming – it would of worked but we weren't
pure enough.
But parts of what Milton Friedman said (for instance the danger of bad micro-economic
design of welfare systems creating poverty traps, and the inherent problems of high tariff
rates) had a kernel of truth. (Unfortunately, Friedman's macro-economics was almost all wrong
and has done great damage.)
"In that context it felt free to override national governments on any issue that
might affect international trade, most notably environmental policies."
Not entirely sure about that. The one case where I was informed enough to really know
detail was the China and rare earths WTO case. China claimed that restrictions on exports of
separated but otherwise unprocessed rare earths were being made on environmental grounds.
Rare earth mining is a messy business, especially the way they do it.
Well, OK. And if such exports were being limited on environmental grounds then that would
be WTO compliant. Which is why the claim presumably.
It was gently or not pointed out that exports of things made from those same rare earths
were not limited in any sense. Therefore that environmental justification might not be quite
the real one. Possibly, it was an attempt to suck RE using industry into China by making rare
earths outside in short supply, but the availability for local processing being unrestricted?
Certainly, one customer of mine at the time seriously considered packing up the US factory
and moving it.
China lost the WTO case. Not because environmental reasons aren't a justification for
restrictions on trade but because no one believed that was the reason, rather than the
justification.
I don't know about other cases – shrimp, tuna – but there is at least the
possibility that it's the argument, not the environment, which wasn't sufficient
justification?
Neoliberalism gets used as a generalized term of abuse these days. Not every political and
institutional development of the last 40 years comes down to the worship of the free market.
In the EU, East Asia, and North America, some of what has taken place is the
rationalization of bureaucratic practices and the weakening of archaic localisms. Some of
these developments have been positive.
In this respect, neoliberalism in the blanket sense used by Likbez and many others is like
what the the ancien regime was, a mix of regressive and progressive tendencies. In the
aftermath of the on-going upheaval, it is likely that it will be reassessed and some of its
features will be valued if they manage to persist.
I'm thinking of international trade agreements, transnational scientific organizations,
and confederations like the European Union.
steven t johnson 10.29.19 at 12:29 am
If I may venture to translate @1?
Right-wing populism like Orban, Salvini, the Brexiteers are sweeping the globe and this is
more of the same.
Trying to head off redivision of the world into nationalist trade blocks by removing
Trump via dubiously democratic upheavals (like color revolutions) with more or less fictional
quasi-scandals as pro-Russian treason or anti-Ukrainian treason (which is "Huh?" on the face
of it,) is futile. It stems from a desire to keep on "free" trading despite the secular
stagnation that has set in, hoping that the sociopolitical nowhere (major at least) doesn't
collapse until God or Nature or something restores the supposedly natural order of economic
growth without end/crisis.
I think efforts to keep the neoliberal international WTO/IMF/World Bank "free" trading
system is futile because the lower orders are being ordered to be satisfied with a permanent,
rigid class system .
If the pie is to shrink forever, all the vile masses (the deplorables) are going to
hang together in their various ways, clinging to shared identity in race or religion or
nationality, which will leave the international capitalists hanging, period. "Greed is good"
mantra, and the redistribution of the wealth up at the end proved to be very destructive.
Saying "Greed is good," then expecting selflessness from the lowers is not high-minded but
self-serving. Redistribution of wealth upward has been terribly destructive to social
cohesion, both domestically and in the sense of generosity towards foreigners.
The pervasive feeling that "we" are going down and drastic action has to be taken is
probably why there hasn't been much traction for impeachment til now. If Biden, shown to be
shady in regards to Hunter, is nominated to lead the Democratic Party into four/eight years
of Obama-esque promise to continue shrinking the status quo for the lowers, Trump will
probably win. Warren might have a better chance to convince voters she means to change things
(despite the example of Obama,) but she's not very appealing. And she is almost certainly
likely to be manipulated like Trump.
Again, despite the fury the old internationalism is collapsing under stagnation and
weeping about it is irrelevant. Without any real ideas, we can only react to events as
nationalist predatory capitals fight for their new world.
I'm not saying the new right wing populism is better. The New Deal/Great Society did more
for America than its political successors since Nixon et al. The years since 1968 I think
have been a regression and I see no reason–alas–that it can't get even worse.
I *think* that's more or less what likbez, said, though obviously it's not the way
likbez wanted to express it. I disagree strenuously on some details, like Warren's problem
being a schoolmarm, rather than being a believer in capitalism who shares Trump's moral
values against socialism, no matter what voters say.
It is a particular mutation of the original concept similar to mutation of socialism into
national socialism, when domestic policies are mostly preserved (including rampant
deregulation) and supplemented by repressive measures (total surveillance) , but in foreign
policy "might make right" and unilateralism with the stress on strictly bilateral regulations
of trade (no WTO) somewhat modifies "Washington consensus". In other words, the foreign
financial oligarchy has a demoted status under the "national neoliberalism" regime, while the
national financial oligarchy and manufactures are elevated.
And the slogan of "financial oligarchy of all countries, unite" which is sine qua
non of classic neoliberalism is effectively dead and is replaced by protection racket of
the most political powerful players (look at Biden and Ukrainian oligarchs behavior here
;-)
> I think every sentence in that comment is either completely wrong or at least
debatable. And is likbez actually John Hewson, because that comment reads like one of John
Hewson's commentaries
> Most obviously, to define Warren and Trump as both being neoliberals drains the
term of any meaning
You are way too fast even for a political football forward ;-).
Warren capitalizes on the same discontent and the feeling of the crisis of neoliberalism
that allowed Trump to win. Yes, she is a much better candidate than Trump, and her policy
proposals are better (unless she is coerced by the Deep State like Trump in the first three
months of her Presidency).
Still, unlike Sanders in domestic policy and Tulsi in foreign policy, she is a neoliberal
reformist at heart and a neoliberal warmonger in foreign policy. Most of her policy proposals
are quite shallow, and are just a band-aid.
> Neoliberalism gets used as a generalized term of abuse these days. Not every
political and institutional development of the last 40 years comes down to the worship of
the free market.
This is a typical stance of neoliberal MSM, a popular line of attack on critics of
neoliberalism.
Yes, of course, not everything political and institutional development of the last 40
years comes down to the worship of the "free market." But how can it be otherwise? Notions of
human agency, a complex interaction of politics and economics in human affairs, technological
progress since 1970th, etc., all play a role. But a historian needs to be able to somehow
integrate the mass of evidence into a coherent and truthful story.
And IMHO this story for the last several decades is the ascendance and now decline of
"classic neoliberalism" with its stress on the neoliberal globalization and opening of the
foreign markets for transnational corporations (often via direct or indirect (financial)
pressure, or subversive actions including color revolutions and military intervention) and
replacement of it by "national neoliberalism" -- domestic neoliberalism without (or with a
different type of) neoliberal globalization.
Defining features of national neoliberalism along with the rejection of neoliberal
globalization and, in particular, multiparty treaties like WTO is massive, overwhelming
propaganda including politicized witch hunts (via neoliberal MSM), total surveillance of
citizens by the national security state institutions (three-letter agencies which now
acquired a political role), as well as elements of classic nationalism built-in.
The dominant ideology of the last 30 years was definitely connected with "worshiping of
free markets," a secular religion that displaced alternative views and, for several decades
(say 1976 -2007), dominated the discourse. So worshiping (or pretense of worshiping) of "free
market" (as if such market exists, and is not a theological construct -- a deity of some
sort) is really defining feature here.
"MSNBC names four renowned female journalists as moderators for November debate" [
NBC ]. "Moderating the Nov. 20 event, which is being co-hosted by MSNBC and The Washington
Post, will be Rachel Maddow, host of "The Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC; Andrea Mitchell, host
of "Andrea Mitchell Reports" on MSNBC and NBC News' chief foreign affairs correspondent;
Kristen Welker, NBC News' White House correspondent; and Ashley Parker, a White House reporter
for The Washington Post." • The count of journalists is off by at least one.
Neocons are lobbyists for MIC, the it is MIC that is the center of this this cult. People like Kriston, Kagan and Max Boot are
just well paid prostituttes on MIC, which includes intelligence agencies as a very important part -- the bridge to Wall Street so to
speak.
Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan member or a child
molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Neoconservatism is a psychopathic death cult whose relentless hyper-hawkishness is a greater threat to the survival of our species than anything else in the world right now. These people are traitors to humanity, and their ideology needs to be purged from the face of the earth forever. I'm not advocating violence of any kind here, but let's stop pretending that this is okay. Let's start calling these people the murderous psychopaths that they are whenever they rear their evil heads and stop respecting and legitimizing them. There should be a massive, massive social stigma around what these people do, so we need to create one. They should be marginalized, not leading us. ..."
Glenn Greenwald has just published a very important
article in The Intercept that I would have everyone in America read if I could. Titled "With New D.C. Policy Group,
Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons", Greenwald's excellent piece details the frustratingly under-reported
way that the leaders of the neoconservative death cult have been realigning with the Democratic party.
This pivot back to the party of neoconservatism's origin is one of the most significant political events of the new millennium,
but aside from a handful of sharp political analysts like Greenwald it's been going largely undiscussed. This is weird, and we need
to start talking about it. A lot. Their willful alignment with neoconservatism should be the very first thing anyone ever talks about
when discussing the Democratic party.
When you hear someone complaining that the Democratic party has no platform besides being anti-Trump, your response should be,
"Yeah it does. Their platform is the omnicidal death cult of neoconservatism."
It's absolutely insane that neoconservatism is still a thing, let alone still a thing that mainstream America tends to regard
as a perfectly legitimate set of opinions for a human being to have. As what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts rightly
calls "the most dangerous ideology that has ever
existed," neoconservatism has used its nonpartisan bloodlust to work with the Democratic party for the purpose of escalating tensions
with Russia on multiple fronts, bringing our species to the brink of what could very well end up being a
world war with a nuclear superpower and its allies.
This is not okay. Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan
member or a child molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Check out leading neoconservative Bill Kristol's response to the aforementioned Intercept article:
... ... ...
Okay, leaving aside the fact that this bloodthirsty psychopath is saying neocons "won" a Cold War that neocons have deliberately
reignited by fanning the flames of the Russia hysteria and
pushing for more escalations , how insane is it that we live in a society where a public figure can just be like, "Yeah, I'm
a neocon, I advocate for using military aggression to maintain US hegemony and I think it's great," and have that be okay? These
people kill children. Neoconservatism means piles upon piles of child corpses. It means devoting the resources of a nation that won't
even provide its citizens with a real healthcare system to widespread warfare and all the death, destruction, chaos, terrorism, rape
and suffering that necessarily comes with war. The only way that you can possibly regard neoconservatism as just one more set of
political opinions is if you completely compartmentalize away from the reality of everything that it is.
This should not happen. The tensions with Russia that these monsters have worked so hard to escalate could blow up at any moment;
there are too many moving parts, too many things that could go wrong. The last Cold War brought our species
within a hair's
breadth of total annihilation due to our inability to foresee all possible complications which can arise from such a contest,
and these depraved death cultists are trying to drag us back into another one. Nothing is worth that. Nothing is worth risking the
life of every organism on earth, but they're risking it all for geopolitical influence.
... ... ...
I've had a very interesting last 24 hours. My
article about Senator John
McCain (which I titled "Please Just Fucking Die Already" because the title I really wanted to use seemed a bit crass) has received
an amount of attention that I'm not accustomed to, from
CNN to
USA Today to the
Washington Post . I watched Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar
talking about me on The View . They called me a "Bernie
Sanders person." It was a trip. Apparently some very low-level Republican with a few hundred Twitter followers went and retweeted
my article with an approving caption, and that sort of thing is worthy of coast-to-coast mainstream coverage in today's America.
This has of course brought in a deluge of angry comments, mostly from people whose social media pages are full of Russiagate
nonsense , showing
where McCain's current support base comes from. Some call him a war hero, some talk about him like he's a perfectly fine politician,
some defend him as just a normal person whose politics I happen to disagree with.
This is insane. This man has actively and enthusiastically pushed for every single act of military aggression that America has
engaged in, and some that
it hasn't , throughout his entire career. He makes Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton look like a dove. When you look
at John McCain, the very first thing you see should not be a former presidential candidate, a former POW or an Arizona Senator; the
first thing you see should be the piles of human corpses that he has helped to create. This is not a normal kind of person, and I
still do sincerely hope that he dies of natural causes before he can do any more harm.
Can we change this about ourselves, please? None of us should have to live in a world where pushing for more bombing campaigns
at every opportunity is an acceptable agenda for a public figure to have. Neoconservatism is a psychopathic death cult whose relentless
hyper-hawkishness is a greater threat to the survival of our species than anything else in the world right now. These people are
traitors to humanity, and their ideology needs to be purged from the face of the earth forever. I'm not advocating violence of any
kind here, but let's stop pretending that this is okay. Let's start calling these people the murderous psychopaths that they are
whenever they rear their evil heads and stop respecting and legitimizing them. There should be a massive, massive social stigma around
what these people do, so we need to create one. They should be marginalized, not leading us.
-- -- --
I'm a 100 percent reader-funded journalist so if you enjoyed this, please consider helping me out by sharing it around, liking
me on Facebook , following me on
Twitter , or throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon .
@Ron
Unz Thanks to Tucker Carlson's show, some folks on the left like Cohen, Mate and
Greenwald, are more likely to get air time on Fox News than MSNBC and CNN.
The term "centrist" is replaced by a more appropriate term "neoliberal oligarchy"
Notable quotes:
"... Furthermore, Donald Trump might well emerge from this national ordeal with his reelection chances enhanced. Such a prospect is belatedly insinuating itself into public discourse. For that reason, certain anti-Trump pundits are already showing signs of going wobbly, suggesting , for instance, that censure rather than outright impeachment might suffice as punishment for the president's various offenses. Yet censuring Trump while allowing him to stay in office would be the equivalent of letting Harvey Weinstein off with a good tongue-lashing so that he can get back to making movies. Censure is for wimps. ..."
"... So if Trump finds himself backed into a corner, Democrats aren't necessarily in a more favorable position. And that aren't the half of it. Let me suggest that, while Trump is being pursued, it's you, my fellow Americans, who are really being played. The unspoken purpose of impeachment is not removal, but restoration. The overarching aim is not to replace Trump with Mike Pence -- the equivalent of exchanging Groucho for Harpo. No, the object of the exercise is to return power to those who created the conditions that enabled Trump to win the White House in the first place. ..."
"... For many of the main participants in this melodrama, the actual but unstated purpose of impeachment is to correct this great wrong and thereby restore history to its anointed path. ..."
"... In a recent column in The Guardian, Professor Samuel Moyn makes the essential point: Removing from office a vulgar, dishonest and utterly incompetent president comes nowhere close to capturing what's going on here. To the elites most intent on ousting Trump, far more important than anything he may say or do is what he signifies. He is a walking, talking repudiation of everything they believe and, by extension, of a future they had come to see as foreordained. ..."
"... Moyn styles these anti-Trump elites as "neoliberal oligarchy", members of the post-Cold War political mainstream that allowed ample room for nominally conservative Bushes and nominally liberal Clintons, while leaving just enough space for Barack Obama's promise of hope-and-(not-too-much) change. ..."
"... These "neoliberal oligarchy" share a common worldview. They believe in the universality of freedom as defined and practiced within the United States. They believe in corporate capitalism operating on a planetary scale. They believe in American primacy, with the United States presiding over a global order as the sole superpower. They believe in "American global leadership," which they define as primarily a military enterprise. And perhaps most of all, while collecting degrees from Georgetown, Harvard, Oxford, Wellesley, the University of Chicago, and Yale, they came to believe in a so-called meritocracy as the preferred mechanism for allocating wealth, power and privilege. All of these together comprise the sacred scripture of contemporary American political elites. And if Donald Trump's antagonists have their way, his removal will restore that sacred scripture to its proper place as the basis of policy. ..."
"... "For all their appeals to enduring moral values," Moyn writes, "the "neoliberal oligarchy" are deploying a transparent strategy to return to power." Destruction of the Trump presidency is a necessary precondition for achieving that goal. ""neoliberal oligarchy" simply want to return to the status quo interrupted by Trump, their reputations laundered by their courageous opposition to his mercurial reign, and their policies restored to credibility." Precisely. ..."
"... how does such misconduct compare to the calamities engineered by the "neoliberal oligarchy" who preceded him? ..."
"... Trump's critics speak with one voice in demanding accountability. Yet virtually no one has been held accountable for the pain, suffering, and loss inflicted by the architects of the Iraq War and the Great Recession. Why is that? As another presidential election approaches, the question not only goes unanswered, but unasked. ..."
"... To win reelection, Trump, a corrupt con man (who jumped ship on his own bankrupt casinos, money in hand, leaving others holding the bag) will cheat and lie. Yet, in the politics of the last half-century, these do not qualify as novelties. (Indeed, apart from being the son of a sitting U.S. vice president, what made Hunter Biden worth $50Gs per month to a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch? I'm curious.) That the president and his associates are engaging in a cover-up is doubtless the case. Yet another cover-up proceeds in broad daylight on a vastly larger scale. "Trump's shambolic presidency somehow seems less unsavory," Moyn writes, when considering the fact that his critics refuse "to admit how massively his election signified the failure of their policies, from endless war to economic inequality." Just so. ..."
"... Exactly. Trump is the result of voter disgust with Bush III vs Clinton II, the presumed match up for a year or more leading up to 2016. Now Democrats want to do it again, thinking they can elect anybody against Trump. That's what Hillary thought too. ..."
"... Trump won for lack of alternatives. Our political class is determined to prevent any alternatives breaking through this time either. They don't want Trump, but even more they want to protect their gravy train of donor money, the huge overspending on medical care (four times the defense budget) and of course all those Forever Wars. ..."
"... Trump could win, for the same reasons as last time, even though the result would be no better than last time. ..."
"... I wish the slick I.D. politics obsessed corporate Dems nothing but the worst, absolute worst. They reap what they sow. If it means another four years of Trump, so be it. It's the price that's going to have to be paid. ..."
"... At a time when a majority of U.S. citizens cannot muster up $500 for an emergency dental bill or car repair without running down to the local "pay day loan" lender shark (now established as legitimate businesses) the corporate Dems, in their infinite wisdom, decide to concoct an impeachment circus to run simultaneously when all the dirt against the execrable Brennan and his intel minions starts to hit the press for their Russiagate hoax. Nice sleight of hand there corporate Dems. ..."
There is blood in the water and frenzied sharks are closing in for the kill. Or so they
think.
From the time of Donald Trump's election, American elites have hungered for this moment. At
long last, they have the 45th president of the United States cornered. In typically ham-handed
fashion, Trump has given his adversaries the very means to destroy him politically. They will
not waste the opportunity. Impeachment now -- finally, some will say -- qualifies as a virtual
certainty.
No doubt many surprises lie ahead. Yet the Democrats controlling the House of
Representatives have passed the point of no return. The time for prudential judgments -- the
Republican-controlled Senate will never convict, so why bother? -- is gone for good. To back
down now would expose the president's pursuers as spineless cowards. TheNew York
Times, The Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC would not soon forgive such craven behavior.
So, as President Woodrow Wilson, speaking in 1919 put it, "The stage is set, the
destiny disclosed. It has come about by no plan of our conceiving, but by the hand of God." Of
course, the issue back then was a notably weighty one: whether to ratify the Versailles Treaty.
That it now concerns a "
Mafia-like shakedown " orchestrated by one of Wilson's successors tells us something about
the trajectory of American politics over the course of the last century and it has not been a
story of ascent.
The effort to boot the president from office is certain to yield a memorable spectacle. The
rancor and contempt that have clogged American politics like a backed-up sewer since the day of
Trump's election will now find release. Watergate will pale by comparison. The uproar triggered
by Bill Clinton's "
sexual relations " will be nothing by comparison. A de facto collaboration between
Trump, those who despise him, and those who despise his critics all but guarantees that this
story will dominate the news, undoubtedly for months to come.
As this process unspools, what politicians like to call "the people's business" will go
essentially unattended. So while Congress considers whether or not to remove Trump from office,
gun-control legislation will languish, the deterioration of the nation's infrastructure will
proceed apace, needed healthcare reforms will be tabled, the military-industrial complex will
waste yet more billions, and the national debt, already at $22 trillion --
larger, that is, than the entire economy -- will continue to surge. The looming threat posed by
climate change, much talked about of late, will proceed all but unchecked. For those of us
preoccupied with America's role in the world, the obsolete assumptions and habits undergirding
what's still called " national
security " will continue to evade examination. Our endless wars will remain endless and
pointless.
By way of compensation, we might wonder what benefits impeachment is likely to yield.
Answering that question requires examining four scenarios that describe the range of
possibilities awaiting the nation.
The first and most to be desired (but least likely) is that Trump will tire of being a
public piñata and just quit. With the thrill of flying in Air Force One having
worn off, being president can't be as much fun these days. Why put up with further grief? How
much more entertaining for Trump to retire to the political sidelines where he can tweet up a
storm and indulge his penchant for name-calling. And think of the "deals" an ex-president could
make in countries like Israel, North Korea, Poland, and Saudi Arabia on which he's bestowed
favors. Cha-ching! As of yet, however, the president shows no signs of taking the easy (and
lucrative) way out.
The second possible outcome sounds almost as good but is no less implausible: a sufficient
number of Republican senators rediscover their moral compass and "do the right thing," joining
with Democrats to create the two-thirds majority needed to convict Trump and send him packing.
In the Washington of that classic 20th-century film director Frank Capra, with Jimmy Stewart
holding
forth on the Senate floor and a moist-eyed Jean Arthur cheering him on from the gallery,
this might have happened. In the real Washington of "Moscow Mitch"
McConnell , think again.
The third somewhat seamier outcome might seem a tad more likely. It postulates that
McConnell and various GOP senators facing reelection in 2020 or 2022 will calculate that
turning on Trump just might offer the best way of saving their own skins. The president's
loyalty to just about anyone, wives included, has always been highly contingent, the people
streaming out of his administration routinely making the point. So why should senatorial
loyalty to the president be any different? At the moment, however, indications that Trump
loyalists out in the hinterlands will reward such turncoats are just about nonexistent. Unless
that base were to flip, don't expect Republican senators to do anything but flop.
That leaves outcome No. 4, easily the most probable: while the House will impeach, the
Senate will decline to convict. Trump will therefore stay right where he is, with the matter of
his fitness for office effectively deferred to the November 2020 elections. Except as a source
of sadomasochistic diversion, the entire agonizing experience will, therefore, prove to be a
colossal waste of time and blather.
Furthermore, Donald Trump might well emerge from this national ordeal with his reelection
chances enhanced. Such a prospect is belatedly insinuating itself into public discourse. For
that reason, certain anti-Trump pundits are already showing signs of going wobbly,
suggesting , for instance, that censure rather than outright impeachment might suffice as
punishment for the president's various offenses. Yet censuring Trump while allowing him to stay
in office would be the equivalent of letting Harvey Weinstein off with a good tongue-lashing so
that he can get back to making movies. Censure is for wimps.
Besides, as Trump campaigns for a second term, he would almost surely wear censure like a
badge of honor. Keep in mind that Congress's
approval ratings are considerably worse than his. To more than a few members of the public,
a black mark awarded by Congress might look like a gold star.
Restoration Not Removal
So if Trump finds himself backed into a corner, Democrats aren't necessarily in a more
favorable position. And that aren't the half of it. Let me suggest that, while Trump is being
pursued, it's you, my fellow Americans, who are really being played. The unspoken purpose of
impeachment is not removal, but restoration. The overarching aim is not to replace Trump with
Mike Pence -- the equivalent of exchanging Groucho for Harpo. No, the object of the exercise is
to return power to those who created the conditions that enabled Trump to win the White House
in the first place.
Just recently, for instance, Hillary Clinton
declared Trump to be an "illegitimate president." Implicit in her charge is the conviction
-- no doubt sincere -- that people like Donald Trump are not supposed to be president.
People like Hillary Clinton -- people possessing credentials
like hers and sharing her values -- should be the chosen ones. Here we glimpse the true
meaning of legitimacy in this context. Whatever the vote in the Electoral College, Trump
doesn't deserve to be president and never did.
For many of the main participants in this melodrama, the actual but unstated purpose of
impeachment is to correct this great wrong and thereby restore history to its anointed
path.
In a
recent column in The Guardian, Professor Samuel Moyn makes the essential point:
Removing from office a vulgar, dishonest and utterly incompetent president comes nowhere close
to capturing what's going on here. To the elites most intent on ousting Trump, far more
important than anything he may say or do is what he signifies. He is a walking, talking
repudiation of everything they believe and, by extension, of a future they had come to see as
foreordained.
Moyn styles these anti-Trump elites as "neoliberal oligarchy", members of the post-Cold War political
mainstream that allowed ample room for nominally conservative Bushes and nominally liberal
Clintons, while leaving just enough space for Barack Obama's promise of hope-and-(not-too-much)
change.
These "neoliberal oligarchy" share a common worldview. They believe in the universality of freedom as
defined and practiced within the United States. They believe in corporate capitalism operating
on a planetary scale. They believe in American primacy, with the United States presiding over a
global order as the sole superpower. They believe in "American global leadership," which they
define as primarily a military enterprise. And perhaps most of all, while collecting degrees
from Georgetown, Harvard, Oxford, Wellesley, the University of Chicago, and Yale, they came to
believe in a so-called meritocracy as the preferred mechanism for allocating wealth, power and
privilege. All of these together comprise the sacred scripture of contemporary American
political elites. And if Donald Trump's antagonists have their way, his removal will restore
that sacred scripture to its proper place as the basis of policy.
"For all their appeals to enduring moral values," Moyn writes, "the "neoliberal oligarchy" are deploying
a transparent strategy to return to power." Destruction of the Trump presidency is a necessary
precondition for achieving that goal. ""neoliberal oligarchy" simply want to return to the status quo
interrupted by Trump, their reputations laundered by their courageous opposition to his
mercurial reign, and their policies restored to credibility." Precisely.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
The U.S. military's "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad at the start of the Iraq War, as
broadcast on CNN.
For such a scheme to succeed, however, laundering reputations alone will not suffice.
Equally important will be to bury any recollection of the catastrophes that paved the way for
an über -qualified centrist to lose to an indisputably unqualified and
unprincipled political novice in 2016.
Holding promised security assistance hostage unless a foreign leader agrees to do you
political favors is obviously and indisputably wrong. Trump's antics regarding Ukraine may even
meet some definition of criminal. Still, how does such misconduct compare to the calamities engineered by the "neoliberal
oligarchy" who preceded him? Consider, in particular, the George W. Bush
administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 (along with the spin-off wars that followed).
Consider, too, the reckless economic policies that produced the Great Recession of 2007-2008.
As measured by the harm inflicted on the American people (and others), the offenses for which
Trump is being impeached qualify as mere misdemeanors.
Honest people may differ on whether to attribute the Iraq War to outright lies or monumental
hubris. When it comes to tallying up the consequences, however, the intentions of those who
sold the war don't particularly matter. The results include
thousands of Americans killed; tens of thousands wounded, many grievously, or left to
struggle with the effects of PTSD; hundreds of thousands of non-Americans killed or injured ;
millions displaced ;
trillions of dollars expended; radical groups like ISIS empowered (and in its case
even formed
inside a U.S. prison in Iraq); and the Persian Gulf region plunged into turmoil from which it
has yet to recover. How do Trump's crimes stack up against these?
The Great Recession stemmed directly from economic policies implemented during the
administration of President Bill Clinton and continued by his successor. Deregulating the
banking sector was projected to produce a bonanza in which all would share. Yet, as a
direct result of
the ensuing chicanery, nearly 9 million Americans lost their jobs, while overall unemployment
shot up to 10 percent. Roughly 4 million Americans lost their homes to foreclosure. The stock
market cratered and millions saw their life savings evaporate. Again, the question must be
asked: How do these results compare to Trump's dubious dealings with Ukraine?
Trump's critics speak with one voice in demanding accountability. Yet virtually no one has
been held accountable for the pain, suffering, and loss inflicted by the architects of the Iraq
War and the Great Recession. Why is that? As another presidential election approaches, the
question not only goes unanswered, but unasked.
Sen. Carter Glass (D–Va.) and Rep. Henry B. Steagall (D–Ala.-3), the co-sponsors of
the 1932 Glass–Steagall Act separating investment and commercial banking, which was
repealed in 1999. (Wikimedia Commons)
To win reelection, Trump, a corrupt con man (who jumped ship
on his own bankrupt casinos, money in hand, leaving others holding the bag) will cheat and lie.
Yet, in the politics of the last half-century, these do not qualify as novelties. (Indeed,
apart from being the son of a sitting U.S. vice president, what made Hunter Biden
worth $50Gs per month to a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch? I'm curious.) That
the president and his associates are engaging in a cover-up is doubtless the case. Yet another
cover-up proceeds in broad daylight on a vastly larger scale. "Trump's shambolic presidency
somehow seems less unsavory," Moyn writes, when considering the fact that his critics refuse
"to admit how massively his election signified the failure of their policies, from endless war
to economic inequality." Just so.
What are the real crimes? Who are the real criminals? No matter what happens in the coming
months, don't expect the Trump impeachment proceedings to come within a country mile of
addressing such questions.
Exactly. Trump is the result of voter disgust with Bush III vs Clinton II, the presumed
match up for a year or more leading up to 2016. Now Democrats want to do it again, thinking they can elect anybody against Trump. That's
what Hillary thought too.
Now the Republicans who lost their party to Trump think they can take it back with
somebody even more lame than Jeb, if only they could find someone, anyone, to run on that
non-plan.
Trump won for lack of alternatives. Our political class is determined to prevent any
alternatives breaking through this time either. They don't want Trump, but even more they
want to protect their gravy train of donor money, the huge overspending on medical care (four
times the defense budget) and of course all those Forever Wars.
Trump could win, for the same reasons as last time, even though the result would be no
better than last time.
LJ , October 9, 2019 at 17:01
Well, yeah but I recall that what won Trump the Republican Nomination was first and
foremost his stance on Immigration. This issue is what separated him from the herd of
candidates . None of them had the courage or the desire to go against Governmental Groupthink
on Immigration. All he then had to do was get on top of low energy Jeb Bush and the road was
clear. He got the base on his side on this issue and on his repeated statement that he wished
to normalize relations with Russia . He won the nomination easily. The base is still on his
side on these issues but Governmental Groupthink has prevailed in the House, the Senate, the
Intelligence Services and the Federal Courts. Funny how nobody in the Beltway, especially not
in media, is brave enough to admit that the entire Neoconservative scheme has been a disaster
and that of course we should get out of Syria . Nor can anyone recall the corruption and
warmongering that now seem that seems endemic to the Democratic Party. Of course Trump has to
wear goat's horns. "Off with his head".
Drew Hunkins , October 9, 2019 at 16:00
I wish the slick I.D. politics obsessed corporate Dems nothing but the worst, absolute
worst. They reap what they sow. If it means another four years of Trump, so be it. It's the
price that's going to have to be paid.
At a time when a majority of U.S. citizens cannot muster up $500 for an emergency dental
bill or car repair without running down to the local "pay day loan" lender shark (now
established as legitimate businesses) the corporate Dems, in their infinite wisdom, decide to
concoct an impeachment circus to run simultaneously when all the dirt against the execrable
Brennan and his intel minions starts to hit the press for their Russiagate hoax. Nice sleight
of hand there corporate Dems.
Of course, the corporate Dems would rather lose to Trump than win with a
progressive-populist like Bernie. After all, a Bernie win would mean an end to a lot of
careerism and cushy positions within the establishment political scene in Washington and
throughout the country.
Now we even have the destroyer of Libya mulling another run for the presidency.
Forget about having a job the next day and forget about the 25% interest on your credit
card or that half your income is going toward your rent or mortgage, or that you barely see
your kids b/c of the 60 hour work week, just worry about women lawyers being able to make
partner at the firm, and trans people being able to use whatever bathroom they wish and male
athletes being able to compete against women based on genitalia (no, wait, I'm confused
now).
Either class politics and class warfare comes front and center or we witness a burgeoning
neo-fascist movement in our midst. It's that simple, something has got to give!
"The president is dropping by the city on Thursday for one of his periodic angry
wank-fests at the Target Center, which is the venue in which this event will be inflicted
upon the Twin Cities. (And, just as an aside, given the events of the past 10 days, this one
should be a doozy.) Other Minneapolis folk are planning an extensive unwelcoming party
outside the arena, which necessarily would require increased security, which is expensive.
So, realizing that it was dealing with a notorious deadbeat -- in keeping with his customary
business plan, El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago has stiffed 10 cities this year for bills relating
to security costs that total almost a million bucks -- the company that provides the security
for the Target Center wants the president*'s campaign to shell out more than $500,000.
This has sent the president* into a Twitter tantrum against Frey, who seems not to be that
impressed by it. Right from when the visit was announced, Frey has been jabbing at the
president*'s ego. From the Star-Tribune:
"Our entire city will stand not behind the President, but behind the communities and
people who continue to make our city -- and this country -- great," Frey said. "While there
is no legal mechanism to prevent the president from visiting, his message of hatred will
never be welcome in Minneapolis."
It is a mayor's lot to deal with out-of-state troublemakers. Always has been."
This is not about Trump. This is not even about Ukraine and/or foreign powers influence on
the US election (of which Israel, UK, and Saudi are three primary examples; in this
particular order.)
Russiagate 2.0 (aka Ukrainegate) is the case, textbook example if you wish, of how the
neoliberal elite manipulates the MSM and the narrative for purposes of misdirecting attention
and perception of their true intentions and objectives -- distracting the electorate from
real issues.
An excellent observation by JohnH (October 01, 2019 at 01:47 PM )
"It all depends on which side of the Infowars you find yourself. The facts themselves are
too obscure and byzantine."
There are two competing narratives here:
1. NARRATIVE 1: CIA swamp scum tried to re-launch Russiagate as Russiagate 2.0. This is
CIA coup d'état aided and abetted by CIA-democrats like Pelosi and Schiff. Treason, as
Trump aptly said. This is narrative shared by "anti-Deep Staters" who sometimes are nicknamed
"Trumptards". Please note that the latter derogatory nickname is factually incorrect:
supporters of this narrative often do not support Trump. They just oppose machinations of the
Deep State. And/or neoliberalism personified by Clinton camp, with its rampant
corruption.
2. NARRATIVE 2: Trump tried to derail his opponent using his influence of foreign state
President (via military aid) as leverage and should be impeached for this and previous
crimes. ("Full of Schiff" commenters narrative, neoliberal democrats, or demorats.)
Supporters of this category usually bought Russiagate 1.0 narrative line, hook and sinker.
Some of them are brainwashed, but mostly simply ignorant neoliberal lemmings without even
basic political education.
In any case, while Russiagate 2.0 is probably another World Wrestling Federation style
fight, I think "anti-Deep-staters" are much closer to the truth.
What is missing here is the real problem: the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA (and
elsewhere).
So this circus serves an important purpose (intentionally or unintentionally) -- to disrupt
voters from the problems that are really burning, and are equal to a slow-progressing cancer in the
US society.
And implicitly derail Warren (being a weak politician she does not understand that, and
jumped into Ukrainegate bandwagon )
I am not that competent here, so I will just mention some obvious symptoms:
Loss of legitimacy of the ruling neoliberal elite (which demonstrated itself in 2016
with election of Trump);
Desperation of many working Americans with sliding standard of living; loss of meaningful
jobs due to offshoring of manufacturing and automation (which demonstrated itself in opioids
abuse epidemics; similar to epidemics of alcoholism in the USSR before its dissolution.
Loss of previously available freedoms. Loss of "free press" replaced by the neoliberal
echo chamber in major MSM. The uncontrolled and brutal rule of financial oligarchy and allied
with the intelligence agencies as the third rail of US politics (plus the conversion of the
state after 9/11 into national security state);
Coming within this century end of the "Petroleum Age" and the global crisis that it can
entail;
Rampant militarism, tremendous waist of resources on the arms race, and overstretched
efforts to maintain and expand global, controlled from Washington, neoliberal empire. Efforts
that since 1991 were a primary focus of unhinged after 1991 neocon faction US elite who
totally controls foreign policy establishment ("full-spectrum dominance). They are stealing money from
working people to fund an imperial project, and as part of neoliberal redistribution of wealth up
Most of the commenters here live a comfortable life in the financially secured retirement,
and, as such, are mostly satisfied with the status quo. And almost completely isolated from
the level of financial insecurity of most common Americans (healthcare racket might be the
only exception).
And re-posting of articles which confirm your own worldview (echo chamber posting) is nice
entertainment, I think ;-)
Some of those posters actually sometimes manage to find really valuable info. For which I
am thankful. In other cases, when we have a deluge of abhorrent neoliberal propaganda
postings (the specialty of Fred C. Dobbs) which often generate really insightful comments from the
members of the "anti-Deep State" camp.
Still it would be beneficial if the flow of neoliberal spam is slightly curtailed.
The key to the success of neoliberal was a bunch on bought intellectual prostitutes like Milton Friedman and the drive to
occupy economic departments of the the universities using money from the financial elite. which along with think tank continued
mercenary army of neoliberalism who fought and win the battle with weakened New Del capitalism supporters. After that
neoliberalism was from those departments like the centers of infection via indoctrination of each new generation of students.
Which is a classic mixture of Bolsheviks methods and Trotskyite theory adapted tot he need of financial oligarchy.
Essentially we see the tragedy of Lysenkoism replayed in the USA. When false theory supported by financial oligarchy and then
state forcefully suppressed all other economic thought and became the only politically correct theory in the USA and Western
Europe.
Notable quotes:
"... The neoliberal counterrevolution, in theory and policy, has reversed or undermined nearly every aspect of managed capitalism -- from progressive taxation, welfare transfers, and antitrust, to the empowerment of workers and the regulation of banks and other major industries. ..."
"... Neoliberalism's premise is that free markets can regulate themselves; that government is inherently incompetent, captive to special interests, and an intrusion on the efficiency of the market; that in distributive terms, market outcomes are basically deserved; and that redistribution creates perverse incentives by punishing the economy's winners and rewarding its losers. So government should get out of the market's way. ..."
"... Now, after nearly half a century, the verdict is in. Virtually every one of these policies has failed, even on their own terms. ..."
"... Economic power has resulted in feedback loops of political power, in which elites make rules that bolster further concentration. ..."
"... The culprit isn't just "markets" -- some impersonal force that somehow got loose again. This is a story of power using theory. The mixed economy was undone by economic elites, who revised rules for their own benefit. They invested heavily in friendly theorists to bless this shift as sound and necessary economics, and friendly politicians to put those theories into practice. ..."
"... The grand neoliberal experiment of the past 40 years has demonstrated that markets in fact do not regulate themselves. Managed markets turn out to be more equitable and more efficient. ..."
"... The British political economist Colin Crouch captured this anomaly in a book nicely titled The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism . Why did neoliberalism not die? As Crouch observed, neoliberalism failed both as theory and as policy, but succeeded superbly as power politics for economic elites. ..."
"... The neoliberal ascendance has had another calamitous cost -- to democratic legitimacy. As government ceased to buffer market forces, daily life has become more of a struggle for ordinary people. ..."
"... After the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, ours was widely billed as an era when triumphant liberal capitalism would march hand in hand with liberal democracy. But in a few brief decades, the ostensibly secure regime of liberal democracy has collapsed in nation after nation, with echoes of the 1930s. ..."
"... As the great political historian Karl Polanyi warned, when markets overwhelm society, ordinary people often turn to tyrants. In regimes that border on neofascist, klepto-capitalists get along just fine with dictators, undermining the neoliberal premise of capitalism and democracy as complements. ..."
"... Classically, the premise of a "free market" is that government simply gets out of the way. This is nonsensical, since all markets are creatures of rules, most fundamentally rules defining property, but also rules defining credit, debt, and bankruptcy; rules defining patents, trademarks, and copyrights; rules defining terms of labor; and so on. Even deregulation requires rules. In Polanyi's words, "laissez-faire was planned." ..."
"... Around the same time, the term neoconservative was used as a self-description by former liberals who embraced conservatism, on cultural, racial, economic, and foreign-policy grounds. Neoconservatives were neoliberals in economics. ..."
"... Lavishly funded centers and tenured chairs were underwritten by the Olin, Scaife, Bradley, and other far-right foundations to promote such variants of free-market theory as law and economics, public choice, rational choice, cost-benefit analysis, maximize-shareholder-value, and kindred schools of thought. These theories colonized several academic disciplines. All were variations on the claim that markets worked and that government should get out of the way. ..."
"... Market failure was dismissed as a rare special case; government failure was said to be ubiquitous. Theorists worked hand in glove with lobbyists and with public officials. But in every major case where neoliberal theory generated policy, the result was political success and economic failure. ..."
"... For example, supply-side economics became the justification for tax cuts, on the premise that taxes punished enterprise. ..."
"... Robert Bork's "antitrust paradox," holding that antitrust enforcement actually weakened competition, was used as the doctrine to sideline the Sherman and Clayton Acts. Supposedly, if government just got out of the way, market forces would remain more competitive because monopoly pricing would invite innovation and new entrants to the market. In practice, industry after industry became more heavily concentrated. ..."
"... Human capital theory, another variant of neoliberal application of markets to partly social questions, justified deregulating labor markets and crushing labor unions. Unions supposedly used their power to get workers paid more than their market worth. Likewise minimum wage laws. But the era of depressed wages has actually seen a decline in rates of productivity growth ..."
"... Financial deregulation is neoliberalism's most palpable deregulatory failure, but far from the only one ..."
"... Air travel has been a poster child for advocates of deregulation, but the actual record is mixed at best. Airline deregulation produced serial bankruptcies of every major U.S. airline, often at the cost of worker pay and pension funds. ..."
"... Ticket prices have declined on average over the past two decades, but the traveling public suffers from a crazy quilt of fares, declining service, shrinking seats and legroom, and exorbitant penalties for the perfectly normal sin of having to change plans. ..."
"... A similar example is the privatization of transportation services such as highways and even parking meters. In several Midwestern states, toll roads have been sold to private vendors. The governor who makes the deal gains a temporary fiscal windfall, while drivers end up paying higher tolls often for decades. Investment bankers who broker the deal also take their cut. Some of the money does go into highway improvements, but that could have been done more efficiently in the traditional way via direct public ownership and competitive bidding. ..."
"... The Affordable Care Act is a form of voucher. But the regulated private insurance markets in the ACA have not fully lived up to their promise, in part because of the extensive market power retained by private insurers and in part because the right has relentlessly sought to sabotage the program -- another political feedback loop. The sponsors assumed that competition would lower costs and increase consumer choice. But in too many counties, there are three or fewer competing plans, and in some cases just one. ..."
"... In practice, this degenerates into an infinite regress of regulator versus commercial profit-maximizer, reminiscent of Mad magazine's "Spy versus Spy," with the industry doing end runs to Congress to further rig the rules. Straight-ahead public insurance such as Medicare is generally far more efficient. ..."
"... Several forms of deregulation -- of airlines, trucking, and electric power -- began not under Reagan but under Carter. Financial deregulation took off under Bill Clinton. Democratic presidents, as much as Republicans, promoted trade deals that undermined social standards. Cost-benefit analysis by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) was more of a choke point under Barack Obama than under George W. Bush. ..."
"... Dozens of nations, from Latin America to East Asia, went through this cycle of boom, bust, and then IMF pile-on. Greece is still suffering the impact. ..."
"... In fact, Japan, South Korea, smaller Asian nations, and above all China had thrived by rejecting every major tenet of neoliberalism. Their capital markets were tightly regulated and insulated from foreign speculative capital. They developed world-class industries as state-led cartels that favored domestic production and supply. East Asia got into trouble only when it followed IMF dictates to throw open capital markets, and in the aftermath they recovered by closing those markets and assembling war chests of hard currency so that they'd never again have to go begging to the IMF ..."
"... The basic argument of neoliberalism can fit on a bumper sticker. Markets work; governments don't . If you want to embellish that story, there are two corollaries: Markets embody human freedom. And with markets, people basically get what they deserve; to alter market outcomes is to spoil the poor and punish the productive. That conclusion logically flows from the premise that markets are efficient. Milton Friedman became rich, famous, and influential by teasing out the several implications of these simple premises. ..."
"... The failed neoliberal experiment also makes the case not just for better-regulated capitalism but for direct public alternatives as well. Banking, done properly, especially the provision of mortgage finance, is close to a public utility. Much of it could be public. ..."
The
invisible hand is more like a thumb on the scale for the world's elites. That's why market
fundamentalism has been unmasked as bogus economics but keeps winning politically.This article appears in the Summer 2019 issue of The American Prospect magazine.
Subscribe here .
Since the late 1970s, we've had a grand experiment to test the claim that free markets
really do work best. This resurrection occurred despite the practical failure of laissez-faire
in the 1930s, the resulting humiliation of free-market theory, and the contrasting success of
managed capitalism during the three-decade postwar boom.
Yet when growth faltered in the 1970s, libertarian economic theory got another turn at bat.
This revival proved extremely convenient for the conservatives who came to power in the 1980s.
The neoliberal counterrevolution, in theory and policy, has reversed or undermined nearly every
aspect of managed capitalism -- from progressive taxation, welfare transfers, and antitrust, to
the empowerment of workers and the regulation of banks and other major industries.
Neoliberalism's premise is that free markets can regulate themselves; that government is
inherently incompetent, captive to special interests, and an intrusion on the efficiency of the
market; that in distributive terms, market outcomes are basically deserved; and that
redistribution creates perverse incentives by punishing the economy's winners and rewarding its
losers. So government should get out of the market's way.
By the 1990s, even moderate liberals had been converted to the belief that social objectives
can be achieved by harnessing the power of markets. Intermittent periods of governance by
Democratic presidents slowed but did not reverse the slide to neoliberal policy and doctrine.
The corporate wing of the Democratic Party approved.
Now, after nearly half a century, the verdict is in. Virtually every one of these policies
has failed, even on their own terms. Enterprise has been richly rewarded, taxes have been cut,
and regulation reduced or privatized. The economy is vastly more unequal, yet economic growth
is slower and more chaotic than during the era of managed capitalism. Deregulation has produced
not salutary competition, but market concentration. Economic power has resulted in feedback
loops of political power, in which elites make rules that bolster further concentration.
The culprit isn't just "markets" -- some impersonal force that somehow got loose again. This
is a story of power using theory. The mixed economy was undone by economic elites, who revised
rules for their own benefit. They invested heavily in friendly theorists to bless this shift as
sound and necessary economics, and friendly politicians to put those theories into
practice.
Recent years have seen two spectacular cases of market mispricing with devastating
consequences: the near-depression of 2008 and irreversible climate change. The economic
collapse of 2008 was the result of the deregulation of finance. It cost the real U.S. economy
upwards of $15 trillion (and vastly more globally), depending on how you count, far more than
any conceivable efficiency gain that might be credited to financial innovation. Free-market
theory presumes that innovation is necessarily benign. But much of the financial engineering of
the deregulatory era was self-serving, opaque, and corrupt -- the opposite of an efficient and
transparent market.
The existential threat of global climate change reflects the incompetence of markets to
accurately price carbon and the escalating costs of pollution. The British economist Nicholas
Stern has aptly termed the worsening climate catastrophe history's greatest case of market
failure. Here again, this is not just the result of failed theory. The entrenched political
power of extractive industries and their political allies influences the rules and the market
price of carbon. This is less an invisible hand than a thumb on the scale. The premise of
efficient markets provides useful cover.
The grand neoliberal experiment of the past 40 years has demonstrated that markets in fact
do not regulate themselves. Managed markets turn out to be more equitable and more
efficient. Yet the theory and practical influence of neoliberalism marches splendidly on,
because it is so useful to society's most powerful people -- as a scholarly veneer to what
would otherwise be a raw power grab. The British political economist Colin Crouch captured this
anomaly in a book nicely titled The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism . Why did
neoliberalism not die? As Crouch observed, neoliberalism failed both as theory and as policy,
but succeeded superbly as power politics for economic elites.
The neoliberal ascendance has had another calamitous cost -- to democratic legitimacy. As
government ceased to buffer market forces, daily life has become more of a struggle for
ordinary people. The elements of a decent middle-class life are elusive -- reliable jobs and
careers, adequate pensions, secure medical care, affordable housing, and college that doesn't
require a lifetime of debt. Meanwhile, life has become ever sweeter for economic elites, whose
income and wealth have pulled away and whose loyalty to place, neighbor, and nation has become
more contingent and less reliable.
Large numbers of people, in turn, have given up on the promise of affirmative government,
and on democracy itself. After the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, ours was widely billed as an
era when triumphant liberal capitalism would march hand in hand with liberal democracy. But in
a few brief decades, the ostensibly secure regime of liberal democracy has collapsed in nation
after nation, with echoes of the 1930s.
As the great political historian Karl Polanyi warned, when markets overwhelm society,
ordinary people often turn to tyrants. In regimes that border on neofascist, klepto-capitalists get along just fine with
dictators, undermining the neoliberal premise of capitalism and democracy as complements. Several authoritarian thugs,
playing on tribal nationalism as the antidote to capitalist cosmopolitanism, are surprisingly popular.
It's also important to appreciate that neoliberalism is not laissez-faire. Classically, the
premise of a "free market" is that government simply gets out of the way. This is nonsensical,
since all markets are creatures of rules, most fundamentally rules defining property, but also
rules defining credit, debt, and bankruptcy; rules defining patents, trademarks, and
copyrights; rules defining terms of labor; and so on. Even deregulation requires rules. In
Polanyi's words, "laissez-faire was planned."
The political question is who gets to make the rules, and for whose benefit. The
neoliberalism of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman invoked free markets, but in practice the
neoliberal regime has promoted rules created by and for private owners of capital, to keep
democratic government from asserting rules of fair competition or countervailing social
interests. The regime has rules protecting pharmaceutical giants from the right of consumers to
import prescription drugs or to benefit from generics. The rules of competition and
intellectual property generally have been tilted to protect incumbents. Rules of bankruptcy
have been tilted in favor of creditors. Deceptive mortgages require elaborate rules, written by
the financial sector and then enforced by government. Patent rules have allowed agribusiness
and giant chemical companies like Monsanto to take over much of agriculture -- the opposite of
open markets. Industry has invented rules requiring employees and consumers to submit to
binding arbitration and to relinquish a range of statutory and common-law
rights.
Neoliberalism as Theory, Policy, and Power
It's worth taking a moment to unpack the term "neoliberalism." The coinage can be confusing
to American ears because the "liberal" part refers not to the word's ordinary American usage,
meaning moderately left-of-center, but to classical economic liberalism otherwise known as
free-market economics. The "neo" part refers to the reassertion of the claim that the
laissez-faire model of the economy was basically correct after all.
Few proponents of these views embraced the term neoliberal . Mostly, they called
themselves free-market conservatives. "Neoliberal" was a coinage used mainly by their critics,
sometimes as a neutral descriptive term, sometimes as an epithet. The use became widespread in
the era of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
To add to the confusion, a different and partly overlapping usage was advanced in the 1970s
by the group around the Washington Monthly magazine. They used "neoliberal" to mean a
new, less statist form of American liberalism. Around the same time, the term
neoconservative was used as a self-description by former liberals who embraced
conservatism, on cultural, racial, economic, and foreign-policy grounds. Neoconservatives were
neoliberals in economics.
Beginning in the 1970s, resurrected free-market theory was interwoven with both conservative
politics and significant investments in the production of theorists and policy intellectuals.
This occurred not just in well-known conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise
Institute, Heritage, Cato, and the Manhattan Institute, but through more insidious investments
in academia. Lavishly funded centers and tenured chairs were underwritten by the Olin, Scaife,
Bradley, and other far-right foundations to promote such variants of free-market theory as law
and economics, public choice, rational choice, cost-benefit analysis,
maximize-shareholder-value, and kindred schools of thought. These theories colonized several
academic disciplines. All were variations on the claim that markets worked and that government
should get out of the way.
Each of these bodies of sub-theory relied upon its own variant of neoliberal ideology. An
intensified version of the theory of comparative advantage was used not just to cut tariffs but
to use globalization as all-purpose deregulation. The theory of maximizing shareholder value
was deployed to undermine the entire range of financial regulation and workers' rights.
Cost-benefit analysis, emphasizing costs and discounting benefits, was used to discredit a good
deal of health, safety, and environmental regulation. Public choice theory, associated with the
economist James Buchanan and an entire ensuing school of economics and political science, was
used to impeach democracy itself, on the premise that policies were hopelessly afflicted by
"rent-seekers" and "free-riders."
Market failure was dismissed as a rare special case; government failure was said to be
ubiquitous. Theorists worked hand in glove with lobbyists and with public officials. But in
every major case where neoliberal theory generated policy, the result was political success and
economic failure.
For example, supply-side economics became the justification for tax cuts, on the premise
that taxes punished enterprise. Supposedly, if taxes were cut, especially taxes on capital and
on income from capital, the resulting spur to economic activity would be so potent that
deficits would be far less than predicted by "static" economic projections, and perhaps even
pay for themselves. There have been six rounds of this experiment, from the tax cuts sponsored
by Jimmy Carter in 1978 to the immense 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed by Donald Trump. In
every case some economic stimulus did result, mainly from the Keynesian jolt to demand, but in
every case deficits increased significantly. Conservatives simply stopped caring about
deficits. The tax cuts were often inefficient as well as inequitable, since the loopholes
steered investment to tax-favored uses rather than the most economically logical ones. Dozens
of America's most profitable corporations paid no taxes.
Robert Bork's "antitrust paradox," holding that antitrust enforcement actually weakened
competition, was used as the doctrine to sideline the Sherman and Clayton Acts. Supposedly, if
government just got out of the way, market forces would remain more competitive because
monopoly pricing would invite innovation and new entrants to the market. In practice, industry
after industry became more heavily concentrated. Incumbents got in the habit of buying out
innovators or using their market power to crush them. This pattern is especially insidious in
the tech economy of platform monopolies, where giants that provide platforms, such as Google
and Amazon, use their market power and superior access to customer data to out-compete rivals
who use their platforms. Markets, once again, require rules beyond the benign competence of the
market actors themselves. Only democratic government can set equitable rules. And when
democracy falters, undemocratic governments in cahoots with corrupt private plutocrats will
make the rules.
Human capital theory, another variant of neoliberal application of markets to partly social
questions, justified deregulating labor markets and crushing labor unions. Unions supposedly
used their power to get workers paid more than their market worth. Likewise minimum wage laws.
But the era of depressed wages has actually seen a decline in rates of productivity growth.
Conversely, does any serious person think that the inflated pay of the financial moguls who
crashed the economy accurately reflects their contribution to economic activity? In the case of
hedge funds and private equity, the high incomes of fund sponsors are the result of transfers
of wealth and income from employees, other stakeholders, and operating companies to the fund
managers, not the fruits of more efficient management.
There is a broad literature discrediting this body of pseudo-scholarly work in great detail.
Much of neoliberalism represents the ever-reliable victory of assumption over evidence. Yet
neoliberal theory lived on because it was so convenient for elites, and because of the inertial
power of the intellectual capital that had been created. The well-funded neoliberal habitat has
provided comfortable careers for two generations of scholars and pseudo-scholars who migrate
between academia, think tanks, K Street, op-ed pages, government, Wall Street, and back again.
So even if the theory has been demolished both by scholarly rebuttal and by events, it thrives
in powerful institutions and among their political allies.
The Practical Failure of
Neoliberal Policies
Financial deregulation is neoliberalism's most palpable deregulatory failure, but far from
the only one. Electricity deregulation on balance has increased monopoly power and raised costs
to consumers, but has failed to offer meaningful "shopping around" opportunities to bring down
prices. We have gone from regulated monopolies with predictable earnings, costs, wages, and
consumer protections to deregulated monopolies or oligopolies with substantial pricing power.
Since the Bell breakup, the telephone system tells a similar story of re-concentration,
dwindling competition, price-gouging, and union-bashing.
Air travel has been a poster child for advocates of deregulation, but the actual record is
mixed at best. Airline deregulation produced serial bankruptcies of every major U.S. airline,
often at the cost of worker pay and pension funds.
Ticket prices have declined on average over
the past two decades, but the traveling public suffers from a crazy quilt of fares, declining
service, shrinking seats and legroom, and exorbitant penalties for the perfectly normal sin of
having to change plans. Studies have shown that fares actually declined at a faster rate in the
20 years before deregulation in 1978 than in the 20 years afterward, because the prime source
of greater efficiency in airline travel is the introduction of more fuel-efficient planes.
The
roller-coaster experience of airline profits and losses has reduced the capacity of airlines to
purchase more fuel-efficient aircraft, and the average age of the fleet keeps increasing. The
use of "fortress hubs" to defend market pricing power has reduced the percentage of nonstop
flights, the most efficient way to fly from one point to another.
Robert Bork's spurious arguments that antitrust enforcement hurt competition became the
basis for dismantling antitrust. Massive concentration resulted. Charles Tasnadi/AP Photo
In addition to deregulation, three prime areas of practical neoliberal policies are the use
of vouchers as "market-like" means to social goals, the privatization of public services, and
the use of tax subsides rather than direct outlays. In every case, government revenues are
involved, so this is far from a free market to begin with. But the premise is that market
disciplines can achieve public purposes more efficiently than direct public provision.
The evidence provides small comfort for these claims. One core problem is that the programs
invariably give too much to the for-profit middlemen at the expense of the intended
beneficiaries. A related problem is that the process of using vouchers and contracts invites
corruption. It is a different form of "rent-seeking" -- pursuit of monopoly profits -- than
that attributed to government by public choice theorists, but corruption nonetheless. Often,
direct public provision is far more transparent and accountable than a web of contractors.
A further problem is that in practice there is often far less competition than imagined,
because of oligopoly power, vendor lock-in, and vendor political influence. These experiments
in marketization to serve social goals do not operate in some Platonic policy laboratory, where
the only objective is true market efficiency yoked to the public good. They operate in the
grubby world of practical politics, where the vendors are closely allied with conservative
politicians whose purposes may be to discredit social transfers entirely, or to reward
corporate allies, or to benefit from kickbacks either directly or as campaign
contributions.
Privatized prisons are a case in point. A few large, scandal-ridden companies have gotten
most of the contracts, often through political influence. Far from bringing better quality and
management efficiency, they have profited by diverting operating funds and worsening conditions
that were already deplorable, and finding new ways to charge inmates higher fees for necessary
services such as phone calls. To the extent that money was actually saved, most of the savings
came from reducing the pay and professionalism of guards, increasing overcrowding, and
decreasing already inadequate budgets for food and medical care.
A similar example is the privatization of transportation services such as highways and even
parking meters. In several Midwestern states, toll roads have been sold to private vendors. The
governor who makes the deal gains a temporary fiscal windfall, while drivers end up paying
higher tolls often for decades. Investment bankers who broker the deal also take their cut.
Some of the money does go into highway improvements, but that could have been done more
efficiently in the traditional way via direct public ownership and competitive bidding.
Housing vouchers substantially reward landlords who use the vouchers to fill empty houses
with poor people until the neighborhood gentrifies, at which point the owner is free to quit
the program and charge market rentals. Thus public funds are used to underwrite a privately
owned, quasi-social housing sector -- whose social character is only temporary. No permanent
social housing is produced despite the extensive public outlay. The companion use of tax
incentives to attract passive investment in affordable housing promotes economically
inefficient tax shelters, and shunts public funds into the pockets of the investors -- money
that might otherwise have gone directly to the housing.
The Affordable Care Act is a form of voucher. But the regulated private insurance markets in
the ACA have not fully lived up to their promise, in part because of the extensive market power
retained by private insurers and in part because the right has relentlessly sought to sabotage
the program -- another political feedback loop. The sponsors assumed that competition would
lower costs and increase consumer choice. But in too many counties, there are three or fewer
competing plans, and in some cases just one.
As more insurance plans and hospital systems become for-profit, massive investment goes into
such wasteful activities as manipulation of billing, "risk selection," and other gaming of the
rules. Our mixed-market system of health care requires massive regulation to work with
tolerable efficiency. In practice, this degenerates into an infinite regress of regulator
versus commercial profit-maximizer, reminiscent of Mad magazine's "Spy versus Spy," with
the industry doing end runs to Congress to further rig the rules. Straight-ahead public
insurance such as Medicare is generally far more efficient.
An extensive literature has demonstrated that for-profit voucher schools do no better and
often do worse than comparable public schools, and are vulnerable to multiple forms of gaming
and corruption. Proprietors of voucher schools are superb at finding ways of excluding costly
special-needs students, so that those costs are imposed on what remains of public schools; they
excel at gaming test results. While some voucher and charter schools, especially nonprofit
ones, sometimes improve on average school performance, so do many public schools. The record is
also muddied by the fact that many ostensibly nonprofit schools contract out management to
for-profit companies.
Tax preferences have long been used ostensibly to serve social goals. The Earned Income Tax
Credit is considered one of the more successful cases of using market-like measures -- in this
case a refundable tax credit -- to achieve the social goal of increasing worker take-home pay.
It has also been touted as the rare case of bipartisan collaboration. Liberals get more money
for workers. Conservatives get to reward the deserving poor, since the EITC is conditioned on
employment. Conservatives get a further ideological win, since the EITC is effectively a wage
subsidy from the government, but is experienced as a tax refund rather than a benefit of
government.
Recent research, however, shows that the EITC is primarily a subsidy of low-wage employers,
who are able to pay their workers a lot less than a market-clearing wage. In industries such as
nursing homes or warehouses, where many workers qualified for the EITC work side by side with
ones not eligible, the non-EITC workers get substandard wages. The existence of the EITC
depresses the level of the wages that have to come out of the employer's
pocket.
Neoliberalism's Influence on Liberals
As free-market theory resurged, many moderate liberals embraced these policies. In the
inflationary 1970s, regulation became a scapegoat that supposedly deterred salutary price
competition. Some, such as economist Alfred Kahn, President Carter's adviser on deregulation,
supported deregulation on what he saw as the merits. Other moderates supported neoliberal
policies opportunistically, to curry favor with powerful industries and donors. Market-like
policies were also embraced by liberals as a tactical way to find common ground with
conservatives.
Several forms of deregulation -- of airlines, trucking, and electric power -- began not
under Reagan but under Carter. Financial deregulation took off under Bill Clinton. Democratic
presidents, as much as Republicans, promoted trade deals that undermined social standards.
Cost-benefit analysis by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) was more of a
choke point under Barack Obama than under George W. Bush.
"Command and control" became an all-purpose pejorative for disparaging perfectly sensible
and efficient regulation. "Market-like" became a fashionable concept, not just on the
free-market right but on the moderate left. Cass Sunstein, who served as Obama's
anti-regulation czar,uses the example of "nudges" as a more market-like and hence superior
alternative to direct regulation, though with rare exceptions their impact is trivial.
Moreover, nudges only work in tandem with regulation.
There are indeed some interventionist policies that use market incentives to serve social
goals. But contrary to free-market theory, the market-like incentives first require substantial
regulation and are not a substitute for it. A good example is the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990, which used tradable emission rights to cut the output of sulfur dioxide, the cause of
acid rain. This was supported by both the George H.W. Bush administration and by leading
Democrats. But before the trading regime could work, Congress first had to establish
permissible ceilings on sulfur dioxide output -- pure command and control.
There are many other instances, such as nutrition labeling, truth-in-lending, and disclosure
of EPA gas mileage results, where the market-like premise of a better-informed consumer
complements command regulation but is no substitute for it. Nearly all of the increase in fuel
efficiency, for example, is the result of command regulations that require auto fleets to hit a
gas mileage target. The fact that EPA gas mileage figures are prominently disclosed on new car
stickers may have modest influence, but motor fuels are so underpriced that car companies have
success selling gas-guzzlers despite the consumer labeling.
Image removed
Bill Clinton and his Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, were big promoters of financial deregulation.
Politically, whatever rationale there was for liberals to make common ground with
libertarians is now largely gone. The authors of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act made no attempt
to meet Democrats partway; they excluded the opposition from the legislative process entirely.
This was opportunistic tax cutting for elites, pure and simple. The right today also abandoned
the quest for a middle ground on environmental policy, on anti-poverty policy, on health policy
-- on virtually everything. Neoliberal ideology did its historic job of weakening intellectual
and popular support for the proposition that affirmative government can better the lives of
citizens and that the Democratic Party is a reliable steward of that social compact. Since
Reagan, the right's embrace of the free market has evolved from partly principled idealism into
pure opportunism and obstruction.
Neoliberalism and Hyper-Globalism
The post-1990 rules of globalization, supported by conservatives and moderate liberals
alike, are the quintessence of neoliberalism. At Bretton Woods in 1944, the use of fixed
exchange rates and controls on speculative private capital, plus the creation of the IMFand
World Bank, were intended to allow member countries to practice national forms of managed
capitalism, insulated from the destructive and deflationary influences of short-term
speculative private capital flows. As doctrine and power shifted in the 1970s, the IMF, the
World Bank, and later the WTO, which replaced the old GATT, mutated into their ideological
opposite. Rather than instruments of support for mixed national economies, they became
enforcers of neoliberal policies.
The standard package of the "Washington Consensus" of approved policies for developing
nations included demands that they open their capital markets to speculative private finance,
as well as cutting taxes on capital, weakening social transfers, and gutting labor regulation
and public ownership. But private capital investment in poor countries proved to be fickle. The
result was often excessive inflows during the boom part of the cycle and punitive withdrawals
during the bust -- the opposite of the patient, long-term development capital that these
countries needed and that was provided by the World Bank of an earlier era. During the bust
phase, the IMF typically imposes even more stringent neoliberal demands as the price of
financial bailouts, including perverse budgetary austerity, supposedly to restore the
confidence of the very speculative capital markets responsible for the boom-bust cycle.
Dozens of nations, from Latin America to East Asia, went through this cycle of boom, bust,
and then IMF pile-on. Greece is still suffering the impact. After 1990, hyper-globalism also
included trade treaties whose terms favored multinational corporations. Traditionally, trade
agreements had been mainly about reciprocal reductions of tariffs. Nations were free to have
whatever brand of regulation, public investment, or social policies they chose. With the advent
of the WTO, many policies other than tariffs were branded as trade distorting, even as takings
without compensation. Trade deals were used to give foreign capital free access and to
dismantle national regulation and public ownership. Special courts were created in which
foreign corporations and investors could do end runs around national authorities to challenge
regulation for impeding commerce.
At first, the sponsors of the new trade regime tried to claim the successful economies of
East Asia as evidence of the success of the neoliberal recipe. Supposedly, these nations had
succeeded by pursuing "export-led growth," exposing their domestic economies to salutary
competition. But these claims were soon exposed as the opposite of what had actually occurred.
In fact, Japan, South Korea, smaller Asian nations, and above all China had thrived by
rejecting every major tenet of neoliberalism. Their capital markets were tightly regulated and
insulated from foreign speculative capital. They developed world-class industries as state-led
cartels that favored domestic production and supply. East Asia got into trouble only when it
followed IMF dictates to throw open capital markets, and in the aftermath they recovered by
closing those markets and assembling war chests of hard currency so that they'd never again
have to go begging to the IMF. Enthusiasts of hyper-globalization also claimed that it
benefited poor countries by increasing export opportunities, but as the success of East Asia
shows, there is more than one way to boost exports -- and many poorer countries suffered under
the terms of the global neoliberal regime.
Nor was the damage confined to the developing world. As the work of Harvard economist Dani
Rodrik has demonstrated, democracy requires a polity. For better or for worse, the polity and
democratic citizenship are national. By enhancing the global market at the expense of the
democratic state, the current brand of hyper-globalization deliberately weakens the capacity of
states to regulate markets, and weakens democracy itself.
When Do Markets Work?
The failure of neoliberalism as economic and social policy does not mean that markets never
work. A command economy is even more utopian and perverse than a neoliberal one. The practical
quest is for an efficient and equitable middle ground.
The neoliberal story of how the economy operates assumes a largely frictionless marketplace,
where prices are set by supply and demand, and the price mechanism allocates resources to their
optimal use in the economy as a whole. For this discipline to work as advertised, however,
there can be no market power, competition must be plentiful, sellers and buyers must have
roughly equal information, and there can be no significant externalities. Much of the 20th
century was practical proof that these conditions did not describe a good part of the actual
economy. And if markets priced things wrong, the market system did not aggregate to an
efficient equilibrium, and depressions could become self-deepening. As Keynes demonstrated,
only a massive jolt of government spending could restart the engines, even if market pricing
was partly violated in the process.
Nonetheless, in many sectors of the economy, the process of buying and selling is close
enough to the textbook conditions of perfect competition that the price system works tolerably
well. Supermarkets, for instance, deliver roughly accurate prices because of the consumer's
freedom and knowledge to shop around. Likewise much of retailing. However, when we get into
major realms of the economy with positive or negative externalities, such as education and
health, markets are not sufficient. And in other major realms, such as pharmaceuticals, where
corporations use their political power to rig the terms of patents, the market doesn't produce
a cure.
The basic argument of neoliberalism can fit on a bumper sticker. Markets work;
governments don't . If you want to embellish that story, there are two corollaries: Markets
embody human freedom. And with markets, people basically get what they deserve; to alter market
outcomes is to spoil the poor and punish the productive. That conclusion logically flows from
the premise that markets are efficient. Milton Friedman became rich, famous, and influential by
teasing out the several implications of these simple premises.
It is much harder to articulate the case for a mixed economy than the case for free markets,
precisely because the mixed economy is mixed. The rebuttal takes several paragraphs. The more
complex story holds that markets are substantially efficient in some realms but far from
efficient in others, because of positive and negative externalities, the tendency of financial
markets to create cycles of boom and bust, the intersection of self-interest and corruption,
the asymmetry of information between company and consumer, the asymmetry of power between
corporation and employee, the power of the powerful to rig the rules, and the fact that there
are realms of human life (the right to vote, human liberty, security of one's person) that
should not be marketized.
And if markets are not perfectly efficient, then distributive questions are partly political
choices. Some societies pay pre-K teachers the minimum wage as glorified babysitters. Others
educate and compensate them as professionals. There is no "correct" market-derived wage,
because pre-kindergarten is a social good and the issue of how to train and compensate teachers
is a social choice, not a market choice. The same is true of the other human services,
including medicine. Nor is there a theoretically correct set of rules for patents, trademarks,
and copyrights. These are politically derived, either balancing the interests of innovation
with those of diffusion -- or being politically captured by incumbent industries.
Governments can in principle improve on market outcomes via regulation, but that fact is
complicated by the risk of regulatory capture. So another issue that arises is market failure
versus polity failure, which brings us back to the urgency of strong democracy and effective
government.
After Neoliberalism
The political reversal of neoliberalism can only come through practical politics and
policies that demonstrate how government often can serve citizens more equitably and
efficiently than markets. Revision of theory will take care of itself. There is no shortage of
dissenting theorists and empirical policy researchers whose scholarly work has been vindicated
by events. What they need is not more theory but more influence, both in the academy and in the
corridors of power. They are available to advise a new progressive administration, if
that administration can get elected and if it refrains from hiring neoliberal
advisers.
There are also some relatively new areas that invite policy innovation. These include
regulation of privacy rights versus entrepreneurial liberties in the digital realm; how to
think of the internet as a common carrier; how to update competition and antitrust policy as
platform monopolies exert new forms of market power; how to modernize labor-market policy in
the era of the gig economy; and the role of deeper income supplements as machines replace human
workers.
The failed neoliberal experiment also makes the case not just for better-regulated
capitalism but for direct public alternatives as well. Banking, done properly, especially the
provision of mortgage finance, is close to a public utility. Much of it could be public. A
great deal of research is done more honestly and more cost-effectively in public, peer-reviewed
institutions such as the NIH than by a substantially corrupt private pharmaceutical industry.
Social housing often is more cost-effective than so-called public-private partnerships. Public
power is more efficient to generate, less prone to monopolistic price-gouging, and friendlier
to the needed green transition than private power. The public option in health care is far more
efficient than the current crazy quilt in which each layer of complexity adds opacity and cost.
Public provision does require public oversight, but that is more straightforward and
transparent than the byzantine dance of regulation and counter-regulation.
The two other benefits of direct public provision are that the public gets direct evidence
of government delivering something of value, and that the countervailing power of democracy to
harness markets is enhanced. A mixed economy depends above all on a strong democracy -- one
even stronger than the democracy that succumbed to the corrupting influence of economic elites
and their neoliberal intellectual allies beginning half a century ago. The antidote to the
resurrected neoliberal fable is the resurrection of democracy -- strong enough to tame the
market in a way that tames it for keeps.
Robert Kuttner is co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect, and professor at
Brandeis University's Heller School. His latest book is The Stakes: 2020 and the Survival of American
Democracy . In addition to writing for the Prospect, he writes for HuffPost, The Boston
Globe, and The New York Review of Books.
"... As for the USSR, the Soviet elite changed sides. I think Putin once said that Soviet system was "unviable" to begin with. And that's pretty precise diagnosis: as soon as the theocratic elite degenerates, it defects; and the state and the majority of the population eventually fall on their own sword. ..."
"... And the USSR clearly was a variation of a theocratic state. That explain also a very high, damaging the economy, level of centralization (the country as a single corporation) and the high level of ideology/religion-based repression (compare with Iran and Islamic state jihadists.) ..."
"... So after the WWII the ideology of Bolshevism was dead as it became clear that Soviet style theocratic state is unable to produce standard of living which Western social democracies were able to produce for their citizens. Rapid degeneration of the theocratic Bolshevik elite (aka Nomenklatura) also played an important role. ..."
"... It is important to understand that the Soviet elite changed sides completely voluntarily. Paradoxically it was high level of KGB functionaries who were instrumental in conversion to neoliberalism, starting with Andropov. It was Andropov, who created the plan of transition of the USSR to neoliberalism, the plan that Gorbachov tried to implement and miserably failed. ..."
"... So the system exploded from within because the Party elite became infected with neoliberalism (which was stupid, but reflects the level of degeneration of the Soviet elite). ..."
"... The major USA contribution other then supplying the new ideology for the Soviet elite was via CIA injecting God know how much money to bribe top officials. ..."
"... As Gorbachov was a second rate (if not the third rate) politician, he allowed the situation to run out of control. And the efforts to "rock" the system were fueled internally by emerging (as the result of Perestroika; which was a reincarnation of Lenin's idea of NEP) class of neoliberal Nouveau riche (which run the USSR "shadow economy" which emerged under Brezhnev) and by nationalist sentiments (those element were clearly supported by the USA and other Western countries money as well as via subversive efforts of national diaspora residing in the USA and Canada) and certain national minorities within the USSR. ..."
"... The brutal economic rape of the xUSSR space and generally of the whole former Soviet block by the "collective neoliberal West" naturally followed. Which had shown everybody that the vanguard of Perestroika were simply filthy compradors, who can't care less about regular citizens and their sufferings. ..."
"... BTW this huge amount of loot postponed the internal crisis of neoliberalism which happened in the USA in 2008 probably by ten years. And it (along with a couple of other factors such as telecommunication revolution) explain relative prosperity of Clinton presidency. Criminal Clinton presidency I should say. ..."
"... BTW few republics in former USSR space managed to achieve the standard of living equal to the best years of the USSR (early 80th I think) See https://web.williams.edu/Economics/brainerd/papers/ussr_july08.pdf ..."
"... Generally when the particular ideology collapses, far right nationalism fills the void. We see this now with the slow collapse of neoliberalism in the USA and Western Europe. ..."
"... Chinese learned a lot from Gorbachov's fatal mistakes and have better economic results as the result of the conversion to the neoliberalism ("from the above"), although at the end Chinese elite is not that different from Soviet elite and also is corruptible and can eventually change sides. ..."
"... But they managed to survive the "triumphal march of neoliberalism" (1980-2000) and now the danger is less as neoliberalism is clearly the good with expired "use by" date: after 2008 the neoliberal ideology was completely discredited and entered "zombie" state. ..."
This is a very complex issue. And I do not pretend that I am right, but I think Brad is way too superficial to be taken seriously.
IMHO it was neoliberalism that won the cold war. That means that the key neoliberal "scholars" like Friedman and Hayek and
other intellectual prostitutes of financial oligarchy who helped to restore their power. Certain democratic politicians like Carter
also were the major figures. Carter actually started neoliberalization of the USA, continued by Reagan,
Former Trotskyites starting from Burnham which later became known as neoconservatives also deserve to be mentioned.
It is also questionable that the USA explicitly won the cold war. Paradoxically the other victim of the global neoliberal revolution
was the USA, the lower 90% of the USA population to be exact.
So there was no winners other the financial oligarchy (the transnational class.)
As for the USSR, the Soviet elite changed sides. I think Putin once said that Soviet system was "unviable" to begin with.
And that's pretty precise diagnosis: as soon as the theocratic elite degenerates, it defects; and the state and the majority of
the population eventually fall on their own sword.
And the USSR clearly was a variation of a theocratic state. That explain also a very high, damaging the economy, level
of centralization (the country as a single corporation) and the high level of ideology/religion-based repression (compare with
Iran and Islamic state jihadists.)
The degeneration started with the death of the last charismatic leader (Stalin) and the passing of the generation which remembers
that actual warts of capitalism and could relate them to the "Soviet socialism" solutions.
So after the WWII the ideology of Bolshevism was dead as it became clear that Soviet style theocratic state is unable to
produce standard of living which Western social democracies were able to produce for their citizens. Rapid degeneration of the
theocratic Bolshevik elite (aka Nomenklatura) also played an important role.
With bolshevism as the official religion, which can't be questioned, the society was way too rigid and suppressed "entrepreneurial
initiative" (which leads to enrichment of particular individuals, but also to the benefits to the society as whole), to the extent
that was counterproductive. The level of dogmatism in this area was probably as close to the medieval position of Roman Catholic
Church as we can get; in this sense it was only national that Cardinal Karol Wojtyla became a pope John Paul II -- he was very
well prepared indeed ;-).
It is important to understand that the Soviet elite changed sides completely voluntarily. Paradoxically it was high level
of KGB functionaries who were instrumental in conversion to neoliberalism, starting with Andropov. It was Andropov, who created
the plan of transition of the USSR to neoliberalism, the plan that Gorbachov tried to implement and miserably failed.
So the system exploded from within because the Party elite became infected with neoliberalism (which was stupid, but reflects
the level of degeneration of the Soviet elite).
The major USA contribution other then supplying the new ideology for the Soviet elite was via CIA injecting God know how
much money to bribe top officials.
As Gorbachov was a second rate (if not the third rate) politician, he allowed the situation to run out of control. And
the efforts to "rock" the system were fueled internally by emerging (as the result of Perestroika; which was a reincarnation of
Lenin's idea of NEP) class of neoliberal Nouveau riche (which run the USSR "shadow economy" which emerged under Brezhnev) and
by nationalist sentiments (those element were clearly supported by the USA and other Western countries money as well as via subversive
efforts of national diaspora residing in the USA and Canada) and certain national minorities within the USSR.
Explosion of far right nationalist sentiments without "Countervailing ideology" as Bolshevism was not taken seriously anymore
was the key factor that led to the dissolution of the USSR.
Essentially national movements allied with Germany that were defeated during WWII became the winners.
The brutal economic rape of the xUSSR space and generally of the whole former Soviet block by the "collective neoliberal
West" naturally followed. Which had shown everybody that the vanguard of Perestroika were simply filthy compradors, who can't
care less about regular citizens and their sufferings.
And the backlash created conditions for Putin coming to power.
BTW this huge amount of loot postponed the internal crisis of neoliberalism which happened in the USA in 2008 probably
by ten years. And it (along with a couple of other factors such as telecommunication revolution) explain relative prosperity of
Clinton presidency. Criminal Clinton presidency I should say.
The majority of the xUSSR space countries have now dismal standard of living and slided into Latin American level of inequality
and corruption (not without help of the USA).
Several have civil wars in the period since getting independence, which further depressed the standard living. Most deindustrialize.
Generally when the particular ideology collapses, far right nationalism fills the void. We see this now with the slow collapse
of neoliberalism in the USA and Western Europe.
Chinese learned a lot from Gorbachov's fatal mistakes and have better economic results as the result of the conversion
to the neoliberalism ("from the above"), although at the end Chinese elite is not that different from Soviet elite and also is
corruptible and can eventually change sides.
But they managed to survive the "triumphal march of neoliberalism" (1980-2000) and now the danger is less as neoliberalism
is clearly the good with expired "use by" date: after 2008 the neoliberal ideology was completely discredited and entered "zombie"
state.
So in the worst case it is the USA which might follow the path of the USSR and eventually disintegrate under the pressure of
internal nationalist sentiments. Such a victor...
Even now there are some visible difference between former Confederacy states and other states on the issues such as immigration
and federal redistributive programs.
I don't usually find much value at the Atlantic but this article (written before Trump even
fired Bolton) about Trump's FP timeline (and flip flops) and Bolton who was acting like he
was President is very, very good.
It will allow Trump loyalist to more easily support Trump and give everyone else a tad bit of
hope that Trump really won't go bonkers and start any wars.
Since President Trump appears to talk about things and stuff with Tucker Carlson, perhaps he
should ask Tucker Carlson to spend a week thinking . . . and then offer the President some
names and the reasoning for offering those names.
If the President asks the same Establishment who gave him Bolton, he will just be handed
another Bolton. "Establishment" include Pence, who certainly supported Bolton's outlook on
things and would certainly recommend another "Bolton" figure if asked. Let us hope Pence is
not consulted on Bolton's successor.
different clue,
re "Let us hope Pence is not consulted on Bolton's successor."
Understandable point of view but then, Trump still is Trump. He can just by himself and
beyond advice easily find suboptimal solutions of his own.
Today I read that Richard Grenell was mentioned as a potential sucessor.
As far as that goes, go for it. Many people here will be happy when he "who always only
sais what the Whitehouse sais" is finally gone.
And with Trump's biggest military budget in the world he can just continue the arms sale
pitches that are and were such a substantial part of his job as a US ambassador in
Germany.
That said, they were that after blathering a lot about that we should increase our
military budget by 2%, 4%, 6% or 10%, buy US arms, now, and of course the blathering about
Northstream 1 & 2 and "slavedom to russian oil & gas" and rather buy US frack gas of
course.
He could then also take a side job for the fracking industry in that context. And buy
frack gas and arms company stocks. Opportunities, opportunities ...
"... But Bolton coupled the Fox and AEI sinecures with gnarlier associations -- for one, the Gatestone Institute, a, let's say Islam-hostile outfit, associated with the secretive, influential Mercer billionaires. ..."
"... Bolton appeared the leading light of a neoconservative revival, of sorts, until he didn't. ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Bolton's "time is up" or not, because his departure wouldn't change anything. If he goes, Trump will replace him with some equally slimy neocon interventionist. ..."
"... It won't end until we muck out the White House next year. Dumping Trump is Job One. ..."
"... Oh. Yes. You want to get rid of Trump's partially neocon administration, so that you could replace it with your own, entirely neocon one. Wake me up when the DNC starts allowing people like Tulsi Gabbard to get nominated. But they won't. So your party will just repeat its merry salsa on the same set of rakes as in 2016. ..."
No major politician, not even Barack Obama, excoriated the Iraq war more fiercely than did
Trump during the primaries. He did this in front of a scion of the house of Bush and in the
deep red state of South Carolina. He nevertheless went on to win that primary, the Republican
nomination and the presidency on that antiwar message.
And so, to see Bolton ascend to the commanding heights of the Trump White House shocked many
from the time it was first rumored. "I shudder to think what would happen if we had a failed
presidency," Scott McConnell, TAC' s founding editor, said in late 2016 at our foreign
policy conference, held, opportunely, during the presidential transition. "I mean, John
Bolton?"
At the time, Bolton was a candidate for secretary of state, a consideration scuttled in no
small part because of the opposition of Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul. As McConnell
wrote in November of that year: "Most of the upper-middle-level officials who plotted the Iraq
War have retreated quietly into private life, but Bolton has kept their flame alive." Bolton
had already been passed over for NSA, losing out early to the doomed Michael Flynn. Rex
Tillerson beat him for secretary of state. Bolton was then passed over for the role of
Tillerson's deputy. When Flynn flamed out of the White House the following February, Trump
chose a general he didn't know at all, H.R. McMaster, to replace him.
Bolton had been trying to make a comeback since late 2006, after failing to hold his job as
U.N. ambassador (he had only been a recess appointment). His landing spots including a Fox News
contributorship and a post at the vaunted American Enterprise Institute. Even in the early days
of the Trump administration, Bolton was around, and accessible. I remember seeing him multiple
times in Washington's Connecticut Avenue corridor, decked out in the seersucker he notoriously
favors during the summer months. Paired with the familiar mustache, the man is the Mark Twain
of regime change.
But Bolton coupled the Fox and AEI sinecures with gnarlier associations -- for one, the
Gatestone Institute, a, let's say Islam-hostile outfit, associated with the secretive,
influential Mercer billionaires. He also struck a ferocious alliance with the Center for
Security Policy, helmed by the infamous Frank Gaffney, and gave paid remarks to the National
Council for the Resistance of Iran, the lynchpin organization of the People's Mujahideen of
Iran, or MEK. The latter two associations have imbued the spirit of this White House, with
Gaffney now one of the most underrated power players in Washington, and the MEK's "peaceful"
regime change mantra all but the official line of the administration.
More than any of these gigs, Bolton benefited from two associations that greased the wheels
for his joining the Trump administration.
The first was Steve Bannon, the former White House chief strategist. If you want to
understand the administration's Iran policy under Bolton to date, look no further than a piece
by the then-retired diplomat in conservative mainstay National Review in August 2017,
days after Bannon's departure from the White House: "How to Get Out of the Iran Deal." Bolton
wrote the piece at Bannon's urging. Even out of the administration, the former Breitbart
honcho was an influential figure.
"We must explain the grave threat to the U.S. and our allies, particularly Israel," said
Bolton. "The [Iran Deal's] vague and ambiguous wording; its manifest imbalance in Iran's
direction; Iran's significant violations; and its continued, indeed, increasingly, unacceptable
conduct at the strategic level internationally demonstrate convincingly that [the Iran deal] is
not in the national-security interests of the United States."
Then Bolton, as I
documented , embarked on a campaign of a media saturation to make a TV-happy president
proud. By May Day the next year, he would have a job, a big one, and one that Senator Paul
couldn't deny him: national security advisor. That wasn't the whole story, of course. Bolton's
ace in the hole was Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate who has helped drive
Trump's Israel policy. If Trump finally moves against Bolton, it will likely be because Adelson
failed to strenuously object.
So will Trump finally do it? Other than White House chief of staff, a position Mick Mulvaney
has filled in an acting capacity for the entire calendar year, national security advisor is the
easiest, most senior role to change horses.
A bombshell Washington Post story lays out the dire truth: Bolton is so distrusted on
the president's central prerogatives, for instance Afghanistan, that he's not even allowed to
see sensitive plans unsupervised.
Bolton has also come into conflict with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, according to three
senior State Department officials. Pompeo is the consummate politician. Though an inveterate
hawk, the putative Trump successor does not want to be the Paul Wolfowitz of the Iran war.
Bolton is a bureaucratic arsonist, agnostic on the necessity of two of the institutions he
served in -- Foggy Bottom and the United Nations. Pompeo, say those around him, is keen to be
beloved, or at least tolerated, by career officials in his department, in contrast with Bolton
and even Tillerson.
The real danger Bolton poses is to the twin gambit Trump hopes to pull off ahead of, perhaps
just ahead of, next November -- a detente deal with China to calm the markets and ending
the war in Afghanistan. Over the weekend, the president announced a scuttled meeting with the
Taliban at Camp David, which would have been an historic, stunning summit. Bolton was
reportedly instrumental in quashing the meet. Still, there is a lot of time between now and
next autumn, and the cancellation is likely the latest iteration of the president's showman
diplomacy.
Ending America's longest war would be a welcome rebuttal to Democrats who will, day in and
day out, charge that Trump is a fraud. But to do so, he will likely need a national security
advisor more in sync with the vision. Among them: Tucker Carlson favorite Douglas Macgregor,
Stephen Biegun, the runner-up previously, or the hawkish, but relatively pragmatic retired
General Jack Keane.
Bolton seems to be following the well-worn trajectory of dumped Trump deputies. Jeff
Sessions, a proto-Trump and the first senator to endorse the mogul, became attorney general and
ideological incubator of the new Right's agenda only to become persona non grata in the
administration. The formal execution came later. Bannon followed a less dramatic, but no less
explosive ebb and flow. James Mattis walked on water until he didn't.
And Bolton appeared the leading light of a neoconservative revival, of sorts, until he didn't.
You confuse "politician" and "liar" here, whereas he is "consummate" at neither politics
nor lying. His politicking has been as botched as his diplomacy; his lying has been
prodigious but transparent.
Bolton has been on the way out now for how many months? I will believe this welcome news
when I see his sorry ___ out the door.
I think much of America and the world will feel the same way.
It doesn't matter whether Bolton's "time is up" or not, because his departure wouldn't
change anything. If he goes, Trump will replace him with some equally slimy neocon
interventionist.
It won't end until we muck out the White House next year. Dumping Trump is Job One.
Oh. Yes. You want to get rid of Trump's partially neocon administration, so that you could
replace it with your own, entirely neocon one. Wake me up when the DNC starts allowing
people like Tulsi Gabbard to get nominated. But they won't. So your party will just repeat
its merry salsa on the same set of rakes as in 2016.
Trump whole administration is just a bunch of rabid neocons who will be perfectly at home (and some were) in Bush II
administration. So firing of Bolton while a step in the right direction is too little, too late.
Notable quotes:
"... Whatever the reason for Bolton's departure, this means one less warmongering neocon is left in the DC swamp, and is a prudent and long overdue move by Trump, one which even Trump's liberals enemies will have no choice but to applaud. ..."
"... Ending America's longest war would be a welcome rebuttal to Democrats who will, day in and day out, charge that Trump is a fraud. But to do so, he will likely need a national security advisor more in sync with the vision. Among them: Tucker Carlson favorite Douglas Macgregor, Stephen Biegun, the runner-up previously, or the hawkish, but relatively pragmatic retired General Jack Keane. ..."
While there was some feverish speculation as to what an impromptu presser at 1:30pm with US
Secretary of State Pompeo, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and National Security Adviser Bolton
would deliver, that was quickly swept aside moments later when Trump unexpectedly announced
that he had effectively fired Bolton as National Security Advisor, tweeting that he informed
John Bolton "last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House" after "
disagreeing strongly with many of his suggestions. "
... ... ...
Whatever the reason for Bolton's departure, this means one less warmongering
neocon is left in the DC swamp, and is a prudent and long overdue move by Trump, one which even
Trump's liberals enemies will have no choice but to applaud.
While we await more details on this strike by Trump against the military-industrial
complex-enabling Deep State, here is a fitting closer from Curt Mills via the American
Conservative:
Ending America's longest war would be a welcome rebuttal to Democrats who will, day in and
day out, charge that Trump is a fraud. But to do so, he will likely need a national security
advisor more in sync with the vision. Among them: Tucker Carlson favorite Douglas Macgregor,
Stephen Biegun, the runner-up previously, or the hawkish, but relatively pragmatic retired
General Jack Keane.
Bolton seems to be following the well-worn trajectory of dumped Trump deputies. Jeff
Sessions, a proto-Trump and the first senator to endorse the mogul, became attorney general
and ideological incubator of the new Right's agenda only to become persona non grata in the
administration. The formal execution came later. Bannon followed a less dramatic, but no less
explosive ebb and flow. James Mattis walked on water until he didn't.
And Bolton appeared the leading light of a neoconservative revival, of sorts, until he
didn't.
This is a Marxist critique of neoliberalism. Not necessary right but they his some relevant
points.
Notable quotes:
"... The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. ..."
"... The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world output. ..."
"... While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy? The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in the latter and meet global demand. ..."
"... The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5 ..."
"... This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state, the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse , causing a financial crisis. ..."
"... The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument, as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6 ..."
"... If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment. ..."
"... The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their home market ..."
"... In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people ..."
"... In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop and finds fascism. ..."
"... The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their support. ..."
"... The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions, imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of neoliberalism. ..."
"... And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more. ..."
"... Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11 Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against it. ..."
The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth.
But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this
ideological prop.
Harry Magdoff's The Age of
Imperialism is a classic work that shows how postwar political decolonization does not
negate the phenomenon of imperialism. The book has two distinct aspects. On the one hand, it
follows in V. I. Lenin's footsteps in providing a comprehensive account of how capitalism at
the time operated globally. On the other hand, it raises a question that is less frequently
discussed in Marxist literature -- namely, the need for imperialism. Here, Magdoff not only
highlighted the crucial importance, among other things, of the third world's raw materials for
metropolitan capital, but also refuted the argument that the declining share of raw-material
value in gross manufacturing output somehow reduced this importance, making the simple point
that there can be no manufacturing at all without raw materials. 1
Magdoff's focus was on a period when imperialism was severely resisting economic
decolonization in the third world, with newly independent third world countries taking control
over their own resources. He highlighted the entire armory of weapons used by imperialism. But
he was writing in a period that predated the onset of neoliberalism. Today, we not only have
decades of neoliberalism behind us, but the neoliberal regime itself has reached a dead end.
Contemporary imperialism has to be discussed within this setting.
Globalization and
Economic Crisis
There are two reasons why the regime of neoliberal globalization has run into a dead end.
The first is an ex ante tendency toward global overproduction; the second is that the
only possible counter to this tendency within the regime is the formation of asset-price
bubbles, which cannot be conjured up at will and whose collapse, if they do appear, plunges the
economy back into crisis. In short, to use the words of British economic historian Samuel
Berrick Saul, there are no "markets on tap" for contemporary metropolitan capitalism, such as
had been provided by colonialism prior to the First World War and by state expenditure in the
post-Second World War period of dirigisme . 2
The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages
across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector
of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world
output. As Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy argued in Monopoly Capital , following the lead of
Michał Kalecki and Josef Steindl, such a rise in the share of economic surplus, or a shift
from wages to surplus, has the effect of reducing aggregate demand since the ratio of
consumption to income is higher on average for wage earners than for those living off the
surplus. 3
Therefore, assuming a given level of investment associated with any period, such a shift would
tend to reduce consumption demand and hence aggregate demand, output, and capacity utilization.
In turn, reduced capacity utilization would lower investment over time, further aggravating the
demand-reducing effect arising from the consumption side.
While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous
phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an
explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy?
The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the
first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the
metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in
the latter and meet global demand.
Historically, while labor has not been, and is still not, free to migrate from the third
world to the metropolis, capital, though juridically free to move from the latter to the
former, did not actually do so , except to sectors like mines and plantations, which
only strengthened, rather than broke, the colonial pattern of the international division of
labor. 4
This segmentation of the world economy meant that wages in the metropolis increased with labor
productivity, unrestrained by the vast labor reserves of the third world, which themselves had
been caused by the displacement of manufactures through the twin processes of
deindustrialization (competition from metropolitan goods) and the drain of surplus (the
siphoning off of a large part of the economic surplus, through taxes on peasants that are no
longer spent on local artisan products but finance gratis primary commodity exports to
the metropolis instead).
The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to
the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and
take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of
the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the
third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the
real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was
marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5
At the same time, such relocation of activities, despite causing impressive growth rates of
gross domestic product (GDP) in many third world countries, does not lead to the exhaustion of
the third world's labor reserves. This is because of another feature of contemporary
globalization: the unleashing of a process of primitive accumulation of capital against petty
producers, including peasant agriculturists in the third world, who had earlier been protected,
to an extent, from the encroachment of big capital (both domestic and foreign) by the
postcolonial dirigiste regimes in these countries. Under neoliberalism, such protection
is withdrawn, causing an income squeeze on these producers and often their outright
dispossession from their land, which is then used by big capital for its various so-called
development projects. The increase in employment, even in countries with impressive GDP growth
rates in the third world, falls way short of the natural growth of the workforce, let alone
absorbing the additional job seekers coming from the ranks of displaced petty producers. The
labor reserves therefore never get used up. Indeed, on the contrary, they are augmented
further, because real wages continue to remain tied to a subsistence level, even as
metropolitan wages too are restrained. The vector of real wages in the world economy as a whole
therefore remains restrained.
Although contemporary globalization thus gives rise to an ex ante tendency toward
overproduction, state expenditure that could provide a counter to this (and had provided a
counter through military spending in the United States, according to Baran and Sweezy) can no
longer do so under the current regime. Finance is usually opposed to direct state intervention
through larger spending as a way of increasing employment. This opposition expresses itself
through an opposition not just to larger taxes on capitalists, but also to a larger fiscal
deficit for financing such spending. Obviously, if larger state spending is financed by taxes
on workers, then it hardly adds to aggregate demand, for workers spend the bulk of their
incomes anyway, so the state taking this income and spending it instead does not add any extra
demand. Hence, larger state spending can increase employment only if it is financed either
through a fiscal deficit or through taxes on capitalists who keep a part of their income
unspent or saved. But these are precisely the two modes of financing state expenditure that
finance capital opposes.
Its opposing larger taxes on capitalists is understandable, but why is it so opposed to a
larger fiscal deficit? Even within a capitalist economy, there are no sound economic
theoretical reasons that should preclude a fiscal deficit under all circumstances. The root of
the opposition therefore lies in deeper social considerations: if the capitalist economic
system becomes dependent on the state to promote employment directly , then this fact
undermines the social legitimacy of capitalism. The need for the state to boost the animal
spirits of the capitalists disappears and a perspective on the system that is epistemically
exterior to it is provided to the people, making it possible for them to ask: If the state can
do the job of providing employment, then why do we need the capitalists at all? It is an
instinctive appreciation of this potential danger that underlies the opposition of capital,
especially of finance, to any direct effort by the state to generate employment.
This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as
finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state,
the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second
World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is
globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a
nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large
fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse ,
causing a financial crisis.
The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews
direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since
that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their
social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument,
as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the
pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6
It may be thought that this compulsion on the part of the state to accede to the demand of
finance to eschew fiscal intervention for enlarging employment should not hold for the United
States. Its currency being considered by the world's wealth holders to be "as good as gold"
should make it immune to capital flight. But there is an additional factor operating in the
case of the United States: that the demand generated by a bigger U.S. fiscal deficit would
substantially leak abroad in a neoliberal setting, which would increase its external debt
(since, unlike Britain in its heyday, it does not have access to any unrequited colonial
transfers) for the sake of generating employment elsewhere. This fact deters any fiscal effort
even in the United States to boost demand within a neoliberal setting. 7
Therefore, it follows that state spending cannot provide a counter to the ex ante
tendency toward global overproduction within a regime of neoliberal globalization, which makes
the world economy precariously dependent on occasional asset-price bubbles, primarily in the
U.S. economy, for obtaining, at best, some temporary relief from the crisis. It is this fact
that underlies the dead end that neoliberal capitalism has reached. Indeed, Donald Trump's
resort to protectionism in the United States to alleviate unemployment is a clear recognition
of the system having reached this cul-de-sac. The fact that the mightiest capitalist
economy in the world has to move away from the rules of the neoliberal game in an attempt to
alleviate its crisis of unemployment/underemployment -- while compensating capitalists
adversely affected by this move through tax cuts, as well as carefully ensuring that no
restraints are imposed on free cross-border financial flows -- shows that these rules
are no longer viable in their pristine form.
Some Implications of This Dead End
There are at least four important implications of this dead end of neoliberalism. The first
is that the world economy will now be afflicted by much higher levels of unemployment than it
was in the last decade of the twentieth century and the early years of the twenty-first, when
the dot-com and the housing bubbles in the United States had, sequentially, a pronounced
impact. It is true that the U.S. unemployment rate today appears to be at a historic low, but
this is misleading: the labor-force participation rate in the United States today is lower than
it was in 2008, which reflects the discouraged-worker effect . Adjusting for this lower
participation, the U.S. unemployment rate is considerable -- around 8 percent. Indeed, Trump
would not be imposing protection in the United States if unemployment was actually as low as 4
percent, which is the official figure. Elsewhere in the world, of course, unemployment
post-2008 continues to be evidently higher than before. Indeed, the severity of the current
problem of below-full-employment production in the U.S. economy is best illustrated by capacity
utilization figures in manufacturing. The weakness of the U.S. recovery from the Great
Recession is indicated by the fact that the current extended recovery represents the first
decade in the entire post-Second World War period in which capacity utilization in
manufacturing has never risen as high as 80 percent in a single quarter, with the resulting
stagnation of investment. 8
If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a
beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the
United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen
the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the
United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already
appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be
because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping
unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we
look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment.
There has been some discussion on how global value chains would be affected by Trump's
protectionism. But the fact that global macroeconomics in the early twenty-first century will
look altogether different compared to earlier has not been much discussed.
In light of the preceding discussion, one could say that if, instead of individual
nation-states whose writ cannot possibly run against globalized finance capital, there was a
global state or a set of major nation-states acting in unison to override the objections of
globalized finance and provide a coordinated fiscal stimulus to the world economy, then perhaps
there could be recovery. Such a coordinated fiscal stimulus was suggested by a group of German
trade unionists, as well as by John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression in the 1930s.
9
While it was turned down then, in the present context it has not even been discussed.
The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large
over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with
protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even
spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world
market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the
ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their
home market.
Such a transition will not be easy; it will require promoting domestic peasant agriculture,
defending petty production, moving toward cooperative forms of production, and ensuring greater
equality in income distribution, all of which need major structural shifts. For smaller
economies, it would also require their coming together with other economies to provide a
minimum size to the domestic market. In short, the dead end of neoliberalism also means the
need for a shift away from the so-called neoliberal development strategy that has held sway
until now.
The third implication is the imminent engulfing of a whole range of third world economies in
serious balance-of-payments difficulties. This is because, while their exports will be sluggish
in the new situation, this very fact will also discourage financial inflows into their
economies, whose easy availability had enabled them to maintain current account deficits on
their balance of payments earlier. In such a situation, within the existing neoliberal
paradigm, they would be forced to adopt austerity measures that would impose income deflation
on their people, make the conditions of their people significantly worse, lead to a further
handing over of their national assets and resources to international capital, and prevent
precisely any possible transition to an alternative strategy of home market-based growth.
In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over
third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits
in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or
that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even
domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people.
The fourth implication is the worldwide upsurge of fascism. Neoliberal capitalism even
before it reached a dead end, even in the period when it achieved reasonable growth and
employment rates, had pushed the world into greater hunger and poverty. For instance, the world
per-capita cereal output was 355 kilograms for 1980 (triennium average for 1979–81
divided by mid–triennium population) and fell to 343 in 2000, leveling at 344.9 in 2016
-- and a substantial amount of this last figure went into ethanol production. Clearly, in a
period of growth of the world economy, per-capita cereal absorption should be expanding,
especially since we are talking here not just of direct absorption but of direct and indirect
absorption, the latter through processed foods and feed grains in animal products. The fact
that there was an absolute decline in per-capita output, which no doubt caused a decline in
per-capita absorption, suggests an absolute worsening in the nutritional level of a substantial
segment of the world's population.
But this growing hunger and nutritional poverty did not immediately arouse any significant
resistance, both because such resistance itself becomes more difficult under neoliberalism
(since the very globalization of capital makes it an elusive target) and also because higher
GDP growth rates provided a hope that distress might be overcome in the course of time.
Peasants in distress, for instance, entertained the hope that their children would live better
in the years to come if given a modicum of education and accepted their fate.
In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with
neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological
prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop
and finds fascism. This changes the discourse away from the material conditions of people's
lives to the so-called threat to the nation, placing the blame for people's distress not on the
failure of the system, but on ethnic, linguistic, and religious minority groups, the
other that is portrayed as an enemy. It projects a so-called messiah whose sheer
muscularity can somehow magically overcome all problems; it promotes a culture of unreason so
that both the vilification of the other and the magical powers of the supposed leader
can be placed beyond any intellectual questioning; it uses a combination of state repression
and street-level vigilantism by fascist thugs to terrorize opponents; and it forges a close
relationship with big business, or, in Kalecki's words, "a partnership of big business and
fascist upstarts." 10
Fascist groups of one kind or another exist in all modern societies. They move center stage
and even into power only on certain occasions when they get the backing of big business. And
these occasions arise when three conditions are satisfied: when there is an economic crisis so
the system cannot simply go on as before; when the usual liberal establishment is manifestly
incapable of resolving the crisis; and when the left is not strong enough to provide an
alternative to the people in order to move out of the conjuncture.
This last point may appear odd at first, since many see the big bourgeoisie's recourse to
fascism as a counter to the growth of the left's strength in the context of a capitalist
crisis. But when the left poses a serious threat, the response of the big bourgeoisie typically
is to attempt to split it by offering concessions. It uses fascism to prop itself up only when
the left is weakened. Walter Benjamin's remark that "behind every fascism there is a failed
revolution" points in this direction.
Fascism Then and Now
Contemporary fascism, however, differs in crucial respects from its 1930s counterpart, which
is why many are reluctant to call the current phenomenon a fascist upsurge. But historical
parallels, if carefully drawn, can be useful. While in some aforementioned respects
contemporary fascism does resemble the phenomenon of the 1930s, there are serious differences
between the two that must also be noted.
First, we must note that while the current fascist upsurge has put fascist elements in power
in many countries, there are no fascist states of the 1930s kind as of yet. Even if the fascist
elements in power try to push the country toward a fascist state, it is not clear that they
will succeed. There are many reasons for this, but an important one is that fascists in power
today cannot overcome the crisis of neoliberalism, since they accept the regime of
globalization of finance. This includes Trump, despite his protectionism. In the 1930s,
however, this was not the case. The horrors associated with the institution of a fascist state
in the 1930s had been camouflaged to an extent by the ability of the fascists in power to
overcome mass unemployment and end the Depression through larger military spending, financed by
government borrowing. Contemporary fascism, by contrast, lacks the ability to overcome the
opposition of international finance capital to fiscal activism on the part of the government to
generate larger demand, output, and employment, even via military spending.
Such activism, as discussed earlier, required larger government spending financed either
through taxes on capitalists or through a fiscal deficit. Finance capital was opposed to both
of these measures and it being globalized made this opposition decisive . The
decisiveness of this opposition remains even if the government happens to be one composed of
fascist elements. Hence, contemporary fascism, straitjacketed by "fiscal rectitude," cannot
possibly alleviate even temporarily the economic crises facing people and cannot provide any
cover for a transition to a fascist state akin to the ones of the 1930s, which makes such a
transition that much more unlikely.
Another difference is also related to the phenomenon of the globalization of finance. The
1930s were marked by what Lenin had earlier called "interimperialist rivalry." The military
expenditures incurred by fascist governments, even though they pulled countries out of the
Depression and unemployment, inevitably led to wars for "repartitioning an already partitioned
world." Fascism was the progenitor of war and burned itself out through war at, needless to
say, great cost to humankind.
Contemporary fascism, however, operates in a world where interimperialist rivalry is far
more muted. Some have seen in this muting a vindication of Karl Kautsky's vision of an
"ultraimperialism" as against Lenin's emphasis on the permanence of interimperialist rivalry,
but this is wrong. Both Kautsky and Lenin were talking about a world where finance capital and
the financial oligarchy were essentially national -- that is, German, French, or British. And
while Kautsky talked about the possibility of truces among the rival oligarchies, Lenin saw
such truces only as transient phenomena punctuating the ubiquity of rivalry.
In contrast, what we have today is not nation-based finance capitals, but
international finance capital into whose corpus the finance capitals drawn from
particular countries are integrated. This globalized finance capital does not want the world
to be partitioned into economic territories of rival powers ; on the contrary, it wants the
entire globe to be open to its own unrestricted movement. The muting of rivalry between major
powers, therefore, is not because they prefer truce to war, or peaceful partitioning of the
world to forcible repartitioning, but because the material conditions themselves have changed
so that it is no longer a matter of such choices. The world has gone beyond both Lenin and
Kautsky, as well as their debates.
Not only are we not going to have wars between major powers in this era of fascist upsurge
(of course, as will be discussed, we shall have other wars), but, by the same token, this
fascist upsurge will not burn out through any cataclysmic war. What we are likely to see is a
lingering fascism of less murderous intensity , which, when in power, does not
necessarily do away with all the forms of bourgeois democracy, does not necessarily physically
annihilate the opposition, and may even allow itself to get voted out of power occasionally.
But since its successor government, as long as it remains within the confines of the neoliberal
strategy, will also be incapable of alleviating the crisis, the fascist elements are likely to
return to power as well. And whether the fascist elements are in or out of power, they will
remain a potent force working toward the fascification of the society and the polity, even
while promoting corporate interests within a regime of globalization of finance, and hence
permanently maintaining the "partnership between big business and fascist upstarts."
Put differently, since the contemporary fascist upsurge is not likely to burn itself out as
the earlier one did, it has to be overcome by transcending the very conjuncture that produced
it: neoliberal capitalism at a dead end. A class mobilization of working people around an
alternative set of transitional demands that do not necessarily directly target neoliberal
capitalism, but which are immanently unrealizable within the regime of neoliberal capitalism,
can provide an initial way out of this conjuncture and lead to its eventual transcendence.
Such a class mobilization in the third world context would not mean making no truces with
liberal bourgeois elements against the fascists. On the contrary, since the liberal bourgeois
elements too are getting marginalized through a discourse of jingoistic nationalism typically
manufactured by the fascists, they too would like to shift the discourse toward the material
conditions of people's lives, no doubt claiming that an improvement in these conditions is
possible within the neoliberal economic regime itself. Such a shift in discourse is in
itself a major antifascist act . Experience will teach that the agenda advanced as part of
this changed discourse is unrealizable under neoliberalism, providing the scope for dialectical
intervention by the left to transcend neoliberal capitalism.
Imperialist
Interventions
Even though fascism will have a lingering presence in this conjuncture of "neoliberalism at
a dead end," with the backing of domestic corporate-financial interests that are themselves
integrated into the corpus of international finance capital, the working people in the third
world will increasingly demand better material conditions of life and thereby rupture the
fascist discourse of jingoistic nationalism (that ironically in a third world context is not
anti-imperialist).
In fact, neoliberalism reaching a dead end and having to rely on fascist elements revives
meaningful political activity, which the heyday of neoliberalism had precluded, because most
political formations then had been trapped within an identical neoliberal agenda that appeared
promising. (Latin America had a somewhat different history because neoliberalism arrived in
that continent through military dictatorships, not through its more or less tacit acceptance by
most political formations.)
Such revived political activity will necessarily throw up challenges to neoliberal
capitalism in particular countries. Imperialism, by which we mean the entire economic and
political arrangement sustaining the hegemony of international finance capital, will deal with
these challenges in at least four different ways.
The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation
that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even
before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby
denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only
increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may
well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from
a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers
and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their
support.
Even if capital controls are put in place, where there are current account deficits,
financing such deficits would pose a problem, necessitating some trade controls. But this is
where the second instrument of imperialism comes into play: the imposition of trade sanctions
by the metropolitan states, which then cajole other countries to stop buying from the
sanctioned country that is trying to break away from thralldom to globalized finance capital.
Even if the latter would have otherwise succeeded in stabilizing its economy despite its
attempt to break away, the imposition of sanctions becomes an additional blow.
The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the
sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the
local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of
civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection
generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions,
imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political
elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of
neoliberalism.
And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic
warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military
warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third
world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when
revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more.
Two aspects of such intervention are striking. One is the virtual unanimity among the
metropolitan states, which only underscores the muting of interimperialist rivalry in the era
of hegemony of global finance capital. The other is the extent of support that such
intervention commands within metropolitan countries, from the right to even the liberal
segments.
Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing
for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First
World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state
intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only
occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11
Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize
itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist
intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against
it.
Samuel Berrick Saul, Studies in British Overseas Trade, 1870–1914
(Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1960).
Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital (New York:
Monthly Review Press, 1966).
One of the first authors to recognize this fact and its significance was Paul Baran in
The Political Economy of
Growth (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1957).
For the role of such colonial transfers in sustaining the British balance of payments and the
long Victorian and Edwardian boom, see Utsa Patnaik, "Revisiting the 'Drain,' or Transfers
from India to Britain in the Context of Global Diffusion of Capitalism," in Agrarian
and Other Histories: Essays for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri , ed. Shubhra Chakrabarti and
Utsa Patnaik (Delhi: Tulika, 2017), 277-317.
Federal Reserve Board of Saint Louis Economic Research, FRED, "Capacity Utilization:
Manufacturing," February 2019 (updated March 27, 2019), http://fred.stlouisfed.org .
This issue is discussed by Charles P. Kindleberger in The World in Depression,
1929–1939 , 40th anniversary ed. (Oakland: University of California Press,
2013).
Joseph Schumpeter had seen Keynes's The Economic Consequences of the Peace as
essentially advocating such state intervention in the new situation. See his essay, "John
Maynard Keynes (1883–1946)," in Ten Great Economists (London: George Allen
& Unwin, 1952).
Utsa Patnaik is Professor Emerita at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning,
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her books include Peasant Class Differentiation (1987),
The Long Transition (1999), and The Republic of Hunger and Other Essays (2007). Prabhat Patnaik
is Professor Emeritus at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi. His books include Accumulation and Stability Under Capitalism (1997),
The Value of Money(2009), and Re-envisioning Socialism(2011).
What democracy they are talking about? Democracy for whom? This Harvard political prostitutes are talking about democracy for oligarchs
which was the nest result of EuroMaydan and the ability of Western companies to buy assets for pennies on the dollar without the control
of national government like happen in xUSSR space after dissolution of the USSR, which in retrospect can be classified as a color revolution
too, supported by financial injection, logistical support and propaganda campaign in major Western MSM.
What Harvard honchos probably does not understand or does not wish to understand is that neoliberalism as a social system lost its
attraction and is in irreversible decline. The ideology of neoliberalism collapsed much like Bolsheviks' ideology. As Politician like
Joe Boden which still preach neoliberalism are widely viewed as corrupt or senile (or both) hypocrites.
The "Collective West" still demonstrates formidable intelligence agencies skills (especially the USA and GB), but the key question
is: "What they are fighting for?"
They are fighting for neoliberalism which is a lost case. Which looks like KGB successes after WWIII. They won many battles and
lost the Cold war.
Not that Bolsheviks in the USSR was healthy or vibrant. Economics was a deep stagnation, alcoholism among working class was rampant,
the standard of living of the majority of population slides each year, much like is the case with neoliberalism after, say, 1991. Hidden
unemployment in the USSR was high -- at least in high teens if not higher. Like in the USA now good jobs were almost impossible to obtain
without "extra help". Medical services while free were dismal, especially dental -- which were horrible. Hospitals were poor as church
rats as most money went to MIC. Actually, like in the USA now, MIC helped to strangulate the economy and contributed to the collapse.
It was co a corrupt and decaying , led by completely degenerated leadership. To put the person of the level of Gorbachov level of political
talent lead such a huge and complex country was an obvious suicide.
But the facts speak for themselves: what people usually get as the result of any color revolution is the typical for any county
which lost the war: dramatic drop of the standard of living due to economic rape of the country.
While far form being perfect the Chinese regime at least managed to lift the standard of living of the majority of the population
and provide employment. After regime change China will experience the same economic rape as the USSR under Yeltsin regime. So in no
way Hong Cong revolution can be viewed a progressive phenomenon despite all the warts of neoliberalism with Chenese characteristics
in mainland China (actually this is a variant of NEP that Gorbachov tried to implement in the USSR, but was to politically incompetent
to succeed)
CHENOWETH: I think it really boils down to four different things. The first is a large and diverse participation that's
sustained.
The second thing is that [the movement] needs to elicit loyalty shifts among security forces in particular, but also other
elites. Security forces are important because they ultimately are the agents of repression, and their actions largely decide
how violent the confrontation with -- and reaction to -- the nonviolent campaign is going to be in the end. But there are other
security elites, economic and business elites, state media. There are lots of different pillars that support the status quo,
and if they can be disrupted or coerced into noncooperation, then that's a decisive factor.
The third thing is that the campaigns need to be able to have more than just protests; there needs to be a lot of variation
in the methods they use.
The fourth thing is that when campaigns are repressed -- which is basically inevitable for those calling for major changes
-- they don't either descend into chaos or opt for using violence themselves. If campaigns allow their repression to throw
the movement into total disarray or they use it as a pretext to militarize their campaign, then they're essentially co-signing
what the regime wants -- for the resisters to play on its own playing field. And they're probably going to get totally crushed.
Wai Sing-Rin @waisingrin • Aug 27
Replying to @ChrisFraser_HKU @edennnnnn_ and 2 others
Anyone who watched the lone frontliner (w translator) sees the frontliners are headed for disaster. They're fighting just
to fight with no plans nor objectives.
They see themselves as heroes protecting the HK they love. No doubt their sincerity, but there are 300 of them left.
"... A new opinion poll released by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal last Sunday shows that 70% of Americans are "angry" because our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power. Both Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren have also reflected on this sentiment during their campaigns. Sanders has said that we live in a "corrupt political system designed to protect the wealthy and the powerful." Warren said it's a "rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else." ..."
A new opinion poll released by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal last Sunday shows that 70% of Americans are "angry" because
our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power. Both Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth
Warren have also reflected on this sentiment during their campaigns. Sanders has said that we live in a "corrupt political system
designed to protect the wealthy and the powerful." Warren said it's a "rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks
dirt on everyone else."
A New York Times opinion article written by the political scientist Greg Weiner felt compelled to push back on this message, writing
a column with the title, The Shallow Cynicism of 'Everything Is Rigged'. In his column, Weiner basically makes the argument that
believing everything is corrupt and rigged is a cynical attitude with which it is possible to dismiss political opponents for being
a part of the corruption. In other words, the Sanders and Warren argument is a shortcut, according to Weiner, that avoids real political
debate.
Joining me now to discuss whether it makes sense to think of a political system as rigged and corrupt, and whether the cynical
attitude is justified, is someone who should know a thing or two about corruption: Bill Black. He is a white collar criminologist,
former financial regulator, and associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He's also the
author of the book, The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One. Thanks for joining us again, Bill.
BILL BLACK: Thank you.
GREG WILPERT: As I mentioned that the outset, it seems that Sanders and Warren are in effect taking an open door, at least when
it comes to the American public. That is, almost everyone already believes that our political and economic system is rigged. Would
you agree with that sentiment that the system is corrupt and rigged for the rich and against pretty much everyone else but especially
the poor? What do you think?
BILL BLACK: One of the principal things I study is elite fraud, corruption and predation. The World Bank sent me to India for
months as an anti-corruption alleged expert type. And as a financial regulator, this is what I dealt with. This is what I researched.
This is a huge chunk of my life. So I wouldn't use the word, if I was being formal in an academic system, "the system." What I would
talk about is specific systems that are rigged, and they most assuredly are rigged.
Let me give you an example. One of the most important things that has transformed the world and made it vastly more criminogenic,
much more corrupt, is modern executive compensation. This is not an unusual position. This is actually the normal position now, even
among very conservative scholars, including the person who was the intellectual godfather of modern executive compensation, Michael
Jensen. He has admitted that he spawned unintentionally a monster because CEOs have rigged the compensation system. How do they do
that? Well, it starts even before you get hired as a CEO. This is amazing stuff. The standard thing you do as a powerful CEO is you
hire this guy, and he specializes in negotiating great deals for CEOs. His first demand, which is almost always given into, is that
the corporation pay his fee, not the CEO. On the other side of the table is somebody that the CEO is going to be the boss of negotiating
the other side. How hard is he going to negotiate against the guy that's going to be his boss? That's totally rigged.
Then the compensation committee hires compensation specialists who–again, even the most conservative economists agree it is a
completely rigged system. Because the only way they get work is if they give this extraordinary compensation. Then, everybody in
economics admits that there's a clear way you should run performance pay. It should be really long term. You get the big bucks only
after like 10 years of success. In reality, they're always incredibly short term. Why? Because it's vastly easier for the CEO to
rig the short-term reported earnings. What's the result of this? Accounting profession, criminology profession, economics profession,
law profession. We've all done studies and all of them say this perverse system of compensation causes CEOs to (a) cheat and (b)
to be extraordinarily short term in their perspective because it's easier to rig the short-term reported results. Even the most conservative
economists agree that's terrible for the economy.
What I've just gone through is a whole bunch of academic literature from over 40-plus years from top scholars in four different
fields. That's not cynicism. That's just plain facts if you understand the system. People like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders,
they didn't, as you say, kick open an open door. They made the open door. It's not like Elizabeth Warren started talking about this
six months ago when she started being a potential candidate. She has been saying this and explaining in detail how individual systems
are rigged in favor of the wealthy for at least 30 years of work. Bernie Sanders has been doing it for 45 years. This is what the
right, including the author of this piece who is an ultra-far right guy, fear the most. It's precisely what they fear, that Bernie
and Elizabeth are good at explaining how particular systems are rigged. They explain it in appropriate detail, but they're also good
in making it human. They talk the way humans talk as opposed to academics.
That's what the right fear is more than anything, that people will basically get woke. In this, it's being woke to how individual
systems have been rigged by the wealthy and powerful to create a sure thing to enrich them, usually at our direct expense.
GREG WILPERT: I think those are some very good examples. They're mostly from the realm of economics. I want to look at one from
the realm of politics, which specifically Weiner makes. He cites Sanders, who says that the rich literally buy elections, and Weiner
counters this by saying that, "It is difficult to identify instances in American history of an electoral majority wanting something
specific that it has not eventually gotten." That's a pretty amazing statement actually, I think, for him to say when you look at
the actual polls of what people want and what people get. He then also adds, "That's not possible to dupe the majority with advertising
all of the time." What's your response to that argument?
BILL BLACK: Well, actually, that's where he's trying to play economist, and he's particularly bad at economics. He was even worse
at economics than he is at political science, where his pitch, by the way is–I'm not overstating this–corruption is good. The real
problem with Senator Sanders and Senator Warren is that they're against corruption.
Can you fool many people? Answer: Yes. We have good statistics from people who actually study this as opposed to write op-eds
of this kind. In the great financial crisis, one of the most notorious of the predators that targeted blacks and Latinos–we actually
have statistics from New Century. And here's a particular scam. The loan broker gets paid more money the worse the deal he gets you,
the customer, and he gets paid by the bank. If he can get you to pay more than the market rate of interest, then he gets a kickback,
a literal kickback. In almost exactly half of the cases, New Century was able to get substantially above market interest rates, again,
targeted at blacks and Latinos.
We know that this kind of predatory approach can succeed, and it can succeed brilliantly. Look at cigarettes. Cigarettes, if you
use them as intended, they make you sick and they kill you. It wasn't that very long ago until a huge effort by pushback that the
tobacco companies, through a whole series of fake science and incredible amounts of ads that basically tried to associate if you
were male, that if you smoked, you'd have a lot of sex type of thing. It was really that crude. It was enormously successful with
people in getting them to do things that almost immediately made them sick and often actually killed them.
He's simply wrong empirically. You can see it in US death rates. You can see it in Hell, I'm overweight considerably. Americans
are enormously overweight because of the way we eat, which has everything to do with how marketing works in the United States, and
it's actually gotten so bad that it's reducing life expectancy in a number of groups in America. That's how incredibly effective
predatory practices are in rigging the system. That's again, two Nobel Laureates in economics have recently written about this. George
Akerlof and Shiller, both Nobel Laureates in economics, have written about this predation in a book for a general audience. It's
called Phishing with a P-H.
GREG WILPERT: I want to turn to the last point that Weiner makes about cynicism. He says that calling the system rigged is actually
a form of cynicism. And that cynicism, the belief that everything and everyone is bad or corrupt avoids real political arguments
because it tires everyone you disagree with as being a part of that corruption. Would you say, is the belief that the system is rigged
a form of cynicism? And if it is, wouldn't Weiner be right that cynicism avoids political debate?
BILL BLACK: He creates a straw man. No one has said that everything and everyone is corrupt. No one has said that if you disagree
with me, you are automatically corrupt. What they have given in considerable detail, like I gave as the first example, was here is
exactly how the system is rigged. Here are the empirical results of that rigging. This produces vast transfers of wealth to the powerful
and wealthy, and it comes at the expense of nearly everybody else. That is factual and that needs to be said. It needs to be said
that politicians that support this, and Weiner explicitly does that, says, we need to go back to a system that is more openly corrupt
and that if we have that system, the world will be better. That has no empirical basis. It's exactly the opposite. Corruption kills.
Corruption ruins economies.
The last thing in the world you want to do is what Weiner calls for, which he says, "We've got to stop applying morality to this
form of crime." In essence, he is channeling the godfather. "Tell the Don it wasn't personal. It was just business." There's nothing
really immoral in his view about bribing people. I'm sorry. I'm a Midwesterner. It wasn't cynicism. It was morality. He says you
can't compromise with corruption. I hope not. Compromising with corruption is precisely why we're in this situation where growth
rates have been cut in half, why wage growth has been cut by four-fifths, why blacks and Latinos during the great financial crisis
lost 60% to 80% of their wealth in college-educated households. That's why 70% of the public is increasingly woke on this subject.
GREG WILPERT: Well, we're going to leave it there. I was speaking to Bill Black, associate professor of economics and law at the
University of Missouri, Kansas City. Thanks again, Bill, for having joined us today.
BILL BLACK: Thank you.
GREG WILPERT: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Well, Sanders certainly knows that elections are rigged. But he's not quite right when he says that money does the rigging.
It would be more accurate to say that powerful people are powerful because they're criminals, and they're rich because they're
criminals.
Money is a side effect, not the driver. Specific example: Hillary and Bernie are in the same category of net worth, but Bernie
isn't powerful. The difference is that Bernie ISN'T willing to commit murder and blackmail to gain power.
> Hillary and Bernie are in the same category of net worth
Clinton's net worth (says Google) is $45 million; Sanders $2.5 million. So, an order of magnitude difference. I guess that
puts Sanders in the 1% category, but Clinton is much closer to the 0.1% category than Sanders.
There's also a billion-dollar foundation in the mix.
We had our choice of two New York billionaires in the last presidential election. How is this not accounted for? It's like
the bond market, the sheer weight carries its own momentum.
Very similar to CEO's. I may not own a private jet, but if the company does, and I control the company, I have the benefit
of a private jet. I don't need to own the penthouse to live in it.
"We came, we saw, he died. Tee hee hee!"
"Did it have anything to do with your visit?"
"I'm sure it did."
From a non-legal perspective at least, that makes her an accessory to murder, doesn't it?
Is it fair to say the entire system is rigged when enough interconnected parts of it are rigged that no matter where one turns,
one finds evidence of corruption? Because like it or not, that's where we are as a country.
Yes. And it is also fair to say, and has been said by lots of cynics over the centuries, that both democracy and capitalism
sow the seeds of their own destruction.
Burns me to see yet another "water is not wet" argument being foisted by the NYT, hard to imagine another reason the editorial
board pushed for this line *except* to protect the current corrupt one percenters who call their shots. Once Liz The Marionette
gets appointed we might get some fluff but the rot will persist, eventually rot becomes putrefaction and the polity dies. Gore
Vidal called America and Christianity "death cults".
"Due to technical difficulties, comments are unavailable"
Pisses me off that I gave the propaganda rag of note a click and didn't even get the joy of the comments section. I'm sure
there's some cynical reason why
The other thing is that the NYT runs this pretty indefensible piece by a guy who is a visiting scholar at the American
Enterprise Institute. Just how often does NYT -- whose goal,
according to its
executive editor, "should be to understand different views" -- run a piece from anyone who is leftwing? What's the ratio of pro-establishment,
pro-Washington consensus pieces to those that are not? Glenn Greenwald
points out that the political spectrum at the NYT op-ed page "spans the small gap from establishment centrist Democrats
to establishment centrist Republicans." That, in itself, is consistent with the premise that the system is, indeed, rigged.
I think we have to drill down another level and ask ourselves a more fundamental question "why is cynicism necessarily bad
to begin with?" Black's response of parsing to individual systems as being corrupt is playing into the NYT authors trap, sort
to speak.
This NYT article is another version of the seemingly obligatory attribute of the american character; we must ultimately be
optimistic and have hope. Why is that useful? Or maybe more importantly, to whom is that useful? What is the point?
In my mind (and many a philosopher), cynicism is a very healthy, empowering response to a world whose institutional configuration
is such that it will to fuck you over whenever it is expedient to do so.
Furthermore, the act of voting lends legitimacy to an institution that is clearly not legitimate. The institution is very obviously
very corrupt. If you really want to change the "system" stop giving it legitimacy; i.e. be cynical, don't vote. The whole thing
is a ruse. Boycott it .
Some may say, in a desperate attempt to avoid being cynical, "well, the national level is corrupt but we need to increase engagement
at the community level via local elections ", or something like that. This is nothing more than rearranging the chairs on the
deck of the titanic. And collecting signature isn't going to help anymore than handing out buckets on the titanic would.
So, to answer my own rhetorical question above, "to whom is it useful to not be cynical?" It is useful to those who want things
to continue as they currently are.
So, be cynical. Don't vote. It is an empowering and healthy way to kinda say "fuck you" to the corrupt and not become corrupted
yourself by legitimizing it. The best part about it is that you don't have to do anything.
Viva la paz (Hows that for a non cynical salutation?)
Uh this sounds like the ultimate allowing things to continue as they currently are, do you really imagine the powers that be
are concerned about a low voting rate, and we have one, they don't care, they may even like it that way. Do you really imagine
they care about some phantom like perceived legitimacy? Where is the evidence of that?
Politicians do care about staying in office and will respond on some issues that will cost them enough votes to get booted
from office. But it has to be those particular issues in their own backyard; otherwise, they just kind of limp along with the
lip service collecting their paychecks.
IMO, it is sheer idiocy to not vote. If you are a voter, politicians will pay some attention to you at least. If you don't
vote, you don't even exist to them.
"I don't think it should be legal at ALL to become a corporate lobbyist if you've served in Congress," said Ocasio-Cortez.
"At minimum there should be a long wait period."
"If you are a member of Congress + leave, you shouldn't be allowed to turn right around&leverage your service for a lobbyist check.
I don't think it should be legal at ALL to become a corporate lobbyist if you've served in Congress."
–AOC, as reported by NakedCapitalism on May 31, 2019
I try to be despairing, but I can't keep up.
Attributed to a generation or two after Lily Tomlin's quote about cynicism.
Out of curiosity, would it be cynical to question that political scientist's grant funding or other sources of income? These
days, I feel inclined to look at what I'll call the Sinclair Rule* , added to Betteridge's, Godwin's and all those other, ahem,
modifications to what used to be an expectation that communication was more or less honest.
* Sinclair Rule, where you add a interpretive filter based on Upton's famous quote: It is difficult to get a man to understand
something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
It's good to look at funding sources. But it's kind of a slander to those who must work for a living when assuming it's paychecks
(which we need to live in this system) that corrupt people.
If it's applied to the average working person, maybe it's often true, maybe it has a tendency to push in that direction, but
if you think there are no workers that realize the industry they are working in might be destructive, that they may be exploited
by such systems but have little choice etc. etc., come now there are working people who are politically aware and do see a larger
picture, they just don't have a lot of power to change it much of the time. Does the average working person's salary depend on
his not understanding though? No, of course not, it merely depends on him obeying. And obeying enough to keep a job, not always
understanding, is what a paycheck buys.
With all the evidence of everyday life (airplanes, drug prices, health insurance, Wall Street, CEO pay, the workforce changes
in the past 20 years if you've been working those years etc) this Greg better be careful as he might be seen as a Witch to be
hanged and burned in Salem, Ma a few hundred years ago.
It's cynical to say it's cynical to believe the system is corrupt.
Greg Weiner is cynic, and his is using his cynicism to dismiss the political arguments of people he disagrees with.
And just this week, I found out I couldn't even buy a car unless I'd be willing to sign a mandatory binding arbitration agreement.
I was ready to pay and sign all the paperwork, and they lay a document in front of me that reserves for the dealer the right to
seek any remedy against me if I harm the dealer (pay with bad check, become delinquent on loan, fail to provide clean title on
my trade); but forces me to accept mandatory binding arbitration, with damages limited to the value of the car, for anything the
dealer might do wrong.
It is not cynical at all when even car dealers now want a permission slip for any harm they might do to me.
Okay, a few more. We are literally facing the possibility of a mass extinction in large part because of dishonesty on the par
of oil companies, politicians, and people paid to make bad arguments.
"Assad (and by implication Assad's forces alone) killed 500,000 Syrians."
"Israel is just defending itself."
I can't squeeze the dishonesty about the war in Yemen into a short slogan, but I know from personal experience that getting
liberals to care when it was Obama's war was virtually impossible. Even under Trump it was hard, until Khashoggi's murder. On
the part of politicians and think tanks this was corruption by Saudi money. With ordinary people it was the usual partisan tribal
hypocrisy.
The motivator is "
Gap Psychology
," the human desire to distance oneself from those below (on any scale), and to come nearer to those above.
The rich are rich because the Gap below them is wide, and the wider the Gap, the richer they are .
And here is the important point: There are two ways the rich widen the Gap: Either gain more for themselves or make sure
those below have less.
That is why the rich promulgate the Big Lie that the federal government (and its agencies, Social Security and Medicare) is
running short of dollars. The rich want to make sure that those below them don't gain more, as that would narrow the Gap.
Negative sum game, where one wins but the other has to lose more so the party of the first part feels even better about winning.
There is an element of sadism, sociopathy and a few other behaviors that the current systems allow to be gamed even more profitably.
If you build it, or lobby to have it built, they will come multiple times.
A successful society should be responsive to both threats and opportunities. Any major problems to that society are assessed
and changes are made, usually begrudgingly, to adapt to the new situation. And this is where corruption comes into it. It short
circuits the signals that a society receives so that it ignores serious threats and elevates ones that are relatively minor but
which benefit a small segment of that society. If you want an example of this at work, back in 2016 you had about 40,000 Americans
dying to opioids each and every year which was considered only a background issue. But a major issue about that time was who gets
to use what toilets. Seriously. If it gets bad enough, a society gets overwhelmed by the problems that were ignored or were deferred
to a later time. And I regret to say that the UK is going to learn this lesson in spades.
'Sanders has said that we live in a "corrupt political system designed to protect the wealthy and the powerful." Warren said
it's a "rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else."'
Yet the rest of the article focuses almost entirely on internal US shenanigans. When it comes to protecting wealth and power,
George Kennan hit the nail on the head in 1948, with "we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3 of its population.
This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the
object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships, which will permit us
to maintain this position of disparity." This, which has underpinned US policy ever since, may not be corrupt in the sense of
illegal, but it certainly seems corrupt in the sense of morally repugnant to me.
About Kennan's comment. That's interesting because no one questioned the word "wealth". Even tho' we had only 6.3% of the world's
population we had 50% of the wealth. The point of that comment had to be that we should "spread the wealth" and we did do just
that. Until we polluted the entire planet. I'd like some MMT person to take a long look at that attitude because it is so simplistic.
And not like George Kennan at all who was sophisticated to the bone. But that's just more proof of a bred-in-the-bone ignorance
about what money really is. In this case Kennan was talking about money, not wealth. He never asked Nepal for advice on gross
national happiness, etc. Nor did he calculate the enormous debt burden we would incur for our unregulated use and abuse of the
environment. That debt most certainly offsets any "wealth" that happened.
Approaching from the opposite direction, if someone were to say "I sincerely believe that the USA has the most open & honest
political system and the fairest economic system in human history" would you not think that person to be incredibly naive (or,
cynically, a liar)?
There has been, for at least the last couple of decades. a determined effort to do away with corruption – by defining it away.
"Citizens United" is perhaps the most glaring example but the effort is ongoing; that Weiner op-ed is a good current example.
What is cynical is everyone's response when point out that the system is corrupt. They all say " always has been, always will be so just deal with it ".
Strawmannirg has got to be the most cynical behavior in the world. Weiner is the cynic. I think Liz's "the system is rigged
" comment invites discussion. It is not a closed door at all. It is a plea for good capitalism. Which most people assume is possible.
It's time to define just what kind of capitalism will work and what it needs to continue to be, or finally become, a useful economic
ideology. High time.
Another thing. Look how irrational the world, which is now awash in money, has become over lack of liquidity. There's a big
push now to achieve an optimum flow of money by speeding up transaction time. The Fed is in the midst of designing a new real-time
digital payments system. A speedy accounting and record of everything. Which sounds like a very good idea.
But the predators are
busy keeping pace – witness the frantic grab by Facebook with Libra. Libra is cynical. To say the least. The whole thing a few
days ago on the design of Libra was frightening because Libra has not slowed down; it has filed it's private corporation papers
in Switzerland and is working toward a goal of becoming a private currency – backed by sovereign money no less! Twisted. So there's
a good discussion begging to be heard: The legitimate Federal Reserve v. Libra. The reason we are not having this discussion is
because the elite are hard-core cynics.
"... The current neoliberal order failed to suppress China development enough to block her from becoming the competitor (and the second largest economy.) ..."
"... That's why a faction of the USA elite decided to adopt "might makes right" policies (essentially piracy instead of international law) in a hope that it will prolong the life of the US-centered neoliberal empire. ..."
"... As much as Trump proved to be inapt politician and personally and morally despicable individual (just his known behavior toward Melania tells a lot about him; we do not need possible Epstein revelations for that) he does represent a faction of the US elite what wants this change. ..."
"... All his pro working class and pro lower middle class rhetoric was a bluff -- he is representative of faction of the US elite that is hell bent on maintaining the imperial superiority achieved after the collapse of the USSR, whatever it takes. At the expense of common people as Pentagon budget can attest. ..."
"... That also explains the appointment of Bolton and Pompeo. That are birds of the feather, not some maniacs (although they are ;-) accidentally brought into Trump administration via major donors pressure. ..."
"... In this sense Russiagate was not only a color revolution launched to depose Trump by neoliberal wing of Democratic Party and rogue, Obama-installed elements within intelligence agencies (Brennan, Comey, McCabe, etc.) , but also part of the struggle between the faction of the US elite that wants "muscular" policy of preservation of the empire (Trump supporters faction so to speak) and the faction that still wants to kick the can down the road via "classic neoliberalism" path (Clinton supporters faction so to speak.) ..."
It is not about the strategy. It's about the agony. The agony of the US centered global
neoliberal empire.
Trump and forces behind him realized that current set of treaties does not favor the
preservation of the empire and allows new powerful players to emerge despite all
institutionalized looting via World Bank and IMF and the imposition of Washington Consensus.
The main danger here are Germany (and EU in general) and, especially, China.
The current neoliberal order failed to suppress China development enough to block her from
becoming the competitor (and the second largest economy.)
That's why a faction of the USA elite decided to adopt "might makes right" policies
(essentially piracy instead of international law) in a hope that it will prolong the life of
the US-centered neoliberal empire.
As much as Trump proved to be inapt politician and personally and morally despicable
individual (just his known behavior toward Melania tells a lot about him; we do not need
possible Epstein revelations for that) he does represent a faction of the US elite what wants
this change.
All his pro working class and pro lower middle class rhetoric was a bluff -- he is
representative of faction of the US elite that is hell bent on maintaining the imperial
superiority achieved after the collapse of the USSR, whatever it takes. At the expense of
common people as Pentagon budget can attest.
That also explains the appointment of Bolton and Pompeo. That are birds of the feather, not
some maniacs (although they are ;-) accidentally brought into Trump administration via major
donors pressure.
In this sense Russiagate was not only a color revolution launched to depose Trump by
neoliberal wing of Democratic Party and rogue, Obama-installed elements within intelligence
agencies (Brennan, Comey, McCabe, etc.) , but also part of the struggle between the faction of
the US elite that wants "muscular" policy of preservation of the empire (Trump supporters
faction so to speak) and the faction that still wants to kick the can down the road via
"classic neoliberalism" path (Clinton supporters faction so to speak.)
"Thus we see how the neoliberal utopia tends to embody itself in the reality of a kind of infernal machine, whose necessity imposes
itself even upon the rulers. Like the Marxism of an earlier time, with which, in this regard, it has much in common, this utopia
evokes powerful belief - the free trade faith - not only among those who live off it, such as financiers, the owners and managers
of large corporations, etc., but also among those, such as high-level government officials and politicians, who derive their justification
for existing from it.
For they sanctify the power of markets in the name of economic efficiency, which requires the elimination of administrative or
political barriers capable of inconveniencing the owners of capital in their individual quest for the maximisation of individual
profit, which has been turned into a model of rationality. They want independent central banks.
And they preach the subordination of nation-states to the requirements of economic freedom for the masters of the economy, with
the suppression of any regulation of any market, beginning with the labour market, the prohibition of deficits and inflation, the
general privatisation of public services, and the reduction of public and social expenses."
Neoliberalism is an amazing ideological construct: secular religion designed for the rich. The level of brainwashing of
population under neoliberalism probably exceeds achievable in a long run under Bolshevism and Nazism.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism's premise is that free markets can regulate themselves; that government is inherently incompetent, captive to special interests, and an intrusion on the efficiency of the market; that in distributive terms, market outcomes are basically deserved; and that redistribution creates perverse incentives by punishing the economy's winners and rewarding its losers. So government should get out of the market's way. ..."
"... By the 1990s, even moderate liberals had been converted to the belief that social objectives can be achieved by harnessing the power of markets. Intermittent periods of governance by Democratic presidents slowed but did not reverse the slide to neoliberal policy and doctrine. The corporate wing of the Democratic Party approved. ..."
"... Now, after nearly half a century, the verdict is in. Virtually every one of these policies has failed, even on their own terms. Enterprise has been richly rewarded, taxes have been cut, and regulation reduced or privatized. The economy is vastly more unequal, yet economic growth is slower and more chaotic than during the era of managed capitalism. Deregulation has produced not salutary competition, but market concentration. Economic power has resulted in feedback loops of political power, in which elites make rules that bolster further concentration. ..."
"... The grand neoliberal experiment of the past 40 years has demonstrated that markets in fact do not regulate themselves. Managed markets turn out to be more equitable and more efficient. Yet the theory and practical influence of neoliberalism marches splendidly on, because it is so useful to society's most powerful people -- as a scholarly veneer to what would otherwise be a raw power grab. The British political economist Colin Crouch captured this anomaly in a book nicely titled The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism . Why did neoliberalism not die? As Crouch observed, neoliberalism failed both as theory and as policy, but succeeded superbly as power politics for economic elites. ..."
"... As the great political historian Karl Polanyi warned, when markets overwhelm society, ordinary people often turn to tyrants. In regimes that border on neofascist, klepto-capitalists get along just fine with dictators, undermining the neoliberal premise of capitalism and democracy as complements. Several authoritarian thugs, playing on tribal nationalism as the antidote to capitalist cosmopolitanism, are surprisingly popular. ..."
"... The theory of maximizing shareholder value was deployed to undermine the entire range of financial regulation and workers' rights. Cost-benefit analysis, emphasizing costs and discounting benefits, was used to discredit a good deal of health, safety, and environmental regulation. Public choice theory, associated with the economist James Buchanan and an entire ensuing school of economics and political science, was used to impeach democracy itself, on the premise that policies were hopelessly afflicted by "rent-seekers" and "free-riders." ..."
"... Human capital theory, another variant of neoliberal application of markets to partly social questions, justified deregulating labor markets and crushing labor unions. Unions supposedly used their power to get workers paid more than their market worth. Likewise minimum wage laws. But the era of depressed wages has actually seen a decline in rates of productivity growth. Conversely, does any serious person think that the inflated pay of the financial moguls who crashed the economy accurately reflects their contribution to economic activity? In the case of hedge funds and private equity, the high incomes of fund sponsors are the result of transfers of wealth and income from employees, other stakeholders, and operating companies to the fund managers, not the fruits of more efficient management. ..."
"... Financial deregulation is neoliberalism's most palpable deregulatory failure, but far from the only one. Electricity deregulation on balance has increased monopoly power and raised costs to consumers, but has failed to offer meaningful "shopping around" opportunities to bring down prices. We have gone from regulated monopolies with predictable earnings, costs, wages, and consumer protections to deregulated monopolies or oligopolies with substantial pricing power. Since the Bell breakup, the telephone system tells a similar story of re-concentration, dwindling competition, price-gouging, and union-bashing. ..."
"... As regards clear language and definitions, I much prefer Michael Hudson's insistence that, to the liberal economists, free markets were markets free from rent seeking, while to the neoliberals free markets are free from government regulation. ..."
"... In a political system where the reputedly "labor" party would rather lose with their bribe-taking warmongering Goldwater girl than win with a people's advocate, Houston we have a problem. ..."
"... "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ..."
"... Neoliberalism gave liberals an excuse to sell out in the name of "fresh thinking." Meanwhile the vast working class had become discredited Archie Bunkers in the eyes of the intellectuals after Vietnam and the Civil Rights struggles. ..."
"... I'd add two other consequences of neoliberalism. One is the increasing alienation of citizens from the mechanism for provision of the basic necessities of life. ..."
"... As Phillip Mirowski patiently explains in Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, neoliberalism is not laissez faire. Neoliberal desire a strong government to implement their market based nirvana, as long as they control government. ..."
Since the late 1970s, we've had a grand experiment to test the claim that free markets
really do work best. This resurrection occurred despite the practical failure of laissez-faire
in the 1930s, the resulting humiliation of free-market theory, and the contrasting success of
managed capitalism during the three-decade postwar boom.
Yet when growth faltered in the 1970s, libertarian economic theory got another turn at bat.
This revival proved extremely convenient for the conservatives who came to power in the 1980s.
The neoliberal counterrevolution, in theory and policy, has reversed or undermined nearly every
aspect of managed capitalism -- from progressive taxation, welfare transfers, and antitrust, to
the empowerment of workers and the regulation of banks and other major industries.
Neoliberalism's premise is that free markets can regulate themselves; that government is
inherently incompetent, captive to special interests, and an intrusion on the efficiency of the
market; that in distributive terms, market outcomes are basically deserved; and that
redistribution creates perverse incentives by punishing the economy's winners and rewarding its
losers. So government should get out of the market's way.
By the 1990s, even moderate liberals had been converted to the belief that social objectives
can be achieved by harnessing the power of markets. Intermittent periods of governance by
Democratic presidents slowed but did not reverse the slide to neoliberal policy and doctrine.
The corporate wing of the Democratic Party approved.
Now, after nearly half a century, the verdict is in. Virtually every one of these policies
has failed, even on their own terms. Enterprise has been richly rewarded, taxes have been cut,
and regulation reduced or privatized. The economy is vastly more unequal, yet economic growth
is slower and more chaotic than during the era of managed capitalism. Deregulation has produced
not salutary competition, but market concentration. Economic power has resulted in feedback
loops of political power, in which elites make rules that bolster further concentration.
The culprit isn't just "markets" -- some impersonal force that somehow got loose again. This
is a story of power using theory. The mixed economy was undone by economic elites, who revised
rules for their own benefit. They invested heavily in friendly theorists to bless this shift as
sound and necessary economics, and friendly politicians to put those theories into
practice.
Recent years have seen two spectacular cases of market mispricing with devastating
consequences: the near-depression of 2008 and irreversible climate change. The economic
collapse of 2008 was the result of the deregulation of finance. It cost the real U.S. economy
upwards of $15 trillion (and vastly more globally), depending on how you count, far more than
any conceivable efficiency gain that might be credited to financial innovation. Free-market
theory presumes that innovation is necessarily benign. But much of the financial engineering of
the deregulatory era was self-serving, opaque, and corrupt -- the opposite of an efficient and
transparent market.
The existential threat of global climate change reflects the incompetence of markets to
accurately price carbon and the escalating costs of pollution. The British economist Nicholas
Stern has aptly termed the worsening climate catastrophe history's greatest case of market
failure. Here again, this is not just the result of failed theory. The entrenched political
power of extractive industries and their political allies influences the rules and the market
price of carbon. This is less an invisible hand than a thumb on the scale. The premise of
efficient markets provides useful cover.
The grand neoliberal experiment of the past 40 years has demonstrated that markets in fact
do not regulate themselves. Managed markets turn out to be more equitable and more
efficient. Yet the theory and practical influence of neoliberalism marches splendidly on,
because it is so useful to society's most powerful people -- as a scholarly veneer to what
would otherwise be a raw power grab. The British political economist Colin Crouch captured this
anomaly in a book nicely titled The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism . Why did
neoliberalism not die? As Crouch observed, neoliberalism failed both as theory and as policy,
but succeeded superbly as power politics for economic elites.
The neoliberal ascendance has had another calamitous cost -- to democratic legitimacy. As
government ceased to buffer market forces, daily life has become more of a struggle for
ordinary people. The elements of a decent middle-class life are elusive -- reliable jobs and
careers, adequate pensions, secure medical care, affordable housing, and college that doesn't
require a lifetime of debt. Meanwhile, life has become ever sweeter for economic elites, whose
income and wealth have pulled away and whose loyalty to place, neighbor, and nation has become
more contingent and less reliable.
Large numbers of people, in turn, have given up on the promise of affirmative government,
and on democracy itself. After the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, ours was widely billed as an
era when triumphant liberal capitalism would march hand in hand with liberal democracy. But in
a few brief decades, the ostensibly secure regime of liberal democracy has collapsed in nation
after nation, with echoes of the 1930s.
As the great political historian Karl Polanyi warned, when markets overwhelm society,
ordinary people often turn to tyrants. In regimes that border on neofascist, klepto-capitalists
get along just fine with dictators, undermining the neoliberal premise of capitalism and
democracy as complements. Several authoritarian thugs, playing on tribal nationalism as the
antidote to capitalist cosmopolitanism, are surprisingly popular.
It's also important to appreciate that neoliberalism is not laissez-faire. Classically, the
premise of a "free market" is that government simply gets out of the way. This is nonsensical,
since all markets are creatures of rules, most fundamentally rules defining property, but also
rules defining credit, debt, and bankruptcy; rules defining patents, trademarks, and
copyrights; rules defining terms of labor; and so on. Even deregulation requires rules. In
Polanyi's words, "laissez-faire was planned."
The political question is who gets to make the rules, and for whose benefit. The
neoliberalism of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman invoked free markets, but in practice the
neoliberal regime has promoted rules created by and for private owners of capital, to keep
democratic government from asserting rules of fair competition or countervailing social
interests. The regime has rules protecting pharmaceutical giants from the right of consumers to
import prescription drugs or to benefit from generics. The rules of competition and
intellectual property generally have been tilted to protect incumbents. Rules of bankruptcy
have been tilted in favor of creditors. Deceptive mortgages require elaborate rules, written by
the financial sector and then enforced by government. Patent rules have allowed agribusiness
and giant chemical companies like Monsanto to take over much of agriculture -- the opposite of
open markets. Industry has invented rules requiring employees and consumers to submit to
binding arbitration and to relinquish a range of statutory and common-law rights.
Neoliberalism as Theory, Policy, and Power
It's worth taking a moment to unpack the term "neoliberalism." The coinage can be confusing
to American ears because the "liberal" part refers not to the word's ordinary American usage,
meaning moderately left-of-center, but to classical economic liberalism otherwise known as
free-market economics. The "neo" part refers to the reassertion of the claim that the
laissez-faire model of the economy was basically correct after all.
Few proponents of these views embraced the term neoliberal . Mostly, they called
themselves free-market conservatives. "Neoliberal" was a coinage used mainly by their critics,
sometimes as a neutral descriptive term, sometimes as an epithet. The use became widespread in
the era of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
To add to the confusion, a different and partly overlapping usage was advanced in the 1970s
by the group around the Washington Monthly magazine. They used "neoliberal" to mean a
new, less statist form of American liberalism. Around the same time, the term
neoconservative was used as a self-description by former liberals who embraced
conservatism, on cultural, racial, economic, and foreign-policy grounds. Neoconservatives were
neoliberals in economics.
Beginning in the 1970s, resurrected free-market theory was interwoven with both conservative
politics and significant investments in the production of theorists and policy intellectuals.
This occurred not just in well-known conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise
Institute, Heritage, Cato, and the Manhattan Institute, but through more insidious investments
in academia. Lavishly funded centers and tenured chairs were underwritten by the Olin, Scaife,
Bradley, and other far-right foundations to promote such variants of free-market theory as law
and economics, public choice, rational choice, cost-benefit analysis,
maximize-shareholder-value, and kindred schools of thought. These theories colonized several
academic disciplines. All were variations on the claim that markets worked and that government
should get out of the way.
Each of these bodies of sub-theory relied upon its own variant of neoliberal ideology. An
intensified version of the theory of comparative advantage was used not just to cut tariffs but
to use globalization as all-purpose deregulation. The theory of maximizing shareholder value
was deployed to undermine the entire range of financial regulation and workers' rights.
Cost-benefit analysis, emphasizing costs and discounting benefits, was used to discredit a good
deal of health, safety, and environmental regulation. Public choice theory, associated with the
economist James Buchanan and an entire ensuing school of economics and political science, was
used to impeach democracy itself, on the premise that policies were hopelessly afflicted by
"rent-seekers" and "free-riders."
Market failure was dismissed as a rare special case; government failure was said to be
ubiquitous. Theorists worked hand in glove with lobbyists and with public officials. But in
every major case where neoliberal theory generated policy, the result was political success and
economic failure.
For example, supply-side economics became the justification for tax cuts, on the premise
that taxes punished enterprise. Supposedly, if taxes were cut, especially taxes on capital and
on income from capital, the resulting spur to economic activity would be so potent that
deficits would be far less than predicted by "static" economic projections, and perhaps even
pay for themselves. There have been six rounds of this experiment, from the tax cuts sponsored
by Jimmy Carter in 1978 to the immense 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed by Donald Trump. In
every case some economic stimulus did result, mainly from the Keynesian jolt to demand, but in
every case deficits increased significantly. Conservatives simply stopped caring about
deficits. The tax cuts were often inefficient as well as inequitable, since the loopholes
steered investment to tax-favored uses rather than the most economically logical ones. Dozens
of America's most profitable corporations paid no taxes.
Robert Bork's "antitrust paradox," holding that antitrust enforcement actually weakened
competition, was used as the doctrine to sideline the Sherman and Clayton Acts. Supposedly, if
government just got out of the way, market forces would remain more competitive because
monopoly pricing would invite innovation and new entrants to the market. In practice, industry
after industry became more heavily concentrated. Incumbents got in the habit of buying out
innovators or using their market power to crush them. This pattern is especially insidious in
the tech economy of platform monopolies, where giants that provide platforms, such as Google
and Amazon, use their market power and superior access to customer data to out-compete rivals
who use their platforms. Markets, once again, require rules beyond the benign competence of the
market actors themselves. Only democratic government can set equitable rules. And when
democracy falters, undemocratic governments in cahoots with corrupt private plutocrats will
make the rules.
Human capital theory, another variant of neoliberal application of markets to partly social
questions, justified deregulating labor markets and crushing labor unions. Unions supposedly
used their power to get workers paid more than their market worth. Likewise minimum wage laws.
But the era of depressed wages has actually seen a decline in rates of productivity growth.
Conversely, does any serious person think that the inflated pay of the financial moguls who
crashed the economy accurately reflects their contribution to economic activity? In the case of
hedge funds and private equity, the high incomes of fund sponsors are the result of transfers
of wealth and income from employees, other stakeholders, and operating companies to the fund
managers, not the fruits of more efficient management.
There is a broad literature discrediting this body of pseudo-scholarly work in great detail.
Much of neoliberalism represents the ever-reliable victory of assumption over evidence. Yet
neoliberal theory lived on because it was so convenient for elites, and because of the inertial
power of the intellectual capital that had been created. The well-funded neoliberal habitat has
provided comfortable careers for two generations of scholars and pseudo-scholars who migrate
between academia, think tanks, K Street, op-ed pages, government, Wall Street, and back again.
So even if the theory has been demolished both by scholarly rebuttal and by events, it thrives
in powerful institutions and among their political allies.
The Practical Failure of Neoliberal Policies
Financial deregulation is neoliberalism's most palpable deregulatory failure, but far from
the only one. Electricity deregulation on balance has increased monopoly power and raised costs
to consumers, but has failed to offer meaningful "shopping around" opportunities to bring down
prices. We have gone from regulated monopolies with predictable earnings, costs, wages, and
consumer protections to deregulated monopolies or oligopolies with substantial pricing power.
Since the Bell breakup, the telephone system tells a similar story of re-concentration,
dwindling competition, price-gouging, and union-bashing.
Air travel has been a poster child for advocates of deregulation, but the actual record is
mixed at best. Airline deregulation produced serial bankruptcies of every major U.S. airline,
often at the cost of worker pay and pension funds. Ticket prices have declined on average over
the past two decades, but the traveling public suffers from a crazy quilt of fares, declining
service, shrinking seats and legroom, and exorbitant penalties for the perfectly normal sin of
having to change plans. Studies have shown that fares actually declined at a faster rate in the
20 years before deregulation in 1978 than in the 20 years afterward, because the prime source
of greater efficiency in airline travel is the introduction of more fuel-efficient planes. The
roller-coaster experience of airline profits and losses has reduced the capacity of airlines to
purchase more fuel-efficient aircraft, and the average age of the fleet keeps increasing. The
use of "fortress hubs" to defend market pricing power has reduced the percentage of nonstop
flights, the most efficient way to fly from one point to another.
In addition to deregulation, three prime areas of practical neoliberal policies are the use
of vouchers as "market-like" means to social goals, the privatization of public services, and
the use of tax subsides rather than direct outlays. In every case, government revenues are
involved, so this is far from a free market to begin with. But the premise is that market
disciplines can achieve public purposes more efficiently than direct public provision.
The evidence provides small comfort for these claims. One core problem is that the programs
invariably give too much to the for-profit middlemen at the expense of the intended
beneficiaries. A related problem is that the process of using vouchers and contracts invites
corruption. It is a different form of "rent-seeking" -- pursuit of monopoly profits -- than
that attributed to government by public choice theorists, but corruption nonetheless. Often,
direct public provision is far more transparent and accountable than a web of contractors.
A further problem is that in practice there is often far less competition than imagined,
because of oligopoly power, vendor lock-in, and vendor political influence. These experiments
in marketization to serve social goals do not operate in some Platonic policy laboratory, where
the only objective is true market efficiency yoked to the public good. They operate in the
grubby world of practical politics, where the vendors are closely allied with conservative
politicians whose purposes may be to discredit social transfers entirely, or to reward
corporate allies, or to benefit from kickbacks either directly or as campaign
contributions.
Privatized prisons are a case in point. A few large, scandal-ridden companies have gotten
most of the contracts, often through political influence. Far from bringing better quality and
management efficiency, they have profited by diverting operating funds and worsening conditions
that were already deplorable, and finding new ways to charge inmates higher fees for necessary
services such as phone calls. To the extent that money was actually saved, most of the savings
came from reducing the pay and professionalism of guards, increasing overcrowding, and
decreasing already inadequate budgets for food and medical care.
A similar example is the privatization of transportation services such as highways and even
parking meters. In several Midwestern states, toll roads have been sold to private vendors. The
governor who makes the deal gains a temporary fiscal windfall, while drivers end up paying
higher tolls often for decades. Investment bankers who broker the deal also take their cut.
Some of the money does go into highway improvements, but that could have been done more
efficiently in the traditional way via direct public ownership and competitive bidding.
Housing vouchers substantially reward landlords who use the vouchers to fill empty houses
with poor people until the neighborhood gentrifies, at which point the owner is free to quit
the program and charge market rentals. Thus public funds are used to underwrite a privately
owned, quasi-social housing sector -- whose social character is only temporary. No permanent
social housing is produced despite the extensive public outlay. The companion use of tax
incentives to attract passive investment in affordable housing promotes economically
inefficient tax shelters, and shunts public funds into the pockets of the investors -- money
that might otherwise have gone directly to the housing.
The Affordable Care Act is a form of voucher. But the regulated private insurance markets in
the ACA have not fully lived up to their promise, in part because of the extensive market power
retained by private insurers and in part because the right has relentlessly sought to sabotage
the program -- another political feedback loop. The sponsors assumed that competition would
lower costs and increase consumer choice. But in too many counties, there are three or fewer
competing plans, and in some cases just one.
As more insurance plans and hospital systems become for-profit, massive investment goes into
such wasteful activities as manipulation of billing, "risk selection," and other gaming of the
rules. Our mixed-market system of health care requires massive regulation to work with
tolerable efficiency. In practice, this degenerates into an infinite regress of regulator
versus commercial profit-maximizer, reminiscent of Mad magazine's "Spy versus Spy," with
the industry doing end runs to Congress to further rig the rules. Straight-ahead public
insurance such as Medicare is generally far more efficient.
An extensive literature has demonstrated that for-profit voucher schools do no better and
often do worse than comparable public schools, and are vulnerable to multiple forms of gaming
and corruption. Proprietors of voucher schools are superb at finding ways of excluding costly
special-needs students, so that those costs are imposed on what remains of public schools; they
excel at gaming test results. While some voucher and charter schools, especially nonprofit
ones, sometimes improve on average school performance, so do many public schools. The record is
also muddied by the fact that many ostensibly nonprofit schools contract out management to
for-profit companies.
Tax preferences have long been used ostensibly to serve social goals. The Earned Income Tax
Credit is considered one of the more successful cases of using market-like measures -- in this
case a refundable tax credit -- to achieve the social goal of increasing worker take-home pay.
It has also been touted as the rare case of bipartisan collaboration. Liberals get more money
for workers. Conservatives get to reward the deserving poor, since the EITC is conditioned on
employment. Conservatives get a further ideological win, since the EITC is effectively a wage
subsidy from the government, but is experienced as a tax refund rather than a benefit of
government.
Recent research, however, shows that the EITC is primarily a subsidy of low-wage employers,
who are able to pay their workers a lot less than a market-clearing wage. In industries such as
nursing homes or warehouses, where many workers qualified for the EITC work side by side with
ones not eligible, the non-EITC workers get substandard wages. The existence of the EITC
depresses the level of the wages that have to come out of the employer's pocket.
Neoliberalism's Influence on Liberals
As free-market theory resurged, many moderate liberals embraced these policies. In the
inflationary 1970s, regulation became a scapegoat that supposedly deterred salutary price
competition. Some, such as economist Alfred Kahn, President Carter's adviser on deregulation,
supported deregulation on what he saw as the merits. Other moderates supported neoliberal
policies opportunistically, to curry favor with powerful industries and donors. Market-like
policies were also embraced by liberals as a tactical way to find common ground with
conservatives.
Several forms of deregulation -- of airlines, trucking, and electric power -- began not
under Reagan but under Carter. Financial deregulation took off under Bill Clinton. Democratic
presidents, as much as Republicans, promoted trade deals that undermined social standards.
Cost-benefit analysis by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) was more of a
choke point under Barack Obama than under George W. Bush.
"Command and control" became an all-purpose pejorative for disparaging perfectly sensible
and efficient regulation. "Market-like" became a fashionable concept, not just on the
free-market right but on the moderate left. Cass Sunstein, who served as Obama's
anti-regulation czar,uses the example of "nudges" as a more market-like and hence superior
alternative to direct regulation, though with rare exceptions their impact is trivial.
Moreover, nudges only work in tandem with regulation.
There are indeed some interventionist policies that use market incentives to serve social
goals. But contrary to free-market theory, the market-like incentives first require substantial
regulation and are not a substitute for it. A good example is the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990, which used tradable emission rights to cut the output of sulfur dioxide, the cause of
acid rain. This was supported by both the George H.W. Bush administration and by leading
Democrats. But before the trading regime could work, Congress first had to establish
permissible ceilings on sulfur dioxide output -- pure command and control.
There are many other instances, such as nutrition labeling, truth-in-lending, and disclosure
of EPA gas mileage results, where the market-like premise of a better-informed consumer
complements command regulation but is no substitute for it. Nearly all of the increase in fuel
efficiency, for example, is the result of command regulations that require auto fleets to hit a
gas mileage target. The fact that EPA gas mileage figures are prominently disclosed on new car
stickers may have modest influence, but motor fuels are so underpriced that car companies have
success selling gas-guzzlers despite the consumer labeling.
Politically, whatever rationale there was for liberals to make common ground with
libertarians is now largely gone. The authors of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act made no attempt
to meet Democrats partway; they excluded the opposition from the legislative process entirely.
This was opportunistic tax cutting for elites, pure and simple. The right today also abandoned
the quest for a middle ground on environmental policy, on anti-poverty policy, on health policy
-- on virtually everything. Neoliberal ideology did its historic job of weakening intellectual
and popular support for the proposition that affirmative government can better the lives of
citizens and that the Democratic Party is a reliable steward of that social compact. Since
Reagan, the right's embrace of the free market has evolved from partly principled idealism into
pure opportunism and obstruction.
Neoliberalism and Hyper-Globalism
The post-1990 rules of globalization, supported by conservatives and moderate liberals
alike, are the quintessence of neoliberalism. At Bretton Woods in 1944, the use of fixed
exchange rates and controls on speculative private capital, plus the creation of the IMFand
World Bank, were intended to allow member countries to practice national forms of managed
capitalism, insulated from the destructive and deflationary influences of short-term
speculative private capital flows. As doctrine and power shifted in the 1970s, the IMF, the
World Bank, and later the WTO, which replaced the old GATT, mutated into their ideological
opposite. Rather than instruments of support for mixed national economies, they became
enforcers of neoliberal policies.
The standard package of the "Washington Consensus" of approved policies for developing
nations included demands that they open their capital markets to speculative private finance,
as well as cutting taxes on capital, weakening social transfers, and gutting labor regulation
and public ownership. But private capital investment in poor countries proved to be fickle. The
result was often excessive inflows during the boom part of the cycle and punitive withdrawals
during the bust -- the opposite of the patient, long-term development capital that these
countries needed and that was provided by the World Bank of an earlier era. During the bust
phase, the IMFtypically imposes even more stringent neoliberal demands as the price of
financial bailouts, including perverse budgetary austerity, supposedly to restore the
confidence of the very speculative capital markets responsible for the boom-bust cycle.
Dozens of nations, from Latin America to East Asia, went through this cycle of boom, bust,
and then IMF pile-on. Greece is still suffering the impact. After 1990, hyper-globalism also
included trade treaties whose terms favored multinational corporations. Traditionally, trade
agreements had been mainly about reciprocal reductions of tariffs. Nations were free to have
whatever brand of regulation, public investment, or social policies they chose. With the advent
of the WTO, many policies other than tariffs were branded as trade distorting, even as takings
without compensation. Trade deals were used to give foreign capital free access and to
dismantle national regulation and public ownership. Special courts were created in which
foreign corporations and investors could do end runs around national authorities to challenge
regulation for impeding commerce.
At first, the sponsors of the new trade regime tried to claim the successful economies of
East Asia as evidence of the success of the neoliberal recipe. Supposedly, these nations had
succeeded by pursuing "export-led growth," exposing their domestic economies to salutary
competition. But these claims were soon exposed as the opposite of what had actually occurred.
In fact, Japan, South Korea, smaller Asian nations, and above all China had thrived by
rejecting every major tenet of neoliberalism. Their capital markets were tightly regulated and
insulated from foreign speculative capital. They developed world-class industries as state-led
cartels that favored domestic production and supply. East Asia got into trouble only when it
followed IMFdictates to throw open capital markets, and in the aftermath they recovered by
closing those markets and assembling war chests of hard currency so that they'd never again
have to go begging to the IMF. Enthusiasts of hyper-globalization also claimed that it
benefited poor countries by increasing export opportunities, but as the success of East Asia
shows, there is more than one way to boost exports -- and many poorer countries suffered under
the terms of the global neoliberal regime.
Nor was the damage confined to the developing world. As the work of Harvard economist Dani
Rodrik has demonstrated, democracy requires a polity. For better or for worse, the polity and
democratic citizenship are national. By enhancing the global market at the expense of the
democratic state, the current brand of hyper-globalization deliberately weakens the capacity of
states to regulate markets, and weakens democracy itself.
When Do Markets Work?
The failure of neoliberalism as economic and social policy does not mean that markets never
work. A command economy is even more utopian and perverse than a neoliberal one. The practical
quest is for an efficient and equitable middle ground.
The neoliberal story of how the economy operates assumes a largely frictionless marketplace,
where prices are set by supply and demand, and the price mechanism allocates resources to their
optimal use in the economy as a whole. For this discipline to work as advertised, however,
there can be no market power, competition must be plentiful, sellers and buyers must have
roughly equal information, and there can be no significant externalities. Much of the 20th
century was practical proof that these conditions did not describe a good part of the actual
economy. And if markets priced things wrong, the market system did not aggregate to an
efficient equilibrium, and depressions could become self-deepening. As Keynes demonstrated,
only a massive jolt of government spending could restart the engines, even if market pricing
was partly violated in the process.
Nonetheless, in many sectors of the economy, the process of buying and selling is close
enough to the textbook conditions of perfect competition that the price system works tolerably
well. Supermarkets, for instance, deliver roughly accurate prices because of the consumer's
freedom and knowledge to shop around. Likewise much of retailing. However, when we get into
major realms of the economy with positive or negative externalities, such as education and
health, markets are not sufficient. And in other major realms, such as pharmaceuticals, where
corporations use their political power to rig the terms of patents, the market doesn't produce
a cure.
The basic argument of neoliberalism can fit on a bumper sticker. Markets work;
governments don't . If you want to embellish that story, there are two corollaries: Markets
embody human freedom. And with markets, people basically get what they deserve; to alter market
outcomes is to spoil the poor and punish the productive. That conclusion logically flows from
the premise that markets are efficient. Milton Friedman became rich, famous, and influential by
teasing out the several implications of these simple premises.
It is much harder to articulate the case for a mixed economy than the case for free markets,
precisely because the mixed economy is mixed. The rebuttal takes several paragraphs. The more
complex story holds that markets are substantially efficient in some realms but far from
efficient in others, because of positive and negative externalities, the tendency of financial
markets to create cycles of boom and bust, the intersection of self-interest and corruption,
the asymmetry of information between company and consumer, the asymmetry of power between
corporation and employee, the power of the powerful to rig the rules, and the fact that there
are realms of human life (the right to vote, human liberty, security of one's person) that
should not be marketized.
And if markets are not perfectly efficient, then distributive questions are partly political
choices. Some societies pay pre-K teachers the minimum wage as glorified babysitters. Others
educate and compensate them as professionals. There is no "correct" market-derived wage,
because pre-kindergarten is a social good and the issue of how to train and compensate teachers
is a social choice, not a market choice. The same is true of the other human services,
including medicine. Nor is there a theoretically correct set of rules for patents, trademarks,
and copyrights. These are politically derived, either balancing the interests of innovation
with those of diffusion -- or being politically captured by incumbent industries.
Governments can in principle improve on market outcomes via regulation, but that fact is
complicated by the risk of regulatory capture. So another issue that arises is market failure
versus polity failure, which brings us back to the urgency of strong democracy and effective
government.
After Neoliberalism
The political reversal of neoliberalism can only come through practical politics and
policies that demonstrate how government often can serve citizens more equitably and
efficiently than markets. Revision of theory will take care of itself. There is no shortage of
dissenting theorists and empirical policy researchers whose scholarly work has been vindicated
by events. What they need is not more theory but more influence, both in the academy and in the
corridors of power. They are available to advise a new progressive administration, if
that administration can get elected and if it refrains from hiring neoliberal
advisers.
There are also some relatively new areas that invite policy innovation. These include
regulation of privacy rights versus entrepreneurial liberties in the digital realm; how to
think of the internet as a common carrier; how to update competition and antitrust policy as
platform monopolies exert new forms of market power; how to modernize labor-market policy in
the era of the gig economy; and the role of deeper income supplements as machines replace human
workers.
The failed neoliberal experiment also makes the case not just for better-regulated
capitalism but for direct public alternatives as well. Banking, done properly, especially the
provision of mortgage finance, is close to a public utility. Much of it could be public. A
great deal of research is done more honestly and more cost-effectively in public, peer-reviewed
institutions such as the NIHthan by a substantially corrupt private pharmaceutical industry.
Social housing often is more cost-effective than so-called public-private partnerships. Public
power is more efficient to generate, less prone to monopolistic price-gouging, and friendlier
to the needed green transition than private power. The public option in health care is far more
efficient than the current crazy quilt in which each layer of complexity adds opacity and cost.
Public provision does require public oversight, but that is more straightforward and
transparent than the byzantine dance of regulation and counter-regulation.
The two other benefits of direct public provision are that the public gets direct evidence
of government delivering something of value, and that the countervailing power of democracy to
harness markets is enhanced. A mixed economy depends above all on a strong democracy -- one
even stronger than the democracy that succumbed to the corrupting influence of economic elites
and their neoliberal intellectual allies beginning half a century ago. The antidote to the
resurrected neoliberal fable is the resurrection of democracy -- strong enough to tame the
market in a way that tames it for keeps.
Excellent article and very much appreciated so I can share with confused Liberal friends
(mostly older) who think that they are now, somehow, Neoliberal. As far as market failure is
concerned: I think Boeing is an incredible case in point. When one of the nation's flagship
enterprises captures regulatory processes so completely that it produces a product that
cannot accomplish its one aim: to fly. Btw: I am seeing a lot of use of the "populist" to
describe what might be more correctly described as nativist, xenophobic, anti-democratic,
authoritarian, or even outright fascist leaders. Keep the language clear and insist on
precise definitions.
Excellent article, I agree. As regards clear language and definitions, I much prefer Michael Hudson's insistence that, to
the liberal economists, free markets were markets free from rent seeking, while to the
neoliberals free markets are free from government regulation.
"As governments were democratized, especially in the United States, liberals came to endorse
a policy of active public welfare spending and hence government intervention, especially on
behalf of the poor and disadvantaged. neoliberalism sought to restore the centralized
aristocratic and oligarchic rentier control of domestic politics."
"The economic collapse of 2008 was the result of the deregulation of finance. It cost the
real U.S. economy upwards of $15 trillion (and vastly more globally), depending on how you
count, far more than any conceivable efficiency gain that might be credited to financial
innovation ."
That High Priest of neo-Liberalism Alan Greenspan once said,
"The only thing useful banks have invented in 20 years is the ATM "
Hard to see how the federal government can be gotten back from the cartels at this point-
the whole thing is so corrupt. And the "socialism is bad" mantra has captured a lot of easily
led brains.
In a political system where the reputedly "labor" party would rather lose with their
bribe-taking warmongering Goldwater girl than win with a people's advocate, Houston we have a
problem.
As with anthropogenic climate change, the cause is systemic- the political system is based
on money control and the economic system is based on unsustainable energy use. Absent a
crash, crisis, systematic chaos and destruction I don't see much changing other than at the
margins- the corruption is too entrenched.
The following is a portion of an op-ed piece that appeared in the New
York Times On April 4, 1944 . It was written by Henry Wallace, FDR's vice president;
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power
ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United
States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include
only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most
American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. They are doing this even
in those cases where they hope to have profitable connections with German chemical firms
after the war ends. They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be
so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead.
American fascism will not be really dangerous until there is a purposeful coalition
among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information, and those who stand
for the K.K.K. type of demagoguery.
The European brand of fascism will probably present its most serious postwar threat to
us via Latin America. The effect of the war has been to raise the cost of living in most
Latin American countries much faster than the wages of labor. The fascists in most Latin
American countries tell the people that the reason their wages will not buy as much in the
way of goods is because of Yankee imperialism. The fascists in Latin America learn to speak
and act like natives. Our chemical and other manufacturing concerns are all too often ready
to let the Germans have Latin American markets, provided the American companies can work
out an arrangement which will enable them to charge high prices to the consumer inside the
United States. Following this war, technology will have reached such a point that it will
be possible for Germans, using South America as a base, to cause us much more difficulty in
World War III than they did in World War II. The military and landowning cliques in many
South American countries will find it attractive financially to work with German fascist
concerns as well as expedient from the standpoint of temporary power politics.
Fascism is a worldwide disease. Its greatest threat to the United States will come after
the war, either via Latin America or within the United States itself.
The full text is quite useful in understanding that there is no question as to how and why
we find ourselves in the present predicament, it is the logical outcome of a process that was
well understood during FDR's tenure.
That understanding has since been deliberately eradicated by the powerful interests that
control our media.
There was a lot of wisdom put forth during and shortly after WWII in both politics (see
above) and economics.
For example, there was a Treasury official, whose name I can't remember right now, who
understood that the Federal government has no real need to collect taxes. And, Keynesianism
prevailed until Milton Friedman and the Chicago School came along and turned everything
upside down with Monetarism.
"absent a crash " I reckon "unsustainable" is an important word to remember. None of it is sustainable all those spinning plates and balls in the air .and the grasshopper
god demands that they keep adding more and more plates and balls.
All based on a bunch of purposefully unexamined assumptions.
Or Edward Abbey: "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
I did an A-level (UK exam for 18 year olds) in economics years ago, and despite passing with
an A, I not only couldn't understand this underlying assumption of continued exponential
growth forever, I also couldn't understand why anyone couldn't understand its obvious
absurdity.
Sustainability was a bit of a new word in those days, but when I discovered it, it summed up
my problems with (over-) developed economies.
To add to the confusion, a different and partly overlapping usage was advanced in the
1970s by the group around the Washington Monthly magazine. They used "neoliberal" to mean a
new, less statist form of American liberalism. Around the same time, the term
neoconservative was used as a self-description by former liberals who embraced
conservatism, on cultural, racial, economic, and foreign-policy grounds. Neoconservatives
were neoliberals in economics.
This commenter has been scolded in the past for invoking Charlie Peters and the Washington
Monthly rather than Friedman, Hayek etc. But what Peters' highly influential magazine (and
the transformed New Republic that followed) did was to bring the Democrats into the
neoliberal fold and that may be the real reason it's a beast that can't be killed.
Neoliberalism gave liberals an excuse to sell out in the name of "fresh thinking." Meanwhile
the vast working class had become discredited Archie Bunkers in the eyes of the intellectuals
after Vietnam and the Civil Rights struggles.
It's possible that what really changed the
country was the rise of that middle class that Kuttner now mourns. Suggesting that it was all
the result of a rightwing plan is too easy although that was certainly part of it.
I'd add two other consequences of neoliberalism. One is the increasing alienation of
citizens from the mechanism for provision of the basic necessities of life. Before the 1980s,
for example, water, gas, electricity etc. were provided by publicly-owned utilities with
local offices, recognisable local and national structures, and responsible to an elected
Minister.
If you had a serious problem, then in the final analysis you could write a letter
to your MP, who would take it up with the Minister. Now, you are no longer a citizen but a
consumer, and your utilities are provided by some weird private sector thing, owned by
another company, owned by some third company, frequently based abroad, and with its customer
services outsourced to yet another company which could be anywhere in the world all. All this
involves significant transaction costs for individuals, who are expected to conduct
sophisticated cost-effectiveness comparisons between providers, when in fact they just want
to turn on the tap and have water come out.
The other is that government (and hence the citizen) loses any capacity for strategic
planning. Most nationalized industries in Britain were either created because the private
sector wasn't interested, or picked up when the private sector went bankrupt (the railways
for example). But without ownership, the capacity to decide what you want and get it is much
reduced. You can see that with the example of the Minitel – a proto-internet system
given away free by the French government through the state-owned France Telecom in the early
1980s, and years ahead of anything else. You literally couldn't do anything similar now.
Taking Michael Hudson's work into account, there is a much deeper and older dynamic at
work, of which neoliberalism is just the latest itineration.
A possible explanation goes to the nature of money.
As the accounting device that enables mass societies to function, it amounts to a contract
between the individual and the community, with one side an asset and the other a debt. Yet as
we experience it as quantified hope, we try to save and store it.
Consequently, in order to store the asset, similar amounts of debt have to be created.
Which results in a centripedial effect, as positive feedback draws the asset side to the
center of the social construct, while negative feedback pushes the debt to the edges. It
could be argued this dynamic is the basis of economic hierarchy, not just a consequence.
Yet money and finance function as the economic blood and arteries, circulating value around
the entire community, so the effect of this dynamic is like the heart telling the hands and
feet they don't need so much blood and should work harder for what they do get.
Basically we have to accept that while money is an effective medium of exchange, it is not a
productive store of value. We wouldn't confuse blood with fat, or roads with parking lots, so
it should be possible to learn to store value in tangibles, like the strong communities and
healthy environments that will give us the safety and security we presumably save money
for.
As a medium, we own money like we own the section of road we are using, or the fluids passing
through our bodies.
Let the neoliberals chew on that.
Yet money and finance function as the economic blood and arteries, circulating value
around the entire community, so the effect of this dynamic is like the heart telling the
hands and feet they don't need so much blood and should work harder for what they do
get.
Thanks.
Political persuasion is about keeping it simple.
How about; Government was once private. It was called monarchy. Do we want to go back there,
or do we need to better understand the balance between public and private? Even houses have
spaces that are public and spaces that are private.
This is, indeed, an excellent historical overview, evoking some of Kuttner's best writing
over the decades. I would recommend it with no hesitation.
On the other hand, Kuttner's American Prospect has also provided cover for some damaging
faux-progressive enablers of neoliberalism over those decades (IMHO). A puzzlement.
I must remind everyone that Bob Kuttner is no longer what he used to be. Bob Kuttner was
against progressive Dem candidates like Bernie in 2016, and was in bed with THE neoliberal
candidate ..With the passage of time, Kuttner has evolved into a partisan for the sake of
partisanship, instead of being principled.
after reading your comment I went through the post again and found these suspicious
points
"The failure of neoliberalism as economic and social policy does not mean that markets
never work. A command economy is even more utopian and perverse than a neoliberal one. The
practical quest is for an efficient and equitable middle ground. "
so, get in front of the riot and call it a parade? Maybe a little bit.
Also
"Nonetheless, in many sectors of the economy, the process of buying and selling is close
enough to the textbook conditions of perfect competition that the price system works
tolerably well. Supermarkets, for instance, deliver roughly accurate prices because of the
consumer's freedom and knowledge to shop around. Likewise much of retailing . However, when
we get into major realms of the economy with positive or negative externalities, such as
education and health, markets are not sufficient. And in other major realms, such as
pharmaceuticals, where corporations use their political power to rig the terms of patents,
the market doesn't produce a cure."
Probably not working so well for the employees or the farm workers who get food on the
shelf
I guess maybe not practical to change that dynamic? That said, as history the post is as good
as anything else I've seen, and reads well, but maybe does need a grain of salt to make it
more palatable.
"Neoliberalism's premise is that free markets can regulate themselves; that government is
inherently incompetent, captive to special interests, and an intrusion on the efficiency of
the market; that in distributive terms, market outcomes are basically deserved; and that
redistribution creates perverse incentives by punishing the economy's winners and rewarding
its losers. So government should get out of the market's way."
In an otherwise good article the author makes a fundamental error. As Phillip Mirowski
patiently explains in Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, neoliberalism is not laissez
faire. Neoliberal desire a strong government to implement their market based nirvana, as long
as they control government.
"... Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways: ..."
"... i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power; ..."
"... (ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;" ..."
"... (iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders; ..."
"... iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly. ..."
"... It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us. ..."
"... The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts. ..."
"... By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background. ..."
"... When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end. ..."
"... This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry ..."
Mainstream Dems are performing their role very well. Most likely I am preaching to the choir. But anyways, here is a review
of Lance Selfa's book "Democrats: a critical history" by Paul Street :
Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have
been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways:
i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United
for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to
betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power;
(ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;"
(iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders;
iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its
business party duopoly.
The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic
party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public
dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts.
By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity"
and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction
of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing
the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background.
I have little faith in my fellow citizens as the majority are too brainwashed to see the danger of this political theatre.
Most ignore politics, while those that do show an interest exercise that effort mainly by supporting whatever faction they belong.
Larger issues and connections between current events remain a mystery to them as a result.
Military defeat seems the only means to break this cycle. Democrats, being the fake peaceniks that they are, will be more than
happy to defer to their more authoritarian Republican counterparts when dealing with issues concerning war and peace. Look no
further than Tulsi Gabbard's treatment in the party. The question is really should the country continue down this Imperialist
path.
In one sense, economic recession will be the least of our problems in the future. When this political theatre in the US
finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that
the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard
core imperialists who's time has reached its end.
This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.
Looks like the world order established after WWIII crumbed with the USSR and now it is again the law if jungles with the US as the
biggest predator.
Notable quotes:
"... The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet. ..."
"... Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure, dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence, not democracy ..."
"... A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism" (meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest. ..."
"... For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.) to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness. ..."
"... Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II. ..."
"... Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards. ..."
"... Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations' International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity." ..."
"... This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago, and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer. ..."
"... England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank." ..."
"... But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium. ..."
"... On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas, this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions attack on Europe ..."
"... The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above. In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945. ..."
"... By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food blackmail – sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands. ..."
"... It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably – witness the caravans and refugees across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either. ..."
"... But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3 billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid. ..."
"... It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. ..."
"... Anticipating just such a double-cross, President Chavez acted already in 2011 to repatriate 160 tons of gold to Caracas from the United States and Europe. ..."
"... It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence. ..."
"... Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs, but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and settle for being a dominant minority. ..."
"... Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change. ..."
"... Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms". Interesting times. ..."
"... Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. ..."
"... To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles. ..."
"... Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet again. Nothing to see here, actually. ..."
"... So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change. ..."
"... Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. ..."
"... I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. ..."
"... If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington neocons – as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be" to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing. ..."
"... In other words, after 2 World Wars that produced the current world order, it is still in a state of insanity with the same pretensions to superiority by the same people, to get number 3. ..."
"... Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble." ..."
"... He's draining the swamp in an unpredicted way, a swamp that's founded on the money interest. I don't care what NYT and WaPo have to say, they are not reporting events but promoting agendas. ..."
"... The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run. ..."
"... Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics" on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners. ..."
"... Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence. There will be fierce competition to fill the gap. ..."
"... On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top. I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect. ..."
"... Former US ambassador, Chas Freeman, gets to the nub of the problem. "The US preference for governance by elected and appointed officials, uncontaminated by experience in statecraft and diplomacy, or knowledge of geography, history and foreign affairs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_882041135&feature=iv&src_vid=Ge1ozuXN7iI&v=gkf2MQdqz-o ..."
"... Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT. ..."
"... The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy. ..."
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected, thanks to the very same Neocons
who gave the world the Iraq, Syria and the dirty wars in Latin America. Just as the Vietnam War drove the United States off gold
by 1971, its sponsorship and funding of violent regime change wars against Venezuela and Syria – and threatening other countries
with sanctions if they do not join this crusade – is now driving European and other nations to create their alternative financial
institutions.
This break has been building for quite some time, and was bound to occur. But who would have thought that Donald Trump would become
the catalytic agent? No left-wing party, no socialist, anarchist or foreign nationalist leader anywhere in the world could have achieved
what he is doing to break up the American Empire. The Deep State is reacting with shock at how this right-wing real estate grifter
has been able to drive other countries to defend themselves by dismantling the U.S.-centered world order. To rub it in, he is using
Bush and Reagan-era Neocon arsonists, John Bolton and now Elliott Abrams, to fan the flames in Venezuela. It is almost like a black
political comedy. The world of international diplomacy is being turned inside-out. A world where there is no longer even a pretense
that we might adhere to international norms, let alone laws or treaties.
The Neocons who Trump has appointed are accomplishing what seemed unthinkable not long ago: Driving China and Russia together
– the great nightmare of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They also are driving Germany and other European countries into
the Eurasian orbit, the "Heartland" nightmare of Halford Mackinder a century ago.
The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution
of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported
even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States
is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet.
Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign
policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure,
dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank
to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence,
not democracy.
In the Devil's Dictionary that U.S. diplomats are taught to use as their "Elements of Style" guidelines for Doublethink, a "democratic"
country is one that follows U.S. leadership and opens its economy to U.S. investment, and IMF- and World Bank-sponsored privatization.
The Ukraine is deemed democratic, along with Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries that act as U.S. financial and military protectorates
and are willing to treat America's enemies are theirs too.
A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public
relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism"
(meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest.
This trajectory could be seen 50 years ago (I described it in Super Imperialism [1972] and Global Fracture [1978].) It had to
happen. But nobody thought that the end would come in quite the way that is happening. History has turned into comedy, or at least
irony as its dialectical path unfolds.
For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that
opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties
that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.)
to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners
and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness.
The reality is that right-wing parties want to get elected, and a populist nationalism is today's road to election victory in
Europe and other countries just as it was for Donald Trump in 2016.
Trump's agenda may really be to break up the American Empire, using the old Uncle Sucker isolationist rhetoric of half a century
ago. He certainly is going for the Empire's most vital organs. But it he a witting anti-American agent? He might as well be – but
it would be a false mental leap to use "quo bono" to assume that he is a witting agent.
After all, if no U.S. contractor, supplier, labor union or bank will deal with him, would Vladimir Putin, China or Iran be any
more naïve? Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible
to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal
to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II.
Dismantling International Law and Its Courts
Any international system of control requires the rule of law. It may be a morally lawless exercise of ruthless power imposing
predatory exploitation, but it is still The Law. And it needs courts to apply it (backed by police power to enforce it and punish
violators).
Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country
have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy
years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which
let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards.
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their equity
share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy. Without such power, the United States would not join
any international organization. Yet at the same time, it depicted its nationalism as protecting globalization and internationalism.
It was all a euphemism for what really was unilateral U.S. decision-making.
Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international
court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations'
International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture
policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable
basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity."
[1]
Donald Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton erupted in fury, warning in September that: "The United States will use any
means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," adding that
the UN International Court must not be so bold as to investigate "Israel or other U.S. allies."
That prompted a senior judge, Christoph Flügge from Germany, to resign in protest. Indeed, Bolton told the court to keep out of
any affairs involving the United States, promising to ban the Court's "judges and prosecutors from entering the United States." As
Bolton spelled out the U.S. threat: "We will sanction their funds in the U.S. financial system, and we will prosecute them in the
U.S. criminal system. We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We
will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us."
What this meant, the German judge spelled out was that: "If these judges ever interfere in the domestic concerns of the U.S. or
investigate an American citizen, [Bolton] said the American government would do all it could to ensure that these judges would no
longer be allowed to travel to the United States – and that they would perhaps even be criminally prosecuted."
The original inspiration of the Court – to use the Nuremburg laws that were applied against German Nazis to bring similar prosecution
against any country or officials found guilty of committing war crimes – had already fallen into disuse with the failure to indict
the authors of the Chilean coup, Iran-Contra or the U.S. invasion of Iraq for war crimes.
Dismantling Dollar Hegemony from the IMF to SWIFT
Of all areas of global power politics today, international finance and foreign investment have become the key flashpoint. International
monetary reserves were supposed to be the most sacrosanct, and international debt enforcement closely associated.
Central banks have long held their gold and other monetary reserves in the United States and London. Back in 1945 this seemed
reasonable, because the New York Federal Reserve Bank (in whose basement foreign central bank gold was kept) was militarily safe,
and because the London Gold Pool was the vehicle by which the U.S. Treasury kept the dollar "as good as gold" at $35 an ounce. Foreign
reserves over and above gold were kept in the form of U.S. Treasury securities, to be bought and sold on the New York and London
foreign-exchange markets to stabilize exchange rates. Most foreign loans to governments were denominated in U.S. dollars, so Wall
Street banks were normally name as paying agents.
That was the case with Iran under the Shah, whom the United States had installed after sponsoring the 1953 coup against Mohammed
Mosaddegh when he sought to nationalize Anglo-Iranian Oil (now British Petroleum) or at least tax it. After the Shah was overthrown,
the Khomeini regime asked its paying agent, the Chase Manhattan bank, to use its deposits to pay its bondholders. At the direction
of the U.S. Government Chase refused to do so. U.S. courts then declared Iran to be in default, and froze all its assets in the United
States and anywhere else they were able.
This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago,
and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might
be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally
got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult
that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer.
But then came Venezuela. Desperate to spend its gold reserves to provide imports for its economy devastated by U.S. sanctions
– a crisis that U.S. diplomats blame on "socialism," not on U.S. political attempts to "make the economy scream" (as Nixon officials
said of Chile under Salvador Allende) – Venezuela directed the Bank of England to transfer some of its $11 billion in gold held in
its vaults and those of other central banks in December 2018. This was just like a bank depositor would expect a bank to pay a check
that the depositor had written.
England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo.
As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster
his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign
reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank."
Turkey seemed to be a likely destination, prompting Bolton and Pompeo to warn it to desist from helping Venezuela, threatening
sanctions against it or any other country helping Venezuela cope with its economic crisis. As for the Bank of England and other European
countries, the Bloomberg report concluded: "Central bank officials in Caracas have been ordered to no longer try contacting the Bank
of England. These central bankers have been told that Bank of England staffers will not respond to them."
This led to rumors that Venezuela was selling 20 tons of gold via a Russian Boeing 777 – some $840 million. The money probably
would have ended up paying Russian and Chinese bondholders as well as buying food to relieve the local famine.
[4] Russia denied this report, but Reuters has confirmed is that Venezuela has sold 3 tons of a planned 29 tones of gold to the
United Arab Emirates, with another 15 tones are to be shipped on Friday, February 1.
[5] The U.S. Senate's Batista-Cuban hardliner Rubio accused this of being "theft," as if feeding the people to alleviate the
U.S.-sponsored crisis was a crime against U.S. diplomatic leverage.
If there is any country that U.S. diplomats hate more than a recalcitrant Latin American country, it is Iran. President Trump's
breaking of the 2015 nuclear agreements negotiated by European and Obama Administration diplomats has escalated to the point of threatening
Germany and other European countries with punitive sanctions if they do not also break the agreements they have signed. Coming on
top of U.S. opposition to German and other European importing of Russian gas, the U.S. threat finally prompted Europe to find a way
to defend itself.
Imperial threats are no longer military. No country (including Russia or China) can mount a military invasion of another major
country. Since the Vietnam Era, the only kind of war a democratically elected country can wage is atomic, or at least heavy bombing
such as the United States has inflicted on Iraq, Libya and Syria. But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the
connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium.
Russia and China have already moved to create a shadow bank-transfer system in case the United States unplugs them from SWIFT.
But now, European countries have come to realize that threats by Bolton and Pompeo may lead to heavy fines and asset grabs if they
seek to continue trading with Iran as called for in the treaties they have negotiated.
On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran
and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument
in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored
Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas,
this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions
attack on Europe.
I have just returned from Germany and seen a remarkable split between that nation's industrialists and their political leadership.
For years, major companies have seen Russia as a natural market, a complementary economy needing to modernize its manufacturing and
able to supply Europe with natural gas and other raw materials. America's New Cold War stance is trying to block this commercial
complementarity. Warning Europe against "dependence" on low-price Russian gas, it has offered to sell high-priced LNG from the United
States (via port facilities that do not yet exist in anywhere near the volume required). President Trump also is insisting that NATO
members spend a full 2 percent of their GDP on arms – preferably bought from the United States, not from German or French merchants
of death.
The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above.
In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to
bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945.
The World Bank, for instance, traditionally has been headed by a U.S. Secretary of Defense. Its steady policy since its inception
is to provide loans for countries to devote their land to export crops instead of giving priority to feeding themselves. That is
why its loans are only in foreign currency, not in the domestic currency needed to provide price supports and agricultural extension
services such as have made U.S. agriculture so productive. By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food
blackmail – sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands.
It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to
become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically
to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports
from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably – witness the caravans and refugees
across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either.
Likewise, the IMF has been forced to admit that its basic guidelines were fictitious from the beginning. A central core has been
to enforce payment of official inter-government debt by withholding IMF credit from countries under default. This rule was instituted
at a time when most official inter-government debt was owed to the United States. But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3
billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country
deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption
to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid.
It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. Europe has taken
notice that its own international monetary trade and financial linkages are in danger of attracting U.S. anger. This became clear
last autumn at the funeral for George H. W. Bush, when the EU's diplomat found himself downgraded to the end of the list to be called
to his seat. He was told that the U.S. no longer considers the EU an entity in good standing. In December, "Mike Pompeo gave a speech
on Europe in Brussels -- his first, and eagerly awaited -- in which he extolled the virtues of nationalism, criticised multilateralism
and the EU, and said that "international bodies" which constrain national sovereignty "must be reformed or eliminated."
[5]
Most of the above events have made the news in just one day, January 31, 2019. The conjunction of U.S. moves on so many fronts,
against Venezuela, Iran and Europe (not to mention China and the trade threats and moves against Huawei also erupting today) looks
like this will be a year of global fracture.
It is not all President Trump's doing, of course. We see the Democratic Party showing the same colors. Instead of applauding democracy
when foreign countries do not elect a leader approved by U.S. diplomats (whether it is Allende or Maduro), they've let the mask fall
and shown themselves to be the leading New Cold War imperialists. It's now out in the open. They would make Venezuela the new Pinochet-era
Chile. Trump is not alone in supporting Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi terrorists acting, as Lyndon Johnson put it, "Bastards, but they're
our bastards."
Where is the left in all this? That is the question with which I opened this article. How remarkable it is that it is only right-wing
parties, Alternative for Deutschland (AFD), or Marine le Pen's French nationalists and those of other countries that are opposing
NATO militarization and seeking to revive trade and economic links with the rest of Eurasia.
The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed observer like
me. It took a colossal level of arrogance, short-sightedness and lawlessness to hasten its decline -- something that only crazed
Neocons like John Bolton, Elliot Abrams and Mike Pompeo could deliver for Donald Trump.
[2] Patricia Laya, Ethan Bronner and Tim Ross,
"Maduro Stymied in Bid to Pull $1.2 Billion of Gold From U.K.," Bloomberg, January 25, 2019. Anticipating just such a double-cross,
President Chavez acted already in 2011 to repatriate 160 tons of gold to Caracas from the United States and Europe.
Well, if the StormTrumpers can tear down all the levers and institutions of international US dollar strength, perhaps they
can also tear down all the institutions of Corporate Globalonial Forced Free Trade. That itself may BE our escape . . . if there
are enough millions of Americans who have turned their regionalocal zones of habitation into economically and politically armor-plated
Transition Towns, Power-Down Zones, etc. People and places like that may be able to crawl up out of the rubble and grow and defend
little zones of semi-subsistence survival-economics.
If enough millions of Americans have created enough such zones, they might be able to link up with eachother to offer hope
of a movement to make America in general a semi-autarchik, semi-secluded and isolated National Survival Economy . . . . much smaller
than today, perhaps likelier to survive the various coming ecosystemic crash-cramdowns, and no longer interested in leading or
dominating a world that we would no longer have the power to lead or dominate.
We could put an end to American Exceptionalism. We could lay this burden down. We could become American Okayness Ordinarians.
Make America an okay place for ordinary Americans to live in.
If Populists, I assume that's what you mean by "Storm Troopers", offer me M4A and revitalized local economies, and deliver
them, they have my support and more power to them.
That's why Trump was elected, his promises, not yet delivered, were closer to that then the Democrats' promises. If the Democrats
promised those things and delivered, then they would have my support.
If the Democrats run a candidate, who has a no track record of delivering such things, we stay home on election day. Trump
can have it, because it won't be any worse.
I don't give a damn about "social issues." Economics, health care and avoiding WWIII are what motivates my votes, and I think
more and more people are going to vote the same way.
Good point about Populist versus StormTrumper. ( And by the way, I said StormTRUMper, not StormTROOper). I wasn't thinking
of the Populists. I was thinking of the neo-etc. vandals and arsonists who want us to invade Venezuela, leave the JCPOA with Iran,
etc. Those are the people who will finally drive the other-country governments into creating their own parallel payment systems,
etc.
And the midpoint of those efforts will leave wreckage and rubble for us to crawl up out of. But we will have a chance to crawl
up out of it.
My reason for voting for Trump was mainly to stop the Evil Clinton from getting elected and to reduce the chance of near immediate
thermonuclear war with Russia and to save the Assad regime in Syria from Clintonian overthrow and replacement with an Islamic
Emirate of Jihadistan.
Much of what will be attempted " in Trump's name" will be de-regulationism of all kinds delivered by the sorts of basic Republicans
selected for the various agencies and departments by Pence and Moore and the Koch Brothers. I doubt the Populist Voters wanted
the Koch-Pence agenda. But that was a risky tradeoff in return for keeping Clinton out of office.
The only Dems who would seek what you want are Sanders or maybe Gabbard or just barely Warren. The others would all be Clinton
or Obama all over again.
I couldn't really find any details about the new INSTEX system – have you got any good links to brush up on? I know they made
an announcement yesterday but how long until the new payment system is operational?
arguably wouldn't it be better if for USD hegemony to be dismantled? A strong USD hurts US exports, subsidizes American consumption
(by making commodities cheaper in relative terms), makes international trade (aka a 8,000-mile+ supply chain) easier.
For the sake of the environment, you want less of all three. Though obviously I don't like the idea of expensive gasoline,
natural gas or tube socks either.
It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive
Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence.
Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs,
but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and
settle for being a dominant minority.
Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast
their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change.
What this change would consist of, and how it would manifest, remained an open question. Would he pursue rapprochement with
Russia and pull troops out of the Middle East as he claimed to want to do during his 2016 campaign, would he doggedly pursue corruption
charges against Clinton and attempt to reform the FBI and CIA, or would he do both, neither, or something else entirely?
Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international
order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment
desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms".
Interesting times.
Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery
going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. Whether or not he ever had or has a coherent plan for the havoc he has
wrought, he has certainly been the agent for change many of us hoped he would be, in stark contrast to the criminal duopoly parties
who continue to oppose him, where the daily no news is always bad news all the same. To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you
don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the
best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles.
Look on some bright sides. Here is just one bright side to look on. President Trump has delayed and denied the Clinton Plan
to topple Assad just long enough that Russia has been able to help Assad preserve legitimate government in most of Syria and defeat
the Clinton's-choice jihadis.
That is a positive good. Unless you are pro-jihadi.
Clinton wasn't going to "benefit the greater good" either, and a very strong argument, based on her past behavior, can be made
that she represented the greater threat. Given that the choice was between her and Trump, I think voters made the right decision.
Hudson's done us a service in pulling these threads together. I'd missed the threats against the ICC judges. One question:
is it possible for INSTEX-like arrangements to function secretly? What is to be gained by announcing them publicly and drawing
the expected attacks? Does that help sharpen conflicts, and to what end?
Maybe they're done in secret already – who knows? The point of doing it publicly is to make a foreign-policy impact, in this
case withdrawing power from the US. It's a Declaration of Independence.
It certainly seems as though the 90 percent (plus) are an afterthought in this journey to who knows where? Like George C.Scott
said while playing Patton, "The whole world at economic war and I'm not part of it. God will not let this happen." Looks like
we're on the Brexit track (without the vote). The elite argue with themselves and we just sit and watch. It appears to me that
the elite just do not have the ability to contemplate things beyond their own narrow self interest. We are all deplorables now.
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected
Is not supported by this (or really the rest of the article). The past tense here, for example, is unwarranted:
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their
equity share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy.
And this
So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. Germany agreed
to slow down the transfer.
Doesn't show Germany as breaking free at all, and worse it is followed by the pregnant
But then came Venezuela.
Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet
again. Nothing to see here, actually.
So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change.
"So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change."
I'm surprised more people aren't recognizing this. I read the article waiting in vain for some evidence of "the end of our
monetary imperialism" besides some 'grumbling and foot dragging' as you aptly put it. There was some glimmer of a buried lede
with INTEX, created to get around U.S. sanctions against Iran ─ hardly a 'dam-breaking'. Washington is on record as being annoyed.
Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD
as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. World bond market flows are 10X the size
of world stock market flows even though the price of the Dow and Facebook shares etc get all of the headlines.
And foreign exchange flows are 10-50X the flows of bond markets, they're currently on the order of $5 *trillion* per day. And
since forex is almost completely unregulated it's quite difficult to get the data and spot reserve currency trends. Oh, and buy
gold. It's the only currency that requires no counterparty and is no one's debt obligation.
That's not what Hudson claims in his swaggering final sentence:
"The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed
observer like me."
Which is risible as not only did he fail to show anything of the kind, his opening sentence stated a completely different reality:
"The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected" So if we hold him to his first
declaration, his evidence is feeble, as I mentioned. As a scholar, his hyperbole is untrustworthy.
No, gold is pretty enough lying on the bosom of a lady-friend but that's about its only usefulness in the real world.
Always bemusing that gold bugs never talk about gold being in a bubble . yet when it goes south of its purchase price speak
in tongues about ev'bal forces.
thanks Mr. Hudson. One has to wonder what has happened when the government (for decades) has been shown to be morally and otherwise
corrupt and self serving. It doesn't seem to bother anyone but the people, and precious few of them. Was it our financial and
legal bankruptcy that sent us over the cliff?
Indeed! It is to say the least encouraging to see Dr. Hudson return so forcefully to the theme of 'monetary imperialism'.
I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you
haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. You can
find any number of articles on his web site that return periodically to the theme of monetary imperialism. I remember one in particular
that described how the rest of the world was brought on board to help pay for its good old-fashioned military imperialism.
If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt
status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long
as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington
neocons – as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be"
to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing.
Until the US returns to the path of genuine wealth creation, it is past time for the rest of the world to go its own way with
its banking and financial institutions.
In other words, after 2 World Wars that produced the current world order, it is still in a state of insanity with the same
pretensions to superiority by the same people, to get number 3.
UK withholding Gold may start another Brexit? IE: funds/gold held by BOE for other countries in Africa, Asian, South America,
and the "stans" with start to depart, slowly at first, perhaps for Switzerland?
Where is the left in all this? Pretty much the same place as Michael Hudson, I'd say. Where is the US Democratic Party in all
this? Quite a different question, and quite a different answer. So far as I can see, the Democrats for years have bombed, invaded
and plundered other countries 'for their own good'. Republicans do it 'for the good of America', by which the ignoramuses mean
the USA. If you're on the receiving end, it doesn't make much difference.
Agreed! South America intervention and regime change, Syria ( Trump is pulling out), Iraq, Middle East meddling, all predate
Trump. Bush, Clinton and Obama have nothing to do with any of this.
" So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. "
What proof is there that the gold is still there? Chances are it's notional. All Germany, Venezuela, or the others have is
an IOU – and gold cannot be printed. Incidentally, this whole discussion means that gold is still money and the gold standard
still exists.
What makes you think that the gold in Fort Knox is still there? If I remember right, there was a Potemkin visit back in the
70s to assure everyone that the gold was still there but not since then. Wait, I tell a lie. There was another visit about two
years ago but look who was involved in that visit-
And I should mention that it was in the 90s that between 1.3 and 1.5 million 400 oz tungsten blanks were manufactured in the
US under Clinton. Since then gold-coated tungsten bars have turned up in places like Germany, China, Ethiopia, the UK, etc so
who is to say if those gold bars in Fort Knox are gold all the way through either. More on this at --
http://viewzone2.com/fakegoldx.html
It wasn't last year that Germany brought back its Gold. It has been ongoing since 2013, after some political and popular pressure
build up. They finished the transaction in 2017. According to an article in Handelblatt (but it was widely reported back then)
they brought back pretty much everything they had in Paris (347t), left what they had in London (perhaps they should have done
it in reverse) and took home another 300t from the NY Fed. That still leaves 1236t in NY. But half of their Gold (1710t) is now
in Frankfurt. That is 50% of the Bundesbanks holdings.
They made a point in saying that every bar was checked and weighed and presented some bars in Frankfurt. I guess they didn't
melt them for assaying, but I'd expect them to be smart enough to check the density.
Their reason to keep Gold in NY and London is to quickly buy USD in case of a crisis. That's pretty much a cold war plan, but
that's what they do right now.
Regarding Michal Hudsons piece, I enjoyed reading through this one. He tends to write ridiculously long articles and in the
last few years with less time and motivation at hand I've skipped most of his texts on NC as they just drag on.
When I'm truly fascinated I like well written, long articles but somehow he lost me at some point. But I noticed that some
long original articles in US magazines, probably research for a long time by the journalist, can just drag on for ever as well
I just tune out.
This is making sense. I would guess that tearing up the old system is totally deliberate. It wasn't working so well for us
because we had to practice too much social austerity, which we have tried to impose on the EU as well, just to stabilize "king
dollar" – otherwise spread so thin it was a pending catastrophe.
Now we can get out from under being the reserve currency – the currency that maintains its value by financial manipulation
and military bullying domestic deprivation. To replace this old power trip we are now going to mainline oil. The dollar will become
a true petro dollar because we are going to commandeer every oil resource not already nailed down.
When we partnered with SA in Aramco and the then petro dollar the dollar was only backed by our military. If we start monopolizing
oil, the actual commodity, the dollar will be an apex competitor currency without all the foreign military obligations which will
allow greater competitive advantages.
No? I'm looking at PdVSA, PEMEX and the new "Energy Hub for the Eastern Mediterranean" and other places not yet made public.
It looks like a power play to me, not a hapless goofball president at all.
So sand people with sociological attachment to the OT is a compelling argument based on antiquarian preferences with authoritarian
patriarchal tendencies for their non renewable resource . after I might add it was deemed a strategic concern after WWII .
Considering the broader geopolitical realities I would drain all the gold reserves to zero if it was on offer . here natives
have some shiny beads for allowing us to resource extract we call this a good trade you maximize your utility as I do mine .
Hay its like not having to run C-corp compounds with western 60s – 70s esthetics and letting the locals play serf, blow back
pay back, and now the installed local chiefs can own the risk and refocus the attention away from the real antagonists.
Indeed. Thanks so much for this. Maybe the RICS will get serious now – can no longer include Brazil with Bolsonaro. There needs
to be an alternate system or systems in place, and to see US Imperialism so so blatantly and bluntly by Trump admin –
"US
gives Juan Guaido control over some Venezuelan assets" – should sound sirens on every continent and especially in the developing
world. I too hope there will be fracture to the point of breakage. Countries of the world outside the US/EU/UK/Canada/Australia
confraternity must now unite to provide a permanent framework outside the control of imperial interests. The be clear, this must
not default to alternative forms of imperialism germinating by the likes of China.
" such criticism can't begin to take in the full scope of the damage the Trump White House is inflicting on the system of global
power Washington built and carefully maintained over those 70 years. Indeed, American leaders have been on top of the world for
so long that they no longer remember how they got there.
Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it
now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's
inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of
a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble."
I read something like this and I am like, some of these statements need to be qualified. Like: "Driving China and Russia together".
Like where's the proof? Is Xi playing telephone games more often now with Putin? I look at those two and all I see are two egocentric
people who might sometimes say the right things but in general do not like the share the spotlight. Let's say they get together
to face America and for some reason the later gets "defeated", it's not as if they'll kumbaya together into the night.
This website often points out the difficulties in implementing new banking IT initiatives. Ok, so Europe has a new "payment
system". Has it been tested thoroughly? I would expect a couple of weeks or even months of chaos if it's not been tested, and
if it's thorough that probably just means that it's in use right i.e. all the kinks have been worked out. In that case the transition
is already happening anyway. But then the next crisis arrives and then everyone would need their dollar swap lines again which
probably needs to cleared through SWIFT or something.
Anyway, does this all mean that one day we'll wake up and a slice of bacon is 50 bucks as opposed to the usual 1 dollar?
Driving Russia and China together is correct. I recall them signing a variety of economic and military agreement a few years
ago. It was covered in the media. You should at least google an issue before making silly comments. You might start with the report
of Russia and China signing 30 cooperation agreements three years ago. See
https://www.rbth.com/international/2016/06/27/russia-china-sign-30-cooperation-agreements_606505
. There are lots and lots of others.
He's draining the swamp in an unpredicted way, a swamp that's founded on the money interest. I don't care what NYT and
WaPo have to say, they are not reporting events but promoting agendas.
The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical
foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed
the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run.
Whilst the far right factions fight over the rudder the only new game in town is AOC, Sanders, Warren, et al which Trumps supporters
hate with Ideological purity.
Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On
US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics"
on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners.
On a household level it fits, but there no "loser" household that in infinity can print money that the "winners" can accumulate
in exchange for their resources and fruits of labor.
One wonder what are Trumps idea of US being a winner in trade (surplus)? I.e. sending away their resources and fruits of labor
overseas in exchange for what? A pile of USD? That US in the first place created out of thin air. Or Chinese Yuan, Euros, Turkish
liras? Also fiat-money. Or does he think US trade surplus should be paid in gold?
When the US political and economic hegemony will unravel it will come "unexpected". Trump for sure are undermining it with
his megalomaniac ignorance. But not sure it's imminent.
Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash
will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence.
There will be fierce competition to fill the gap.
On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and
austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top.
I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect.
Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the
rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT.
The trade deficit required a large Government deficit to cover it and the US government could just create the money to cover
it.
Then ideological neoliberals came in wanting balanced budgets and not realising the Government deficit covered the trade deficit.
The US has been destabilising its own economy by reducing the Government deficit. Bill Clinton didn't realize a Government surplus is an indicator a financial crisis is about to hit. The last US Government surplus occurred in 1927 – 1930, they go hand-in-hand with financial crises.
Richard Koo shows the graph central bankers use and it's the flow of funds within the economy, which sums to zero (32-34 mins.).
The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy.
It should be remembered Bill Clinton's early meeting with Rubin, where in he was informed that wages and productivity had diverged –
Rubin did not blink an eye.
I agree wholeheartedly with Tucker Carlson...This whole stupid Russia hysteria propagated
by most of the media made me, an old timer liberal, agree with Tucker. Well played Democratic
Party... well played.
Tucker's question about what should happen to the people who attempted to reverse the will
of the American people? The answer is very straightforward. Those found guilty of sedition
and treason should by law hanged by the neck until dead. This might discourage further
efforts to undermine the will of the American people.
"... The USA hegemony is based on ideological hegemony of neoliberalism. And BTW both Russia and China are neoliberal countries. That's probably why President Putin calls the USA administration "partners," despite clearly anti-Russian policies of all US administrations since 1991. ..."
"... One fascinating fact that escapes my understanding is why the USA elite wasted colossal advantage it got after the collapse of the USSR in just 25 years or so. I always thought that the USA elite is the most shrewd out of all countries. ..."
"... May be because they were brainwashed by neocon "intellectuals." I understand that most neocons are simply lobbyists of MIC, and MIC has huge political influence, but still neocon doctrine is so primitive that no civilized elite can take it seriously. ..."
"... I also understand Eisenhower hypocritical laments that "train with MIC left the station" and that the situation can't be reversed (lament disguised as a "warning"; let's remember that it was Eisenhower who appointed Allen Dulles to head the CIA. ..."
>US hegemony is imposed militarily, both covertly and overtly, throughout the world. It is maintained through the petrodollar,
corporate power, and the Federal Reserve Bank and its overseas counterparts
All true, but the key element is missing. The USA hegemony is based on ideological hegemony of neoliberalism. And BTW both
Russia and China are neoliberal countries. That's probably why President Putin calls the USA administration "partners," despite
clearly anti-Russian policies of all US administrations since 1991.
Ability to use military is important but secondary. Without fifth column of national elites which support neoliberalism that
would be impossible, or at least more difficult to use. Like it was when the USSR existed (Vietnam, Cuba, etc). The USSR has had
pretty powerful military, which was in some narrow areas competitive, or even superior to the USA, but when the ideology of Bolshevism
collapsed, the elite changed sides and adopted a neoliberal ideology. This betrayal led to the collapse of the USSR and all its
mighty military and the vast KGB apparatus proved to be useless.
In this sense, the article is weak, and some comments are of a higher level than the article itself in the level of understanding
of the situation (Simon in London at December 21, 2018, at 9:23 am one example; longevity of neoliberalism partially is connected
to the fact that so far there is no clear alternative to it and without the crisis similar to Great Depression adoption of New
Deal style measures is impossible )
It is really sad that the understanding that the destiny of the USA is now tied to the destiny of neoliberalism (much like
the USSR and Bolshevism) is foreign for many.
So it might well be that the main danger for the US neoliberal empire now is not China or Russia, but the end of cheap oil,
which might facilitate the collapse of neoliberalism as a social system based on wasteful use on commodities (and first of all
oil)
One fascinating fact that escapes my understanding is why the USA elite wasted colossal advantage it got after the collapse
of the USSR in just 25 years or so. I always thought that the USA elite is the most shrewd out of all countries.
May be because they were brainwashed by neocon "intellectuals." I understand that most neocons are simply lobbyists of MIC,
and MIC has huge political influence, but still neocon doctrine is so primitive that no civilized elite can take it seriously.
I also understand Eisenhower hypocritical laments that "train with MIC left the station" and that the situation can't be reversed
(lament disguised as a "warning"; let's remember that it was Eisenhower who appointed Allen Dulles to head the CIA.
That bill alone makes Warren a viable candidate again, despite all her previous blunders. She is a courageous woman, that
Warren. And she might wipe the floor with the completely subservant to Israel lobby Trump. Who betrayed his electorate
in all major promises.
Notable quotes:
"... Not only would Warren's legislation prohibit some of the most destructive private equity activities, but it would end their ability to act as traditional asset managers, taking fees and incurring close to no risk if their investments go belly up. The bill takes the explicit and radical view that: ..."
"... Private funds should have a stake in the outcome of their investments, enjoying returns if those investments are successful but ab-1sorbing losses if those investments fail. ..."
"... Critics will say that Warren's bill has no chance of passing, which is currently true but misses the point. ..."
"... firms would share responsibility for the liabilities of companies under their control, including debt, legal judgments, and pension obligations to "better align the incentives of private equity firms and the companies they own." The bill, if enacted, would end the tax subsidy for excessive leverage and closes the carried interest loophole. ..."
"... The bill also seeks to ban dividends to investors for two years after a firm is acquired. Worker pay would be prioritized in the bankruptcy process, with guidelines intended to ensure affected employees are more likely to receive severance pay and pensions. It would also clarify gift cards are consumer deposits, ensuring their priority in bankruptcy proceedings. If enacted, private equity managers will be required to disclose fees, returns, and political expenditures. ..."
"... This is a bold set of proposals that targets abuses that hurt workers and investors. Most readers may not appreciate the significance of the two-year restriction on dividends. One return-goosing strategy that often leaves companies crippled or bankrupt in its wake is the "dividend recap" in which the acquired company takes on yet more debt for the purpose of paying a special dividend to its investors. Another strategy that Appelbaum and Batt have discussed at length is the "op co/prop co." Here the new owners take real estate owned by the company, sell it to a new entity with the former owner leasing it. The leases are typically set high so as to allow for the "prop co" to be sold at a richer price. This strategy is often a direct contributor to the death of businesses, since ones that own their real estate usually do so because they are in cyclical industries, and not having lease payments enables the to ride out bad times. The proceeds of sale of the real estate is usually dividended out to the investors, hence the dividend restriction would also pour cold water on this approach. ..."
"... However, there is precedent in private equity for recognizing joint and several liability of an investment fund for the obligations of its portfolio companies. In a case that winded its way through the federal courts until last year ( Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund ), the federal court held that Sun Capital Partners III was liable under ERISA, the federal pension law, for the unfunded pension obligations of Scott Brass, a portfolio company of that fund. The court's key finding was that Sun Capital played an active management role in Scott Brass and that its claim of passive investor status therefore should not be respected. ..."
"... Needless to say, private equity firms have worked hard to minimize their exposure to the Sun Capital decision, for example by avoiding purchasing companies with defined benefit pension plans. The Warren bill, however, is so broad in the sweep of liability it imposes that PE firms would be unlikely to be able to structure around it. It is hard to imagine the investors in private equity funds accepting liability for what could be enormous sums of unfunded pension liabilities ultimately flowing onto them. Either they would have to set up shell companies to fund their PE investments that could absorb the potential liability, or they would have to give up on the asset class. Either way, it would mean big changes to the industry and potentially a major contraction of it. ..."
"... I am surprised that Warren sought to make private equity funds responsible for the portfolio company debts by "joint and several liability". You can get to economically pretty much the same end by requiring the general partner and potentially also key employees to guarantee the debt and by preventing them from assigning or buying insurance to protect the guarantor from being liable. There is ample precedent for that for entrepreneurs. Small business corporate credit cards and nearly all small business loans require a personal guarantee. ..."
"... Warren's bill also has strong pro-investor provisions. It takes on the biggest feature of the ongoing investor scamming, which is the failure of PE managers to disclose to the investors all of the fees they receive from portfolio companies. The solution proposed by the bill to this problem is exceedingly straightforward, basically proclaiming, "Oh yeah, now you will have to disclose that." The bill also abolishes the ability of private equity managers to claim long term capital gains treatment on the 20 percent of fund profits that they receive, which is unrelated to the return on any capital that the private equity managers may happen to invest in a fund. ..."
"... We need a reparations movement for all those workers harmed by private equity. Seriously. ..."
"... It's so nice to see someone taking steps to protect the rights and compensation of the people actually doing the work at the companies and putting their interests first in case of bankruptcy. That those who worked hardest to make the company succeed were somehow the ones who took it in the shorts the worst has always struck me as a glaring inequity bordering on cruelty. ..."
Elizabeth Warren's
Stop Wall Street Looting Act , which is co-sponsored by Tammy Baldwin, Sherrod Brown, Mark Pocan and Pramila Jayapal, seeks to
fundamentally alter the way private equity firms operate. While the likely impetus for Warren's bill was the spate of private-equity-induced
retail bankruptcies, with Toys 'R' Us particularly prominent, the bill addresses all the areas targeted by critics of private equity:
how it hurts workers and investors and short-changes the tax man, thus burdening taxpayers generally.
Looks like Warren weakness is her inability to distinguish between key issues and periferal
issues.
While her program is good and is the only one that calls for "structural change" (which is
really needed as neoliberalism outlived its usefulness) it mixes apple and oranges. One thing
is to stop neoliberal transformation of the society and the other is restitution for black
slaves. In the latter case why not to Indians ?
I'd argue that Warren's newly tight and coherent story, in which her life's arc tracks the
country's, is contributing to her rise, in part because it protects her against other stories
-- the nasty ones told by her opponents, first, and then echoed by the media doubters
influenced by her opponents. Her big national-stage debut came when she
tangled with Barack Obama's administration over bank bailouts, then set up the powerhouse
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). But she was dismissed as too polarizing, even by
some Democrats, and was passed over to run it. In 2012, Massachusetts's Scott Brown mocked Warren as
"the Professor," a know-it-all Harvard schoolmarm, before she beat him to take his Senate seat.
After that, Donald Trump began
trashing her as "Pocahontas" in the wake of a controversy on the campaign trail about her
mother's rumored Native American roots. And Warren scored an own goal with a video that announced
she had "confirmed" her Native heritage with a DNA test, a claim that ignored the brutal
history of blood-quantum requirements and genetic pseudoscience in the construction of
race.
When she announced her presidential run this year, some national political reporters
raised
questions about her likability
, finding new ways to compare
her to Hillary Clinton, another female candidate widely dismissed as unlikable. A month into
Warren's campaign, it seemed the media was poised to Clintonize her off the primary stage. But
it turned out she had a plan for that, too.
I n the tale that is captivating crowds on the campaign trail, Warren is not a professor or
a political star but a hardscrabble Oklahoma "late-in-life baby" or, as her mother called her,
"the surprise." Her elder brothers had joined the military; she was the last one at home, just
a middle-schooler when her father had the massive heart attack that would cost him his job. "I
remember the day we lost the station wagon," she tells crowds, lowering her voice. "I learned
the words 'mortgage' and 'foreclosure' " listening to her parents talk when they thought
she was asleep, she recalls. One day she walked in on her mother in her bedroom, crying and
saying over and over, " 'We are not going to lose this house.' She was 50 years old,"
Warren adds, "had never worked outside the home, and she was terrified."
RELATED
ARTICLE
This part of the story has been a Warren staple for years: Her mother put on her best dress
and her high heels and walked down to a Sears, where she got a minimum-wage job. Warren got a
private lesson from her mother's sacrifice -- "You do what you have to to take care of those
you love" -- and a political one, too. "That minimum-wage job saved our house, and it saved our
family." In the 1960s, she says, "a minimum-wage job could support a family of three. Now the
minimum wage can't keep a momma and a baby out of poverty."
That's Act I of Warren's story and of the disappearing American middle class whose
collective story her family's arc symbolizes. In Act II, she walks the crowd through her early
career, including some personal choices that turned her path rockier: early marriage, dropping
out of college. But her focus now is on what made it possible for her to rise from the working
class. Warren tells us how she went back to school and got her teaching certificate at a public
university, then went to law school at another public university. Both cost only a few hundred
dollars in tuition a year. She always ends with a crowd-pleaser: "My daddy ended up as a
janitor, but his baby daughter got the opportunity to become a public-school teacher, a law
professor, a US senator, and run for president!"
Warren has honed this story since her 2012 Senate campaign. Remember her "Nobody in this
country got rich on his own" speech ? It was an explanation of how the
elite amassed wealth thanks to government investments in roads, schools, energy, and police
protection, which drew more than 1 million views on YouTube. Over the years, she has become the
best explainer of the way the US government, sometime around 1980, flipped from building the
middle class to protecting the wealthy. Her 2014 book, A Fighting Chance , explains how
Warren (once a Republican, like two of her brothers) saw her own family's struggle in the
stories of those families whose bankruptcies she studied as a lawyer -- families she once
thought might have been slackers. Starting in 1989, with a book she cowrote on bankruptcy and
consumer credit, her writing has charted the way government policies turned against the middle
class and toward corporations. That research got her tapped by then–Senate majority
leader Harry Reid to oversee
the Troubled Assets Relief Program after the 2008 financial crash and made her a
favorite on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart . Starting in the mid-2000s, she
publicly clashed with prominent Democrats,
including Biden , a senator at the time, over bankruptcy reforms, and later with
then–Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner over the bank bailouts.
Sanders, of course, has a story too, about a government that works for the "millionaires and
billionaires." But he has a hard time connecting his family's stories of struggle to his
policies. After his first few campaign events, he ditched the details about growing up poor in
Brooklyn. In early June, he returned to his personal story in a New York Timesop-ed .
W arren preaches the need for "big structural change" so often that a crowd chanted the
phrase back at her during a speech in San Francisco the first weekend in June. Then she gets
specific. In Act III of her stump speech, she lays out her dizzying array of plans. But by then
they're not dizzying, because she has anchored them to her life and the lives of her listeners.
The rapport she develops with her audience, sharing her tragedies and disappointments --
questionable choices and all -- makes her bold policy pitches feel believable. She starts with
her proposed wealth tax: two cents on every dollar of your worth after $50 million, which she
says would raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years. (She has also proposed a 7 percent surtax on
corporate profits above $100 million.)
Warren sells the tax with a vivid, effective comparison. "How many of you own a home?" she
asks. At most of her stops in Iowa, it was roughly half the crowd. "Well, you already pay a
wealth tax on your major asset. You pay a property tax, right?" People start nodding. "I just
want to make sure we're also taxing the diamonds, the Rembrandts, the yachts, and the stock
portfolios." Nobody in those Iowa crowds seemed to have a problem with that.
Then she lays out the shocking fact that
people in the top 1 percent pay roughly 3.2 percent of their wealth in taxes, while the bottom
99 percent pay 7.4 percent.
That "big structural change" would pay for the items on Warren's agenda -- the programs that
would rebuild the opportunity ladder to the middle class -- that have become her signature:
free technical school or two- or four-year public college; at least partial loan forgiveness
for 95 percent of those with student debt; universal child care and prekindergarten, with costs
capped at 7 percent of family income; and a pay hike for child-care workers.
"Big structural change" would also include strengthening unions and giving workers 40
percent of the seats on corporate boards. Warren promises to break up Big Tech and Big Finance.
She calls for a constitutional amendment to protect the right to vote and vows to push to
overturn Citizens United . To those who say it's too much, she ends every public event
the same way: "What do you think they said to the abolitionists? 'Too hard!' To the suffragists
fighting to get women the right to vote? 'Too hard!' To the foot soldiers of the civil-rights
movement, to the activists who wanted equal marriage? 'Give up now!' " But none of them
gave up, she adds, and she won't either. Closing that way, she got a standing ovation at every
event I attended.
R ecently, Warren has incorporated into her pitch the stark differences between what
mid-20th-century government offered to black and white Americans. This wasn't always the case.
After a speech she
delivered at the Roosevelt Institute in 2015, I heard black audience members complain about her
whitewashed version of the era when government built the (white) middle class. Many black
workers were ineligible for Social Security; the GI Bill didn't prohibit racial
discrimination ; and federal loan guarantees systematically excluded black home buyers and
black neighborhoods. "I love Elizabeth, but those stories about the '50s drive me crazy," one
black progressive said.
The critiques must have made their way to Warren. Ta-Nehisi Coates recently
toldThe New Yorker that after his influential Atlanticessay
"The Case for Reparations" appeared five years ago, the Massachusetts senator asked to meet
with him. "She had read it. She was deeply serious, and she had questions." Now, when Warren
talks about the New Deal, she is quick to mention the ways African Americans were shut out. Her
fortunes on the campaign trail brightened after April's She the People forum in Houston, where she joined eight
other candidates in talking to what the group's founder, Aimee Allison, calls "the real
Democratic base": women of color, many from the South. California's Kamala Harris, only the
second African-American woman ever elected to the US Senate, might have had the edge coming in,
but Warren surprised the crowd. "She walked in to polite applause and walked out to a standing
ovation," Allison said, after the candidate impressed the crowd with policies to address black
maternal-health disparities, the black-white wealth gap, pay inequity, and more.
G Jutson says:
July 4, 2019 at 1:00 pm
Well here we are in the circular firing squad Obama warned us about. Sander's fan boys vs.
Warren women. Sanders has been our voice in DC on the issues for a generation. He has changed
the debate. Thank you Bernie. Now a Capitalist that wants to really reform it can be a viable
candidate. Warren is that person. We supported Sanders last time to help us get to this
stage. Time to pass the baton to someone that can beat Trump. After the Sept. debates I
expect The Nation to endorse Warren and to still hear grumbling from those that think moving
on from candidate Bernie somehow means unfaithfulness to his/our message .
Kenneth Viste says: June 27, 2019 at 5:52 am
I would like to hear her talk about free college as an investment in people rather than an
expense. Educated people earn more and therefore pay more taxes than uneducated so it pays to
educate the populous to the highest level possible.
Jim Dickinson says: June 26, 2019 at 7:11 pm
Warren gets it and IMO is probably the best Democratic candidate of the bunch. Biden does
not get it and I get depressed seeing him poll above Warren with his tired corporate ideas
from the past.
I have a different take on her not being progressive enough. Her progressive politics are
grounded in reality and not in the pie in the sky dreams of Sanders, et al. The US is a
massively regressive nation and proposing doing everything at once, including a total revamp
of our healthcare system is simply unrealistic.
That was my problem with Sanders, who's ideas I agree with. There is no way in hell to
make the US into a progressive dream in one election - NONE.
I too dream of a progressive US that most likely goes well beyond what most people
envision. But I also have watched those dreams collapse many, many times in the past when we
reach too far. I hope that we can make important but obtainable changes which might make the
great unwashed masses see who cares about them and who does not.
I hope that she does well because she has a plan for many of the ills of this nation. The
US could certainly use some coherent plans after the chaos and insanity of the Trump years.
Arguing about who was the best Democratic candidate in 2016 helped put this schmuck in office
and I hope that we don't go down that path again.
Caleb Melamed says: June 26, 2019 at 2:13 pm
I had a misunderstanding about one key aspect of Warren's political history. I had always
thought that she was neutral in 2016 between Sanders and Hillary Clinton. On CNN this
morning, a news clip showed that Warren in fact endorsed Hillary Clinton publicly, shouting
"I'm with her," BEFORE Sanders withdrew from the race. This action had the effect of
weakening Sanders' bargaining position vis a vis Clinton once he actually withdrew. Clinton
proceeded to treat Sanders and his movement like a dish rag. I am now less ready to support
Warren in any way.
Robert Andrews says: June 26, 2019 at 12:17 pm
I have three main reasons I do not want Senator Warren nominate which are:
Not going all out for a single payer healthcare system. This is a massive problem with
Warren. With her starting out by moving certain groups to Medicare is sketchy at best. Which
groups would be graced first? I am sure whoever is left behind will be thrilled. Is Warren
going to expand Medicare so that supplemental coverages will not be needed anymore? Crying
about going too far too fast is a losing attitude. You go after the most powerful lobby in
the country full bore if you want any kind of real and lasting changes.
With Warren's positions and actions with foreign policy this statement is striking, "Once
Warren's foreign policy record is scrutinized, her status as a progressive champion starts to
wither. While Warren is not on the far right of Democratic politics on war and peace, she
also is not a progressive -- nor a leader -- and has failed to use her powerful position on
the Senate Armed Services Committee to challenge the status quo" - Sarah Lazare. She is the
web editor at In These Times. She comes from a background in independent journalism for
publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch. She tweets at
@sarahlazare.
Lastly, the stench with selling off her integrity with receiving corporate donations again
if nominated is overpowering.
For reference, she was a registered Republican until the mid 1990's.
Joan Walsh, why don't you give congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard any presence with your
articles? Her level of integrity out shines any other female candidate and Gabbard's
positions and actions are progressive. I don't want to hear that she isn't a major player,
because you have included Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Gabbard's media blackout has been
dramatic, thank you for your contribution with it also.
Robert Andrews says: June 27, 2019 at 8:29 am
I was impressed with Warren on the debate, especially since she finally opened her arms to
a single payer healthcare system.
Caleb Melamed says: June 26, 2019 at 2:35 pm
Gabbard is playing a very important role in this race, whatever her numbers (which are
probably higher than those being reported and are sure to go up after tonight). In some ways,
her position in 2020 resembles that of Sanders in 2016--the progressive outlier, specifically
on issues relating to the U.S. policy of endless war. Gabbard makes Sanders look more
mainstream by comparison on this issue (though their difference is more one of emphasis than
substance), making it much harder for the DNC establishment to demonize and ostracize
Sanders. (Third Way really, really wants to stop Sanders--they have called him an
"existential threat.") Gabbard's important role in this respect is one reason the DNC and its
factotums are expending such effort on sliming her.
By the way, Nation, you have now reprinted my first comment to this article five (5)
times!
Clark Shanahan says: June 26, 2019 at 1:19 pm
Tulsi,
Our most eloquent anti-military-interventionism candidate, hands down.
Richard Phelps says: June 26, 2019 at 1:29 pm
Unfortunately EW doesn't beat Trump past the margin of error in all the polls I have seen.
Bernie does in most. The other scary factor is how so many neoliberals are now talking nice
about her. They want anyone but the true, consistent progressive, Bernie. And her backing
away from putting us on a human path on health care, like so many other countries, is
foreboding of a sellout to the health insurance companies, a group focused on profits over
health care for our citizens. A group with no redeeming social value. 40,000+ people die each
year due to lack of medical care, so the company executives can have their 8 figure salaries
and golden parachutes when they retire. Also don't forget they are adamantly anti union.
Where is Warren's fervor to ride our country of this leach on society? PS I donated $250 to
her last Senate campaign. I like her. She is just not what we need to stop the final stages
of oligarchic take over, where so much of our resources are wasted on the Pentagon and
unnecessary wars and black opps. It is not Bernie or bust, it is Bernie or oligarchy!!!
Walter Pewen says: June 27, 2019 at 10:52 am
Frankly, having family from Oklahoma I'd say Warren IS a progressive. Start reading
backwards and you will find out.
Clark Shanahan says: June 26, 2019 at 1:24 pm
You certainly shall never see her call out AIPAC.
She has since tried to shift her posture.. but, her original take was lamentable.
You really need to give Hillary responsibility for her loss, Andy
Also, to Obama, who sold control of the DNC over to Clinton Inc in Sept, 2015.
I'll vote for Warren, of course.
Sadly, with our endless wars and our rogue state Israel, Ms Warren is way too deferential;
seemingly hopeless.
Walter Pewen says: June 28, 2019 at 11:22 am
I don't want to vote for Biden. And if he gets the nomination I probably won't. And I've
voted the ticket since 1976. I DO NOT like Joe Biden. Contrary to the media mind fuck we are
getting in this era. And I'll wager a LOT of people don't like him. He is a dick.
Karin Eckvall says: June 26, 2019 at 10:50 am
Well-done article Ms. Walsh. Walter, I want to vote for her but can't because although she
has plans to deal with the waste and corruption at the Pentagon, she has not renounced our
endless militarism, our establishment-endorsed mission to police the world and to change
regimes whenever we feel like it.
"... When tariffs went up from 0 to 10% on some product categories last year, many suppliers agreed to absorb half that amount (5%) in exchange for larger orders. The logic was as follows: higher orders lead to better deals with component suppliers and to higher production efficiencies, which means lower costs. ..."
"... Do you ship American wood for processing in China and re-exporting to the US? You might have issues getting that material into China as smoothly as before. And then, the US Customs office might give you a hard time when you bring the goods in, too! ..."
"... Who knows what non-monetary barriers the Chinese will erect. One can count on their creativity ..."
"... Several US companies asked our company to look for assembly plants in Vietnam and, in those cases where we found some options, they were much more expensive than China. There is a reason why China's share of hard goods production in Asia has kept growing in recent years -- competition is often non-existent. ..."
"... Now, with China's products suddenly much more expensive, what are these competing countries going to do? Won't they take advantage of it and push wages further up, at least for the export manufacturing sector? ..."
"... Mexico should be the clear winner of this trade war. They are next to the US, their labor cost is comparable to that of China, and many American companies have long had extensive operations there. ..."
Based on
allthe
articles I have read about the current geopolitical situation, I am not optimistic about
the affect of the US-China trade war on American importers. Dan Harris, who wrote "
the US-China Cold War start now, " announced that a "mega-storm" might be coming, and he
may be right.
Now, if things turn out as bad as predicted, and if tariffs apply on more goods imported
from China to the US -- and at higher rates -- what does it mean for US importers?
What
will the damage from the US-China trade war look like?
These are my thoughts about who or what is going to be hit hard by the ongoing 'trade
war:'
1. Small importers will be hit much harder than larger ones
If you work with very large Chinese manufacturers, many of them have already started to set
up operations outside of mainland China, for the simple reason that most of their customers
have been pushing for that.
They are in Vietnam, Malaysia, etc. And this is true in most industries -- from apparel to
electronics.
Do they still have to import most of their components from China? It depends on their
footprints. As I wrote before :
You set up a mammoth plant and you don't want your high-value component suppliers to be
more than 1 hour away from you, for just-in-time inventory replenishment? They can be
requested to set up a new manufacturing facility next to you.
2. A higher total cost of goods purchased from China
This one is obvious. If you have orders already in production, they will cost you more than
expected.
The RMB might slide quite a bit, and that might alleviate the total cost. I hope you have
followed my advice and started paying your suppliers in RMB , to benefit
from it automatically.
Beijing might also give other forms of subsidies to their exporters. They might be quite
visible (e.g. a higher VAT rebate) or totally 'under the table'.
3. Difficult
negotiations with Chinese suppliers
Can you say the tariffs are Beijing's fault, and so your suppliers should absorb the
tariffs? That's not going to work.
When tariffs went up from 0 to 10% on some product categories last year, many suppliers
agreed to absorb half that amount (5%) in exchange for larger orders. The logic was as follows:
higher orders lead to better deals with component suppliers and to higher production
efficiencies, which means lower costs.
When tariffs go from 10% to 35%, what else can US buyers give their counter-parties?
Payments in advance? Lower quality standards? I don't believe that.
4. Difficulties at
several levels in the supply chain
Do you ship American wood for processing in China and re-exporting to the US? You might have
issues getting that material into China as smoothly as before. And then, the US Customs office
might give you a hard time when you bring the goods in, too!
Who knows what non-monetary barriers the Chinese will erect. One can count on their
creativity
5. Short-term non-elasticity of alternative sources
There are a finite number of Vietnamese export-ready manufacturers that can make your
orders. And, chances are, their capacity is already full. If you haven't prepared this move for
months (or years), other US companies have. The early bird gets the worm
Same thing with Thailand, Indonesia, India, and so on, with the exception of apparel and
(maybe) footwear.
Several US companies asked our company
to look for assembly plants in Vietnam and, in those cases where we found some options, they
were much more expensive than China. There is a reason why China's share of
hard goods production in Asia has kept growing in recent years -- competition is often
non-existent.
6. Faster cost increases in other low-cost Asian countries
Now, with China's products suddenly much more expensive, what are these competing countries
going to do? Won't they take advantage of it and push wages further up, at least for the export
manufacturing sector?
There could be some 'silver linings' due to the trade war
It is not all bad news though. We may see these benefits caused by China and the USA
slugging it out too:
7. Many opportunities for Mexico
Mexico should be the clear winner of this trade war. They are next to the US, their labor
cost is comparable to that of China, and many American companies have long had extensive
operations there.
8. Rapid consolidation in the Chinese manufacturing sector
The fittest will survive. Many uncompetitive manufacturers and traders will fold. Consolidation
will accelerate. I often look at what happened in Japan and South Korea . Each of these countries
developed very fast and, when the going got tough, the export manufacturing sector got
devastated. Only the most competitive survived.
9. Relaxed enforcement of anti-pollution
regulations in China?
I'd bet that, if the tariffs hit hard, far fewer operations will get closed for
environmental reasons. Preserving employment and social peace will prevail.
The problem here is that the US population is too brainwashing with jingoism and Exceptionalism to value Tulsi message. The
US army is mercenary army and unlike situation with the draft people generally do not care much when mercenaries die. That makes
any anti-war candidate vulnerable to "Russiagate" smear.
He/she need to have a strong domestic program to appeal to voters, So far Warren is in better position in this area then
Tulsi.
Notable quotes:
"... The Drudge Report website had its poll running while the debate was going on and it registered overwhelmingly in favor of Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Likewise, the Washington Examiner , a right-wing paper, opined that Gabbard had won by a knockout based on its own polling. Google's search engine reportedly saw a surge in searches linked to Tulsi Gabbard both during and after the debate. ..."
"... On the following day traditional conservative Pat Buchanan produced an article entitled "Memo for Trump: Trade Bolton for Tulsi," similar to a comment made by Republican consultant Frank Luntz "She's a long-shot to win the presidency, but Tulsi Gabbard is sounding like a prime candidate for Secretary of Defense." ..."
"... In response to a comment by neoliberal Congressman Tim Ryan who said that the U.S. has to remain "engaged" in places like Afghanistan, she referred to two American soldiers who had been killed that very day, saying "Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged? As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable." ..."
"... Tulsi also declared war on the Washington Establishment, saying that "For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned tax payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end." ..."
"... Blunt words, but it was a statement that few Americans whose livelihoods are not linked to "defense" or to the shamelessly corrupt U.S. Congress and media could disagree with, as it is clear that Washington is at the bottom of a deep hole and persists in digging ..."
"... In the collective judgment of America's Establishment, Tulsi Gabbard and anyone like her must be destroyed. She would not be the first victim of the political process shutting out undesirable opinions. One can go all the way back to Eugene McCarthy and his opposition to the Vietnam War back in 1968. ..."
"... And the beat goes on. In 2016, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, head of the Democratic National Committee, fixed the nomination process so that Bernie Sanders, a peace candidate, would be marginalized and super hawk Hillary Clinton would be selected. Fortunately, the odor emanating from anything having to do with the Clintons kept her from being elected or we would already be at war with Russia and possibly also with China. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard has let the genie of "end the forever wars" out of the bottle and it will be difficult to force it back in. She just might shake up the Democratic Party's priorities, leading to more questions about just what has been wrong with U.S. foreign policy over the past twenty years. ..."
"... Yes, to some critics, Tulsi Gabbard is not a perfect candidate . On most domestic issues she appears to be a typical liberal Democrat and is also conventional in terms of her accommodation with Jewish power, but she also breaks with the Democratic Party establishment with her pledge to pardon Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. ..."
"... She also has more of a moral compass than Elizabeth Warren, who cleverly evades the whole issue of Middle East policy, or a Joe Biden who would kiss Benjamin Netanyahu's ass without any hesitation at all. Gabbard has openly criticized Netanyahu and she has also condemned Israel's killing of "unarmed civilians" in Gaza. As a Hindu, her view of Muslims is somewhat complicated based on the historical interaction of the two groups, but she has moderated her views recently. ..."
"... To be sure, Americans have heard much of the same before, much of it from out of the mouth of a gentleman named Donald Trump, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years. ..."
Last Wednesday’s debate among half of the announced Democratic Party candidates to become their party’s nominee for
president in 2020 was notable for its lack of drama. Many of those called on to speak had little to say apart from the usual
liberal bromides about health care, jobs, education and how the United States is a country of immigrants. On the following
day the mainstream media anointed Elizabeth Warren as the winner based on the coherency of her message even though she said
little that differed from what was being presented by most of the others on the stage. She just said it better, more
articulately.
The New York Times’
coverage was typical, praising Warren for her grasp of the issues and her ability to present the same
clearly and concisely, and citing a comment "They could teach
classes in how Warren talks about a problem and weaves in answers into a story. She's not just
wonk and stats." It then went on to lump most of the other candidates together, describing
their performances as "ha[ving] one or two strong answers, but none of them had the electric,
campaign-launching moment they were hoping for."
Inevitably, however, there was some disagreement on who had actually done best based on
viewer reactions as well as the perceptions of some of the media that might not exactly be
described as mainstream. The Drudge Report website
had
its poll running while the debate was going on and it registered overwhelmingly in favor of
Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Likewise, the Washington Examiner , a right-wing
paper, opined that Gabbard had won by a knockout based on its own polling. Google's search
engine reportedly saw a surge in searches linked to Tulsi Gabbard both during and after the
debate.
On the following day traditional conservative Pat Buchanan produced
an
article entitled "Memo for Trump: Trade Bolton for Tulsi," similar to a comment made by
Republican consultant Frank Luntz "She's a long-shot
to win the presidency, but Tulsi Gabbard is sounding like a prime candidate for Secretary of
Defense."
Tulsi, campaigning on her anti-war credentials, was indeed not like the other candidates,
confronting directly the issue of war and peace which the other potential candidates studiously
avoided. In response to a comment by neoliberal Congressman Tim Ryan who said that the U.S. has
to remain "engaged" in places like Afghanistan, she referred to two American soldiers who had
been killed that very day, saying "Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers
who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged? As a soldier, I will
tell you that answer is unacceptable."
At another point she expanded on her thinking about America's wars, saying "Let's deal with
the situation where we are, where this president and his chickenhawk cabinet have led us to the
brink of war with Iran. I served in the war in Iraq at the height of the war in 2005, a war
that took over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniforms' lives. The American people need to
understand that this war with Iran would be far more devastating, far more costly than anything
that we ever saw in Iraq. It would take many more lives. It would exacerbate the refugee
crisis. And it wouldn't be just contained within Iran. This would turn into a regional war.
This is why it's so important that every one of us, every single American, stand up and say no
war with Iran."
Tulsi also declared war on the Washington Establishment,
saying
that "For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after
the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned
tax payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end."
Blunt words, but it was a statement that few Americans whose livelihoods are not linked to
"defense" or to the shamelessly corrupt U.S. Congress and media could disagree with, as it is
clear that Washington is at the bottom of a deep hole and persists in digging. So why was there
such a difference between what ordinary Americans and the Establishment punditry were seeing on
their television screens? The difference was not so much in perception as in the desire to see
a certain outcome. Anti-war takes away a lot of people's rice bowls, be they directly employed
on "defense" or part of the vast army of lobbyists and think tank parasites that keep the money
flowing out of the taxpayers' pockets and into the pockets of Raytheon, General Dynamics,
Boeing and Lockheed Martin like a perpetual motion machine.
In the collective judgment of America's Establishment, Tulsi Gabbard and anyone like her
must be destroyed. She would not be the first victim of the political process shutting out
undesirable opinions. One can go all the way back to Eugene McCarthy and his opposition to the
Vietnam War back in 1968. McCarthy was right and Lyndon Johnson and the rest of the Democratic
Party were wrong. More recently, Congressman Ron Paul tried twice to bring some sanity to the
Republican Party. He too was marginalized deliberately by the GOP party apparatus working
hand-in-hand with the media, to include the final insult of his being denied any opportunity to
speak or have his delegates recognized at the 2012 nominating convention.
And the beat goes on. In 2016, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, head of the Democratic National
Committee, fixed the nomination process so that Bernie Sanders, a peace candidate, would be
marginalized and super hawk Hillary Clinton would be selected. Fortunately, the odor emanating
from anything having to do with the Clintons kept her from being elected or we would already be
at war with Russia and possibly also with China.
Tulsi Gabbard has let the genie of "end the forever wars" out of the bottle and it will be
difficult to force it back in. She just might shake up the Democratic Party's priorities,
leading to more questions about just what has been wrong with U.S. foreign policy over the past
twenty years. To qualify for the second round of debates she has to gain a couple of points in
her approval rating or bring in more donations, either of which is definitely possible based on
her performance. It is to be hoped that that will occur and that there will be no Debbie
Wasserman Schultz hiding somewhere in the process who will finagle the polling results.
Yes, to some critics, Tulsi Gabbard is
not a perfect candidate . On most domestic issues she appears to be a typical liberal
Democrat and is also conventional in terms of her accommodation with Jewish power, but she also
breaks with the Democratic Party establishment with her pledge to pardon Chelsea Manning,
Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.
She also has more of a moral compass than Elizabeth Warren,
who cleverly evades the whole issue of Middle East policy, or a Joe Biden who would kiss
Benjamin Netanyahu's ass without any hesitation at all. Gabbard has openly criticized Netanyahu
and she has also condemned Israel's killing of "unarmed civilians" in Gaza. As a Hindu, her
view of Muslims is somewhat complicated based on the historical interaction of the two groups,
but she has moderated her views recently.
To be sure, Americans have heard much of the same before, much of it from out of the
mouth of a gentleman named Donald Trump, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine
antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years. It is essential
that we Americans who are concerned about the future of our country should listen to what she
has to say very carefully and to respond accordingly.
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]
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".
One 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.
... ... ...
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.
Rodrik – 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."
"... The key point, is that this happened in the 1980's – 90's. Vast profit possibilities were opening up through digitalization, corporate outsourcing, globalization and the internet. The globalists urgently wanted that money, and had to have political compliance. They found it in Neoliberalism and hijacked both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, creating "New Labour" (leader Tony Blair) through classless "modernization" following Margaret Thatcher's lead. ..."
"... Great blast by Jonathan Cook – I feel as if he has read my thoughts about the political system keeping the proles in an Orwellian state of serfdom for plunder and abuse under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom”. ..."
"... But the ideas of the Chicago School in cohorts with the Frankfurters and Tavistockers were already undermining our hopeful vision of the world while the think tanks at the foundations, councils and institutes were flooding the academies with the doctrines of hardhead uncompromising Capitalism to suck the blood off the proles into anaemic immiseration and apathetic insouciance. ..."
"... With the working class defeated and gone, where is the spirit of resistance to spring from? Not from the selfishness of the new generation of smartphone addicts whose world has shrunk to the atomic MEism and who refuse to open their eyes to what is staring in their face: debt slavery, for life. Maybe the French can do it again. Allez Gilets Jaunes! ..."
This is a very good article on UK politics, but I would have put more emphasis on the
background. Where we are today has everything to do with how we got here.
The UK has this basic left/right split (Labour/Conservative) reaching far back into its
class based history. Sad to say, but within 5 seconds a British person can determine the
class of the person they are dealing with (working/ middle/ upper) and act accordingly
– referencing their own social background.
Margaret Thatcher was a lower middle class grocer's daughter who gained a rare place at
Oxford University (on her own high intellectual merits), and took on the industrial wreckers
of the radical left (Arthur Scargill etc.). She consolidated her power with the failure of
the 1984-85 Miner's Strike. She introduced a new kind of Conservatism that was more classless
and open to the talents, adopting free market Neoliberalism along with Ronald Reagan. A large
section of the aspirational working class went for this (many already had middle class
salaries) and wanted that at least their children could join the middle class through the
university system.
The key point, is that this happened in the 1980's – 90's. Vast profit possibilities
were opening up through digitalization, corporate outsourcing, globalization and the
internet. The globalists urgently wanted that money, and had to have political compliance.
They found it in Neoliberalism and hijacked both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party,
creating "New Labour" (leader Tony Blair) through classless "modernization" following
Margaret Thatcher's lead.
The story now, is that the UK public realize that the Globalist/Zionist/SJW/Open
Frontiers/ Neoliberal crowd are not their friends . So they (the public) are backtracking
fast to find solid ground. In practice this means 1) Leave the Neoliberal/Globalist EU (which
has also been hijacked) using Brexit 2) Recover the traditional Socialist Labour Party of
working people through Jeremy Corbyn 3) Recover the traditional Conservative Party ( Britain
First) through Nigel Farage and his Brexit movement.
Hence the current and growing gulf that is separating the British public from its
Zio-Globalist elite + their media propagandists (BBC, Guardian etc.).
She introduced a new kind of Conservatism that was more classless …
Or just plain anti-working class.
It was actually Thatcher who started the neo-liberal revolution in Britain. To the extent
that she refused to finish it, the elites had Tony Blair in the wings waiting to go.
Great blast by Jonathan Cook – I feel as if he has read my thoughts about the
political system keeping the proles in an Orwellian state of serfdom for plunder and abuse
under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom”. Under this system if
anyone steps out of line is indeed sidelined for the “anti-semitic” treatment,
demonized, vilified and, virtually hanged and quartered on the public square of the
mendacious media.
In the good old days, when there was a militant working class and revolting (!) unionism,
we would get together at meetings, organize protests and strikes and confront bosses and
officialdom. There was camaraderie, solidarity, loyalty and confident defiance that we were
fighting for a better world for ourselves and our children – and also for people less
fortunate than us in other countries.
But the ideas of the Chicago School in cohorts with the Frankfurters and Tavistockers were
already undermining our hopeful vision of the world while the think tanks at the foundations,
councils and institutes were flooding the academies with the doctrines of hardhead
uncompromising Capitalism to suck the blood off the proles into anaemic immiseration and
apathetic insouciance.
... ... ... .
With the working class defeated and gone, where is the spirit of resistance to spring
from? Not from the selfishness of the new generation of smartphone addicts whose world has
shrunk to the atomic MEism and who refuse to open their eyes to what is staring in their
face: debt slavery, for life. Maybe the French can do it again. Allez Gilets Jaunes!
@Miro23
ic get pissed off and vote in the conservatives who then privatise everything. And this game
continues on and on. The British public are literally headless chickens running around not
knowing what on earth is going on. They’re not interested in getting to the bottom of
why society is the way it is. They’re all too comfortable with their mortgages, cars,
holidays twice a year, mobile phones, TV shows and football.
When all of this disappears,
then certainly, they will start asking questions, but when that time comes they will be
utterly powerless to do anything, as a minority in their own land. Greater Israel will be
built when that time comes.
No one at the time had much idea about Neoliberalism and none at all about Globalization.
This was all in the future.
And it was the British working class who were really cutting their own throats, by
wrecking British industry (their future employment), with constant political radicalism and
strikes.
"... Glenn Greenwald called out journalists and columnists pushing for a war with Iran and lamented that people who have been continually wrong are often hailed as the voice of authority and reason in an interview with FNC's Tucker Carlson on Friday. ..."
Glenn Greenwald called out journalists and columnists pushing for a war with Iran and
lamented that people who have been continually wrong are often hailed as the voice of authority
and reason in an interview with FNC's Tucker Carlson on Friday.
Greenwald specifically took aim at Jeffrey Goldberg of 'The Atlantic' who he said got a
promotion for being wrong about the war in Iraq.
VIDEO
Posted by: John Smith | Jun 27, 2019 1:05:43 AM |
113
"... If I were a particularly cynical analyst, it might look to me like global capitalism, starting right around 1990, freed by the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it wanted, more or less immediately started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout the Greater Middle East. My cynical theory would kind of make sense of the "catastrophic policy blunders" that the United States has supposedly made in Iraq, Libya, and throughout the region, not to mention the whole "Global War on Terror," and what it is currently doing to Syria, and Iran. ..."
"... Take a look at that map again. What you're looking at is global capitalism cleaning up after winning the Cold War. And yes, I do mean global capitalism, not the United States of America (i.e., the "nation" most Americans think they live in, despite all evidence to the contrary). I know it hurts to accept the fact that "America" is nothing but a simulation projected onto an enormous marketplace but seriously, do you honestly believe that the U.S. government and its military serve the interests of the American people? If so, go ahead, review the history of their activities since the Second World War, and explain to me how they have benefited Americans not the corporatist ruling classes, regular working class Americans, many of whom can't afford to see a doctor, or buy a house, or educate their kids, not without assuming a lifetime of debt to some global financial institution. ..."
"... OK, so I digressed a little. The point is, "America" is not at war with Iran. Global capitalism is at war with Iran. The supranational corporatist empire. Yes, it wears an American face, and waves a big American flag, but it is no more "American" than the corporations it comprises, or the governments those corporations own, or the military forces those governments control, or the transnational banks that keep the whole show running. ..."
If I were a particularly cynical analyst, it might look to me like global capitalism,
starting right around 1990, freed by the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it
wanted, more or less immediately started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout
the Greater Middle East. My cynical theory would kind of make sense of the "catastrophic policy
blunders" that the United States has supposedly made in Iraq, Libya, and throughout the region,
not to mention the whole "Global War on Terror," and what it is currently doing to Syria, and
Iran.
Take a good look at
this Smithsonian map of where the U.S.A. is "combating terrorism." Note how the U.S.
military (i.e., global capitalism's unofficial "enforcer") has catastrophically blundered its
way into more or less every nation depicted. Or ask our "allies" in Saudi Arabia, Israel,
Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and so on. OK, you might have to reach
them in New York or London, or in the South of France this time of year, but, go ahead, ask
them about the horrors they've been suffering on account of our "catastrophic blunders."
See, according to this crackpot conspiracy theory that I would put forth if I were a
geopolitical analyst instead of just a political satirist, there have been no "catastrophic
policy blunders," not for global capitalism. The Restructuring of the Greater Middle East is
proceeding exactly according to plan. The regional ruling classes are playing ball, and those
who wouldn't have been regime-changed, or are being regime-changed, or are scheduled for regime
change.
Sure, for the actual people of the region, and for regular Americans, the last thirty years
of wars, "strategic" bombings, sanctions, fomented coups, and other such shenanigans have been
a pointless waste of lives and money but global capitalism doesn't care about people or the
"sovereign nations" they believe they live in, except to the extent they are useful. Global
capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open for
business or not.
Take a look at that map again. What you're looking at is global capitalism cleaning up after
winning the Cold War. And yes, I do mean global capitalism, not the United States of
America (i.e., the "nation" most Americans think they live in, despite all evidence to the
contrary). I know it hurts to accept the fact that "America" is nothing but a simulation
projected onto an enormous marketplace but seriously, do you honestly believe that the U.S.
government and its military serve the interests of the American people? If so, go ahead, review
the history of their activities since the Second World War, and explain to me how they have
benefited Americans not the corporatist ruling classes, regular working class Americans, many
of whom can't afford to see a doctor, or buy a house, or educate their kids, not without
assuming a lifetime of debt to some global financial institution.
OK, so I digressed a little. The point is, "America" is not at war with Iran. Global
capitalism is at war with Iran. The supranational corporatist empire. Yes, it wears an American
face, and waves a big American flag, but it is no more "American" than the corporations it
comprises, or the governments those corporations own, or the military forces those governments
control, or the transnational banks that keep the whole show running.
This is what Iran and Syria are up against. This is what Russia is up against. Global
capitalism doesn't want to nuke them, or occupy them. It wants to privatize them, like it is
privatizing the rest of the world, like it has already privatized America according to my
crackpot theory, of course.
if I were a geopolitical analyst, I might be able to discern a pattern there, and
possibly even some sort of strategy.
Sounds good.
Some other people did it before, wrote it down etc. but it's always good to see that
stuff.
it might look to me like global capitalism, starting right around 1990, freed by the
collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it wanted, more or less immediately
started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout the Greater Middle East.
.there have been no "catastrophic policy blunders," not for global capitalism. The
Restructuring of the Greater Middle East is proceeding exactly according to plan. The
regional ruling classes are playing ball, and those who wouldn't have been regime-changed,
or are being regime-changed, or are scheduled for regime change.
Sure, for the actual people of the region, and for regular Americans, the last thirty years
of wars, "strategic" bombings, sanctions, fomented coups, and other such shenanigans have
been a pointless waste of lives and money but global capitalism doesn't care about people
or the "sovereign nations" they believe they live in, except to the extent they are useful.
Global capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open
for business or not.
Spot on.
Now .there IS a bit of oversight in the article re competing groups of people on top of
that "Global capitalist" bunch.
It's a bit more complicated than "Global capitalism".
Jewish heavily influenced, perhaps even controlled, Anglo-Saxon "setup" .. or Russian
"setup" or Chinese "setup".
Only one of them can be on the top, and they don't like each other much.
And they all have nuclear weapons.
"Global capitalism" idea is optimistic. The global overwhelming force against little
players. No chance of MAD there so not that bad.NOPE IMHO.
There is a chance of MAD.
That is the problem . Well, at least for some people.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of monopolies.
These stateless corporate monopolists are better understood as Feudalists. They would have
everything. We would have nothing. That's what privatization is. It's the Lords ripping off
the proles.
I was a union man in my youth. We liked Capitalism. We just wanted our fair share of the
loot. The working class today knows nothing about organizing. They don't even know they are
working class. They think they are black or white. Woke or Deplorable.
ALL OF US non billionaires are coming up on serious hard times. Serious enough that we
might have to put aside our differences. The government is corrupt. It will not save us.
Instead it will continue to work to divide us.
Another great article by C J Hopkins.
Hopkins (correctly) posits that behind US actions, wars etc lies the global capitalist
class.
"Global capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open
for business or not"
This is correct -- but requires an important caveat.
Intrinsic to capitalism is imperialism. They are the head & tail of the same coin.
Global capitalists may unite in their rapacious attacks on average citizens the world over.
However, they will disunite when it comes to beating a competitor to a market.
The "West" has no (real) ideological differences with China, Russia & Iran. This is a
fight between an existing hegemon & it's allies & a rising hegemon (China) & it's
allies.
In many ways it's similar to the WW I situation: an established imperial country, the UK,
& it's allies against a country with imperial pretensions -- Germany (& it's
allies)
To put it in a nice little homily: the Capitalist wolves prefer to eat sheep (us) -- but,
will happily eat each other should they perceive a sufficient interest in doing so.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of
monopolies.
In most key sectors, competition ends up producing monopolies or their near-equivalent,
oligopolies. The many are weeded out (or swallowed up) by the few . The
situation is roughly the same with democracy, which historically has always resulted in
oligarchy, as occurred in ancient Rome and Athens.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of monopolies.
These stateless corporate monopolists are better understood as Feudalists. They would have
everything. We would have nothing. That's what privatization is. It's the Lords ripping off
the proles.
You are right in expecting that in Capitalism there would be competition – the
traditional view that prices would remain low because of competition, the less competitive
removed from the field, and so on. But that was primitive laisser-faire Capitalism on a fair
playing field that hardly existed but in theory. Occasionally there were some "good"
capitalists – say the mill-owner in a Lancashire town who gave employment to the
locals, built houses, donated to charity and went to the Sunday church service with his
workers. But even that "good" capitalist was in it for the profit, which comes from taking
possession for himself of the value added by his workers to a commodity.
But modern Capitalism does not function that way. There are no mill-owners, just absentee
investor playing in, usually rigged, stock market casinos. Industrial capitalism has been
changed into financial Capitalism without borders and loyalty to worker or country. In fact,
it has gone global to play country against country for more profit.
Anyway, the USA has evolved into a Fascist state (an advanced state of capitalism, a.k.a.
corporatocracy) as Chomsky stated many years ago. Seen from abroad here's a view from the
horse's mouth ( The Guardian is official organ of Globalist Fascism).
"... UPDATED: VIPS says its direct experience with Mike Pompeo leaves them with strong doubt regarding his trustworthiness on issues of consequence to the President and the nation. ..."
"... As for Pompeo himself, there is no sign he followed up by pursuing Binney's stark observation with anyone, including his own CIA cyber sleuths. Pompeo had been around intelligence long enough to realize the risks entailed in asking intrusive questions of intelligence officers -- in this case, subordinates in the Directorate of Digital Innovation, which was created by CIA Director John Brennan in 2015. ..."
"... CIA malware and hacking tools are built by the Engineering Development Group, part of that relatively new Directorate. (It is a safe guess that offensive cybertool specialists from that Directorate were among those involved in the reported placing of "implants" or software code into the Russian grid, about which The New York Times claims you were not informed.) ..."
"... The question is whose agenda Pompeo was pursuing -- yours or his own. Binney had the impression Pompeo was simply going through the motions -- and disingenuously, at that. If he "really wanted to know about Russian hacking," he would have acquainted himself with the conclusions that VIPS, with Binney in the lead, had reached in mid-2017, and which apparently caught your eye. ..."
"... For the Steering Groups of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity: ..."
UPDATED: VIPS says its direct experience with Mike Pompeo leaves them with strong doubt
regarding his trustworthiness on issues of consequence to the President and the
nation.
DATE: June 21, 2019
MEMORANDUM FOR : The President.
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Is Pompeo's Iran Agenda the Same As Yours?
A fter the close call yesterday when you called off the planned military strike on Iran, we
remain concerned that you are about to be mousetrapped into war with Iran. You have said you do
not want such a war (no sane person would), and our comments below are based on that premise.
There are troubling signs that Secretary Pompeo is not likely to jettison his more warlike
approach, More importantly, we know from personal experience with Pompeo's dismissive attitude
to instructions from you that his agenda can deviate from yours on issues of major
consequence.
Pompeo's behavior betrays a strong desire to resort to military action -- perhaps even
without your approval -- to Iranian provocations (real or imagined), with no discernible
strategic goal other than to advance the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. He is a
neophyte compared to his anti-Iran partner John Bolton, whose dilettante approach to
interpreting intelligence, strong advocacy of the misbegotten war on Iraq (and continued pride
in his role in promoting it), and fierce pursuit of his own aggressive agenda are a matter of a
decades-long record. You may not be fully aware of our experience with Pompeo, who has now
taken the lead on Iran.
That experience leaves us with strong doubt regarding his trustworthiness on issues of
consequence to you and the country, including the contentious issue of alleged Russian hacking
into the DNC. The sketchy "evidence" behind that story has now crumbled, thanks to some unusual
candor from the Department of Justice. We refer to the
extraordinary revelation in a recent Department of Justice court filing that former FBI
Director James Comey never required a final forensic report from the DNC-hired cybersecurity
company, CrowdStrike.
Comey, of course, has admitted to the fact that, amid accusations from the late Sen. John
McCain and others that the Russians had committed "an act of war," the FBI did not follow best
practices and insist on direct access to the DNC computers, preferring to rely on CrowdStrike
reporting. What was not known until the DOJ revelation is that CrowdStrike never gave Comey a
final report on its forensic findings regarding alleged "Russian hacking." Mainstream media
have suppressed this story so far; we
reported it several days ago.
The point here is that Pompeo could have exposed the lies about Russian hacking of the DNC,
had he done what you asked him to do almost two years ago when he was director of the CIA.
In our Memorandum
to you of July 24, 2017 entitled "Was the 'Russian Hack' an Inside Job?," we suggested:
"You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike Pompeo what he knows about this.["This" being the
evidence-deprived allegation that "a shadowy entity with the moniker 'Guccifer 2.0' hacked
the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks ."] Our
own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests that it is possible that neither
former CIA Director John Brennan, nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him, have been
completely candid with their new director regarding how this all went down."
Three months later, Director Pompeo invited William Binney, one of VIPS' two former NSA
technical directors (and a co-author of our July 24, 2017 Memorandum), to CIA headquarters to
discuss our findings. Pompeo began an hour-long meeting with Binney on October 24, 2017 by
explaining the genesis of the unusual invitation: "You are here because the President told me
that if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk to you."
But Did Pompeo 'Really Want to Know'?
Apparently not. Binney, a widely respected, plain-spoken scientist with more than three
decades of experience at NSA , began by telling Pompeo that his (CIA) people were lying to him
about Russian hacking and that he (Binney) could prove it. As we explained in our most recent
Memorandum to you, Pompeo reacted with disbelief and -- now get this -- tried to put the
burden on Binney to pursue the matter with the FBI and NSA.
As for Pompeo himself, there is no sign he followed up by pursuing Binney's stark
observation with anyone, including his own CIA cyber sleuths. Pompeo had been around
intelligence long enough to realize the risks entailed in asking intrusive questions of
intelligence officers -- in this case, subordinates in the Directorate of Digital Innovation,
which was created by CIA Director John Brennan in 2015.
CIA malware and hacking tools are built
by the Engineering Development Group, part of that relatively new Directorate. (It is a safe
guess that offensive cybertool specialists from that Directorate were among those involved in
the reported placing of "implants" or software code into the Russian grid, about which The
New York Times claims you were not informed.)
If Pompeo failed to report back to you on the conversation you instructed him to have with
Binney, you might ask him about it now (even though the flimsy evidence of Russia hacking the
DNC has now evaporated, with Binney vindicated). There were two note-takers present at the
October 24, 2017 meeting at CIA headquarters. There is also a good chance the session was also
recorded. You might ask Pompeo about that.
Whose Agenda?
The question is whose agenda Pompeo was pursuing -- yours or his own. Binney had the
impression Pompeo was simply going through the motions -- and disingenuously, at that. If he
"really wanted to know about Russian hacking," he would have acquainted himself with the
conclusions that VIPS, with Binney in the lead, had reached in mid-2017, and which apparently
caught your eye.
Had he pursued the matter seriously with Binney, we might not have had to wait until the
Justice Department itself put nails in the coffin of Russiagate, CrowdStrike, and Comey. In
sum, Pompeo could have prevented two additional years of "everyone knows that the Russians
hacked into the DNC." Why did he not?
Pompeo is said to be a bright fellow -- Bolton, too–with impeccable academic
credentials. The history of the past six decades , though, shows that an Ivy League pedigree
can spell disaster in affairs of state. Think, for example, of President Lyndon Johnson's
national security adviser, former Harvard Dean McGeorge Bundy, for example, who sold the Tonkin
Gulf Resolution to Congress to authorize the Vietnam war based on what he knew was a lie.
Millions dead.
Bundy was to LBJ as John Bolton is to you, and it is a bit tiresome watching Bolton brandish
his Yale senior ring at every podium. Think, too, of Princeton's own Donald Rumsfeld concocting
and pushing the fraud about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to "justify" war on Iraq,
assuring us all the while that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Millions
dead.
Rumsfeld's dictum is anathema to William Binney, who has shown uncommon patience answering a
thousand evidence-free "What if's" over the past three years. Binney's shtick? The principles
of physics, applied mathematics, and the scientific method. He is widely recognized for his
uncanny ability to use these to excellent advantage in separating the chaff from wheat. No Ivy
pedigree wanted or needed.
Binney describes himself as a "country boy" from western Pennsylvania. He studied at Penn
State and became a world renowned mathematician/cryptologist as well as a technical director at
NSA. Binney's accomplishments are featured in a documentary on YouTube, "A Good American."
You may wish to talk to him person-to-person.
Cooked Intelligence
Some of us served as long ago as the Vietnam War. We are painfully aware of how Gen. William
Westmoreland and other top military officers lied about the "progress" the Army was making, and
succeeded in forcing their superiors in Washington to suppress our conclusions as all-source
analysts that the war was a fool's errand and one we would inevitably lose. Millions dead.
Four decades later, on February 5, 2003, six weeks before the attack on Iraq, we warned
President Bush that there was no reliable intelligence to justify war on Iraq.
Five years later, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, releasing the
bipartisan conclusions of the committee's investigation, said
this :
" In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact
when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the
American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually
existed."
Intelligence on the Middle East has still been spotty -- and sometimes "fixed" for political
purposes. Four years ago, a U.S. congressional report said Central Command painted
too rosy a picture of the fight against Islamic State in 2014 and 2015 compared with the
reality on the ground and grimmer assessments by other analysts.
Intelligence analysts at CENTCOM claimed their commanders imposed a "false narrative" on
analysts, intentionally rewrote and suppressed intelligence products, and engaged in "delay
tactics" to undermine intelligence provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency. In July 2015,
fifty CENTCOM analysts signed a complaint to the Pentagon's Inspector General that their
intelligence reports were being manipulated by their superiors. The CENTCOM analysts were
joined by intelligence analysts working for the Defense Intelligence Agency.
We offer this as a caution. As difficult as this is for us to say, the intelligence you get
from CENTCOM should not be accepted reflexively as gospel truth, especially in periods of high
tension. The experience of the Tonkin Gulf alone should give us caution. Unclear and
misinterpreted intelligence can be as much a problem as politicization in key conflict
areas.
Frequent problems with intelligence and Cheney-style hyperbole help explain why CENTCOM
commander Admiral William Fallon in early 2007 blurted out that "an attack on Iran " will not
happen on my watch," as Bush kept sending additional carrier groups into the Persian Gulf.
Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and
Persian Gulf Affairs, warned at the time that some Bush advisers secretly wanted an excuse to
attack Iran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something
[America] would be forced to retaliate for," she told Newsweek. Deja vu. A National
Intelligence Estimate issued in November 2007 concluded unanimously that Iran had stopped
working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed such work.
We believe your final decision yesterday was the right one -- given the so-called "fog of
war" and against the background of a long list of intelligence mistakes, not to mention
"cooking" shenanigans. We seldom quote media commentators, but we think Tucker Carlson had it
right yesterday evening: "The very people -- in some cases, literally the same people who lured
us into the Iraq quagmire 16 years ago -- are demanding a new war -- this one with Iran.
Carlson described you as "skeptical." We believe ample skepticism is warranted.
We are at your disposal, should you wish to discuss any of this with us.
For the Steering Groups of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
William Binney , former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military
Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Marshall Carter-Tripp , Foreign Service Officer & former Division Director in the
State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (ret.)
Bogdan Dzakovic , former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA
Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence
Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
James George Jatras , former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate
leadership (Associate VIPS)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic
Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of
Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Clement J. Laniewski, LTC, U.S. Army (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential
briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East &
CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Sarah Wilton , Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve (ret.) and Defense Intelligence Agency
(ret.)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in
2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
Looks like Bolton is dyed-in-the-wool imperialist. He believes the United States can do what wants without regard to
international law, treaties or the роlitical commitments of previous administrations.
Notable quotes:
"... Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean ..."
...Zionists know what they want, are willing to work together towards their goals, and put their money where their mouth
is. In contrast, for a few pennies the goyim will renounce any principle they pretend to cherish, and go on happily proclaiming
the opposite even if a short while down the road it'll get their own children killed.
The real sad part about this notion of the goy as a mere beast in human form is maybe not that it got codified for eternity
in the Talmud, but rather that there may be some truth to it? Another way of saying this is raising the question whether the goyim
deserve better, given what we see around us.
Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean and prevent a Turko Egyptian and possibly Persian
invasion of Greece & the West
Tucker ,,,, you are kind of restoring what little faith i had left of the mainstream press
with this upload its not mutch and it has a long long way to go , but it is a start thank the
guy in the sky
I just upvoted a Tucker Carlson video. I am baffled. BTW, Jimmy Dore said TC's more
deserving of a Noble peace prize then Obama, who, of course, never should have had one in the
first place. They should be able to take them back, though it means that most of them should
be returned.
I just upvoted a Tucker Carlson video. I am baffled. BTW, Jimmy Dore said TC's more
deserving of a Noble peace prize then Obama, who, of course, never should have had one in the
first place. They should be able to take them back, though it means that most of them should
be returned.
Tucker i disagreed with u in past on many things but i genuinely am impressed with your
stance and your moral compass on wars and learning from the past.. kudos to u on this
one...it shows we can disagree on many policies yet still respect and support one another on
humanity. Glad u worked on Trump on that one.
That does not change the fact that Trump foreign policy is a continuation of Obama fogirn policy. It is neocon forign policy directed
on "full spectrum dominance". Trump just added to this bulling to the mix.
Notable quotes:
"... When pressed on the dangers of having such an uber-hawk neo-conservative who remains an unapologetic cheerleader of the 2003 Iraq War, and who laid the ground work for it as a member of Bush's National Security Council, Trump followed with, "That doesn't matter because I want both sides." ..."
"... I was against going into Iraq... I was against going into the Middle East . Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East right now. ..."
"... Bolton has never kept his career-long goal of seeing regime change in Tehran a secret - repeating his position publicly every chance he got, especially in the years prior to tenure at the Trump White House. ..."
"... Bolton! So much winning! And there's also Perry: Rick Perry, Trump's energy secretary, was flagged for describing Trumpism as a "toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness, and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition." ..."
"... Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton was one of the architects of the Iraq War under George W. Bush, and now he's itching to start a war with Iran -- an even bigger country with almost three times the population. ..."
In a stunningly frank moment during a Sunday
Meet the Press interview focused on President Trump's decision-making on Iran, especially last week's "brink of war" moment which
saw Trump draw down readied military forces in what he said was a "common sense" move, the commander in chief threw his own national
security advisor under the bus in spectacular fashion .
Though it's not Trump's first tongue-in-cheek denigration of Bolton's notorious hawkishness, it's certainly the most brutal and
blunt take down yet, and frankly just plain enjoyable to watch. When host Chuck Todd asked the president if he was "being pushed
into military action against Iran" by his advisers in what was clearly a question focused on Bolton first and foremost, Trump responded:
"John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time, okay?"
Trump began by explaining, "I have two groups of people. I have doves and I have hawks," before leading into this sure to be classic
line that is one for the history books: "If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time, okay?"
During this section of comments focused on US policy in the Middle East, the president reiterated his preference that he hear
from "both sides" on an issue, but that he was ultimately the one making the decisions.
When pressed on the dangers of having such an uber-hawk neo-conservative who remains an unapologetic cheerleader of the 2003 Iraq
War, and who laid the ground work for it as a member of Bush's National Security Council, Trump followed with, "That doesn't matter
because I want both sides."
And in another clear indicator that Trump wants to stay true to his non-interventionist instincts voiced on the 2016 campaign
trail, he explained to Todd that:
I was against going into Iraq... I was against going into the Middle East . Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle
East right now.
It was the second time this weekend that Trump was forced to defend his choice of Bolton as the nation's most influential foreign
policy thinker and adviser. When peppered with questions at the White House Saturday following Thursday night's dramatic "almost
war" with Iran, Trump said that he "disagrees" with Bolton "very much" but that ultimately he's "doing a very good job".
Bolton has never kept his career-long goal of seeing regime change in Tehran a secret - repeating his position publicly every
chance he got, especially in the years prior to tenure at the Trump White House.
But Bolton hasn't had a good past week: not only had Trump on Thursday night shut the door on Bolton's dream of overseeing a major
US military strike on Iran, but he's been pummeled in the media.
Even a Fox prime time show (who else but Tucker of course) colorfully described him as a "bureaucratic tapeworm" which periodically
reemerges to cause pain and suffering.
It's great that the biggest war mongers are the ones that not only never served but in the case of Bolton, purposely avoided
serving. They should send that ****** to Iran so we can see just how supportive he is when he's actually in danger.
This guy is a worthless piece of **** and Trump's an idiot for hiring him.
Being a cheerleader for the Iraq war is as ridiculous as that ******* mustache. He's just letting neocons have a front row
seat to power. That's how he's keeping them from jumping ship to become democrats. They have no principles. They're just power
worshippers.
Do ya all remember when Trump took office? Losers use military strategy that is overwhelming bombardment b4 land attack. I
thought that Donnie can not survive this pressure. Looks like now he is riding horse with banner in hands. Thumb up, MJT
I was against going into the Middle East...$7 Trillion? So why is Jared trying to give away $50 Billion more? People thought
they voted for MAGA, but they got Jared...MMEGA.
How about MJANYA?...Make Jared a New Yorker Again. Send Jared and Ivanka back to New York before it's $10 Trillion.
Bolton! So much winning! And there's also Perry: Rick Perry, Trump's energy secretary, was flagged for describing Trumpism
as a "toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness, and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition."
Trump "unleashes"? For those who think, he also said Bolton is doing a good job. Crap headline. I think Solomon said, "In a
multitude of counselors there is victory".
What kind of unprofessional dingus talks openly about employee issues? That's not how you run a organization. That's how you
run a reality television show.
Sides? I could hire Hobo Joe, the bum that huffs paint and drinks scotch out of plastic bottle while yelling at traffic by
the intersection, as my advisor. He'd probably tell me to do some whacky stuff. But why would I do that?
There is no side to hear. Bomb everyone. That is John Bolton's side. It isn't worth hearing. The man shouldn't be drawing a
paycheck. He shouldn't be drawing breath. He should be pushing up daisies. He the same as ISIS.
Reading is fundamental....and certainly not needed to spout opinions. In fact, reading, combined with critical thinking, logic
and reason, just gets in the way of forming opinions. Or should I say "repeating" other's opinions.
"Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East right now."....Yes, just like your *** bosses wanted and needed and
you dumb ******* sheep still think voting matters.
Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton was one of the architects of the Iraq War under George W. Bush, and now he's
itching to start a war with Iran -- an even bigger country with almost three times the population.
Democrats in Congress have the power to pull us back from the brink , but they need to act now. Once bombs start falling and
troops are on the ground, there will be massive political pressure to rally around the flag.
"... Republicanism and true Christianity are mutually exclusive. There is nothing for them to quote. Sharing your wealth? Giving to the poor? Egalitarianism? Loving your neighbour? The Good Samaritan? ..."
"... Best to pretend that Christianity is about extreme right wing economic policy (and fascist social mores), even though it is the opposite. ..."
"... And Tea Partiers like Ayn Rand? The most anti-Christian and anti-American lunatic you can find? The corporate agenda and Wall Street interests trump everything else. No news there. ..."
"... A lot of these people describe themselves as Christian, makes you wonder which part of Jesus' message they loved more, the part that said the poor should rot without help, or the part where he said violence was justified and the chasing of wealth is to be lauded. ..."
It never stops to amaze me how the American Republican Right claims to be Christian. Have you
noticed that they NEVER quote the words of Jesus Christ? I don't blame them,
Republicanism and true Christianity are mutually exclusive. There is nothing for them to
quote. Sharing your wealth? Giving to the poor? Egalitarianism? Loving your neighbour? The
Good Samaritan?
Dirty words all. Best to pretend that Christianity is about extreme right wing
economic policy (and fascist social mores), even though it is the opposite.
If Jesus came to the US today, he would not like Republicans and they would not like him.
Santorum, Palin, Limbaugh etc. would strap him to the electric chair and pull the lever if
they could, no doubt.
And Tea Partiers like Ayn Rand? The most anti-Christian and anti-American lunatic you
can find? The corporate agenda and Wall Street interests trump everything else. No news
there.
The most bizarre aspect of the rights infatuation with Ayn Rand is that she was an
ardent Atheist who's beliefs are diametrically opposite to those of Jesus & the
Bible.
A lot of these people describe themselves as Christian, makes you wonder which part of
Jesus' message they loved more, the part that said the poor should rot without help, or the
part where he said violence was justified and the chasing of wealth is to be lauded.
"the only way you're gonna be able to sleep at night (and go to heaven in the afterlife) is
to believe that the system has some moral justification based on the laws of nature"
I think this is one of the drivers in the shift from Catholicism to Protestanism,
especially in Northern Europe.
For Medieval Catholics everyone was where God had put them, so the rich were rich and the
poor poor as part of Gods plan, and anyone trying to change it was going against God.
Which is handy if you are a Baron or Bishop living the high life surrounded my thousands of
starving peasants (having armed retainers also helped).
Come the industrial revolution and the rise of the business and trade classes that's not so
appealing, so now God rewards the virtuous and hard working, who naturally rise to the
top.
"... 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. ..."
"... The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
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.
Yes, the EU is an ordoliberal institution - the state imposing rules on the market from
without. Thus, it is not the chief danger. The takeover of 5G, and therefore our entire
economy and industry, by Huawei - now that would be a loss of state sovereignty. But because
Huawei is nominally a corporation, people do not think about is a form of governmental
bureaucracy, but if powerful enough that is exactly what it is.
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.
Neoliberalism allows with impunity pesticide businesses to apply high risk toxic pesticides
everywhere seriously affecting the health of children, everyone as well as poisoning the
biosphere and all its biodiversity. This freedom has gone far too far and is totally
unacceptable and these chemicals should be banished immediately.
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.
Andrew Bacevich
recalls Madeleine
Albright's infamous statement about American indispensability, and notes how poorly it has held up over the last twenty-one years:
Back then, it was Albright's claim to American indispensability that stuck in my craw. Yet as a testimony to ruling class
hubris, the assertion of indispensability pales in comparison to Albright's insistence that "we see further into the future."
In fact, from February 1998 down to the present, events have time and again caught Albright's "we" napping.
Albright's statement is even more damning for her and her fellow interventionists when we consider that the context of her remarks
was a discussion of the supposed threat from Iraq. The full sentence went like this: "We stand tall and we see further than other
countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us." Albright was making a general claim about our supposed superiority
to other nations when it came to looking into the future, but she was also specifically warning against a "danger" from Iraq that
she claimed threatened "all of us." She answered
one of Matt Lauer's questions with this assertion:
I think that we know what we have to do, and that is help enforce the UN Security Council resolutions, which demand that Saddam
Hussein abide by those resolutions, and get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, and allow the inspectors to have unfettered
and unconditional access.
Albright's rhetoric from 1998 is a grim reminder that policymakers from both parties accepted the existence of Iraq's "weapons
of mass destruction" as a given and never seriously questioned a policy aimed at eliminating something that did not exist. American
hawks couldn't see further in the future. They weren't even perceiving the present correctly, and tens of thousands of Americans
and millions of Iraqis would suffer because they insisted that they saw something that wasn't there.
A little more than five years after she uttered these words, the same wild threat inflation that Albright was engaged in led
to the invasion of Iraq, the greatest blunder and one of the worst crimes in the history of modern U.S. foreign policy . Not
only did Albright and other later war supporters not see what was coming, but their deluded belief in being able to anticipate future
threats caused them to buy into and promote a bogus case for a war that was completely unnecessary and should never have been fought.
"... "Try as you might, you can't expel him. He seems to live forever in the bowels of the federal agencies, periodically reemerging to cause pain and suffering -- but somehow never suffering himself." ..."
Someone whose confidence Bolton does not enjoy is Carlson, a rival for Trump's ear. Carlson,
a true
believer, took to the airwaves to savage the ambassador Friday night. "John Bolton is a
kind of bureaucratic tapeworm," Carlson said.
"Try as you might, you can't expel him. He
seems to live forever in the bowels of the federal agencies, periodically reemerging to cause
pain and suffering -- but somehow never suffering himself."
"... A suicide occurs in the United States roughly once every 12 minutes . What's more, after decades of decline, the rate of self-inflicted deaths per 100,000 people annually -- the suicide rate -- has been increasing sharply since the late 1990s. Suicides now claim two-and-a-half times as many lives in this country as do homicides , even though the murder rate gets so much more attention. ..."
"... In some states the upsurge was far higher: North Dakota (57.6%), New Hampshire (48.3%), Kansas (45%), Idaho (43%). ..."
"... Since 2008 , suicide has ranked 10th among the causes of death in this country. For Americans between the ages of 10 and 34, however, it comes in second; for those between 35 and 45, fourth. The United States also has the ninth-highest rate in the 38-country Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Globally , it ranks 27th. ..."
"... The rates in rural counties are almost double those in the most urbanized ones, which is why states like Idaho, Kansas, New Hampshire, and North Dakota sit atop the suicide list. Furthermore, a far higher percentage of people in rural states own guns than in cities and suburbs, leading to a higher rate of suicide involving firearms, the means used in half of all such acts in this country. ..."
"... Education is also a factor. The suicide rate is lowest among individuals with college degrees. Those who, at best, completed high school are, by comparison, twice as likely to kill themselves. Suicide rates also tend to be lower among people in higher-income brackets. ..."
"... Evidence from the United States , Brazil , Japan , and Sweden does indicate that, as income inequality increases, so does the suicide rate. ..."
"... One aspect of the suicide epidemic is puzzling. Though whites have fared far better economically (and in many other ways) than African Americans, their suicide rate is significantly higher . ..."
"... The higher suicide rate among whites as well as among people with only a high school diploma highlights suicide's disproportionate effect on working-class whites. This segment of the population also accounts for a disproportionate share of what economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton have labeled " deaths of despair " -- those caused by suicides plus opioid overdoses and liver diseases linked to alcohol abuse. Though it's hard to offer a complete explanation for this, economic hardship and its ripple effects do appear to matter. ..."
"... Trump has neglected his base on pretty much every issue; this one's no exception. ..."
Yves here. This post describes how the forces driving the US suicide surge started well before the Trump era, but explains how
Trump has not only refused to acknowledge the problem, but has made matters worse.
However, it's not as if the Democrats are embracing this issue either.
BY Rajan Menon, the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Professor of International Relations at the Powell School, City College of New
York, and Senior Research Fellow at Columbia University's Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. His latest book is The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention
Originally published at
TomDispatch .
We hear a lot about suicide when celebrities like
Anthony Bourdain and
Kate Spade die by their own hand.
Otherwise, it seldom makes the headlines. That's odd given the magnitude of the problem.
In 2017, 47,173 Americans killed themselves.
In that single year, in other words, the suicide count was nearly
seven times greater than the number
of American soldiers killed in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars between 2001 and 2018.
A suicide occurs in the United States roughly once every
12 minutes . What's more, after decades
of decline, the rate of self-inflicted deaths per 100,000 people annually -- the suicide rate -- has been increasing sharply since
the late 1990s. Suicides now claim two-and-a-half times as many lives in this country as do
homicides , even
though the murder rate gets so much more attention.
In other words, we're talking about a national
epidemic of self-inflicted
deaths.
Worrisome Numbers
Anyone who has lost a close relative or friend to suicide or has worked on a suicide hotline (as I have) knows that statistics
transform the individual, the personal, and indeed the mysterious aspects of that violent act -- Why this person? Why now? Why in
this manner? -- into depersonalized abstractions. Still, to grasp how serious the suicide epidemic has become, numbers are a necessity.
According to a 2018 Centers for Disease Control study , between
1999 and 2016, the suicide rate increased in every state in the union except Nevada, which already had a remarkably high rate. In
30 states, it jumped by 25% or more; in 17, by at least a third. Nationally, it increased
33% . In some states the upsurge was far
higher: North Dakota (57.6%), New Hampshire (48.3%), Kansas (45%), Idaho (43%).
Alas, the news only gets grimmer.
Since 2008 , suicide has ranked 10th
among the causes of death in this country. For Americans between the ages of 10 and 34, however, it comes in second; for those between
35 and 45, fourth. The United States also has the ninth-highest
rate in the 38-country Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Globally , it ranks 27th.
More importantly, the trend in the United States doesn't align with what's happening elsewhere in the developed world. The World
Health Organization, for instance, reports
that Great Britain, Canada, and China all have notably lower suicide rates than the U.S.,
as do all but
six countries in the European Union. (Japan's is only slightly lower.)
World Bank statistics show that, worldwide,
the suicide rate fell from 12.8 per 100,000 in 2000 to 10.6 in 2016. It's been falling in
China ,
Japan
(where it has declined steadily for nearly a
decade and is at its lowest point in 37 years), most of Europe, and even countries like
South Korea and
Russia that
have a significantly higher suicide rate than the United States. In Russia, for instance, it has dropped by nearly 26% from a
high point of 42 per 100,000 in
1994 to 31 in 2019.
We know a fair amount about the patterns
of suicide in the United States. In 2017, the rate was highest for men between the ages of 45 and 64 (30 per 100,000) and those 75
and older (39.7 per 100,000).
The rates in rural counties are almost double those in the most urbanized ones, which is why states like Idaho, Kansas, New
Hampshire, and North Dakota sit atop the suicide list. Furthermore, a far higher percentage of people in rural states own
guns than in cities and suburbs, leading to a
higher rate of suicide involving firearms, the means used in half
of all such acts in this country.
There are gender-based differences as well.
From 1999 to 2017, the rate for men was substantially higher than for women -- almost four-and-a-half times higher in the first of
those years, slightly more than three-and-a-half times in the last.
Education is also a factor. The suicide rate is
lowest among individuals with college degrees. Those who, at best, completed high school are, by comparison, twice as likely to kill
themselves. Suicide rates also tend to be lower
among people in higher-income brackets.
The Economics of Stress
This surge in the suicide rate has taken place in years during which the working class has experienced greater economic hardship
and psychological stress. Increased competition from abroad and outsourcing, the results of globalization, have contributed to job
loss, particularly in economic sectors like manufacturing, steel, and mining that had long been mainstays of employment for such
workers. The jobs still available often paid less and provided fewer benefits.
Technological change, including computerization, robotics, and the coming of artificial intelligence, has similarly begun to displace
labor in significant ways, leaving Americans without college degrees, especially those 50 and older, in
far more difficult straits when it comes to
finding new jobs that pay
well. The lack of anything resembling an
industrial policy of a sort that exists in Europe
has made these dislocations even more painful for American workers, while a sharp decline in private-sector union membership
-- down
from nearly 17% in 1983 to 6.4% today -- has reduced their ability to press for higher wages through collective bargaining.
Furthermore, the inflation-adjusted median wage has barely budged
over the last four decades (even as
CEO salaries have soared). And a decline in worker productivity doesn't explain it: between 1973 and 2017 productivity
increased by 77%, while a worker's average hourly wage only
rose by 12.4%. Wage stagnation has made it
harder for working-class
Americans to get by, let alone have a lifestyle comparable to that of their parents or grandparents.
The gap in earnings between those at the top and bottom of American society has also increased -- a lot. Since 1979, the
wages of Americans in the 10th percentile increased by a pitiful
1.2%. Those in the 50th percentile did a bit better, making a gain of 6%. By contrast, those in the 90th percentile increased by
34.3% and those near the peak of the wage pyramid -- the top 1% and especially the rarefied 0.1% -- made far more
substantial
gains.
And mind you, we're just talking about wages, not other forms of income like large stock dividends, expensive homes, or eyepopping
inheritances. The share of net national wealth held by the richest 0.1%
increased from 10% in the 1980s to 20% in 2016.
By contrast, the share of the bottom 90% shrank in those same decades from about 35% to 20%. As for the top 1%, by 2016 its share
had increased to almost 39% .
The precise relationship between economic inequality and suicide rates remains unclear, and suicide certainly can't simply be
reduced to wealth disparities or financial stress. Still, strikingly, in contrast to the United States, suicide rates are noticeably
lower and have been declining in
Western
European countries where income inequalities are far less pronounced, publicly funded healthcare is regarded as a right (not
demonized as a pathway to serfdom), social safety nets far more extensive, and
apprenticeships and worker
retraining programs more widespread.
Evidence from the United States
, Brazil ,
Japan , and
Sweden does indicate that, as income inequality increases,
so does the suicide rate. If so, the good news is that progressive economic policies -- should Democrats ever retake the White
House and the Senate -- could make a positive difference. A study
based on state-by-state variations in the U.S. found that simply boosting the minimum wage and Earned Income Tax Credit by 10%
appreciably reduces the suicide rate among people without college degrees.
The Race Enigma
One aspect of the suicide epidemic is puzzling. Though whites have fared far better economically (and in many other ways)
than African Americans, their suicide rate is significantly
higher . It increased from 11.3 per 100,000
in 2000 to 15.85 per 100,000 in 2017; for African Americans in those years the rates were 5.52 per 100,000 and 6.61 per 100,000.
Black men are
10 times more likely to be homicide victims than white men, but the latter are two-and-half times more likely to kill themselves.
The higher suicide rate among whites as well as among people with only a high school diploma highlights suicide's disproportionate
effect on working-class whites. This segment of the population also accounts for a disproportionate share of what economists Anne
Case and Angus Deaton have labeled "
deaths of despair
" -- those caused by suicides plus
opioid overdoses
and liver diseases linked to alcohol abuse. Though it's hard to offer a complete explanation for this, economic hardship and
its ripple effects do appear to matter.
According to a study by the
St. Louis Federal Reserve , the white working class accounted for 45% of all income earned in the United States in 1990, but
only 27% in 2016. In those same years, its share of national wealth plummeted, from 45% to 22%. And as inflation-adjusted wages have
decreased for
men without college degrees, many white workers seem to have
lost hope of success of
any sort. Paradoxically, the sense of failure and the accompanying stress may be greater for white workers precisely because they
traditionally were much
better off economically than their African American and Hispanic counterparts.
In addition, the fraying of communities knit together by employment in once-robust factories and mines has increased
social isolation
among them, and the evidence that it -- along with
opioid addiction and
alcohol abuse -- increases the risk of suicide
is strong . On top of that,
a significantly higher proportion of
whites than blacks and Hispanics own firearms, and suicide rates are markedly higher in states where gun
ownership is more widespread.
Trump's Faux Populism
The large increase in suicide within the white working class began a couple of decades before Donald Trump's election. Still,
it's reasonable to ask what he's tried to do about it, particularly since votes from these Americans helped propel him to the White
House. In 2016, he received
64% of the votes of whites without college degrees; Hillary Clinton, only 28%. Nationwide, he beat Clinton in
counties where deaths of despair rose significantly between 2000 and 2015.
White workers will remain crucial to Trump's chances of winning in 2020. Yet while he has spoken about, and initiated steps aimed
at reducing, the high suicide rate among
veterans , his speeches and tweets have never highlighted the national suicide epidemic or its inordinate impact on white workers.
More importantly, to the extent that economic despair contributes to their high suicide rate, his policies will only make matters
worse.
The real benefits from the December 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act championed by the president and congressional Republicans flowed
to those on the top steps of the economic ladder. By 2027, when the Act's provisions will run out, the wealthiest Americans are expected
to have captured
81.8% of the gains. And that's not counting the windfall they received from recent changes in taxes on inheritances. Trump and
the GOP
doubled the annual amount exempt from estate taxes -- wealth bequeathed to heirs -- through 2025 from $5.6 million per individual
to $11.2 million (or $22.4 million per couple). And who benefits most from this act of generosity? Not workers, that's for sure,
but every household with an estate worth $22 million or more will.
As for job retraining provided by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, the president
proposed
cutting that program by 40% in his 2019 budget, later settling for keeping it at 2017 levels. Future cuts seem in the cards as
long as Trump is in the White House. The Congressional Budget Office
projects that his tax cuts alone will produce even bigger budget
deficits in the years to come. (The shortfall last year was
$779 billion and it is expected to
reach $1 trillion by 2020.) Inevitably, the president and congressional Republicans will then demand additional reductions in spending
for social programs.
This is all the more likely because Trump and those Republicans also
slashed corporate taxes
from 35% to 21% -- an estimated
$1.4
trillion in savings for corporations over the next decade. And unlike the income tax cut, the corporate tax has
no end
date . The president assured his base that the big bucks those companies had stashed abroad would start flowing home and produce
a wave of job creation -- all without adding to the deficit. As it happens, however, most of that repatriated cash has been used
for corporate stock buy-backs, which totaled more than
$800 billion last year. That, in turn, boosted share prices, but didn't exactly rain money down on workers. No surprise, of course,
since the wealthiest 10% of Americans own at least
84% of all stocks and the bottom
60% have less than
2% of them.
And the president's corporate tax cut hasn't produced the tsunami of job-generating investments he predicted either. Indeed, in
its aftermath, more than 80% of American
companies stated that their plans for investment and hiring hadn't changed. As a result, the monthly increase in jobs has proven
unremarkable compared to President Obama's
second term, when the economic recovery that Trump largely inherited began. Yes, the economy did grow
2.3%
in 2017 and
2.9% in 2018 (though not
3.1% as the president claimed). There wasn't, however, any "unprecedented economic boom -- a boom that has rarely been seen before"
as he insisted in this year's State of the Union
Address .
Anyway, what matters for workers struggling to get by is growth in real wages, and there's nothing to celebrate on that front:
between 2017 and mid-2018 they actually
declined by 1.63% for white workers and 2.5% for African Americans, while they rose for Hispanics by a measly 0.37%. And though
Trump insists that his beloved tariff hikes are going to help workers, they will actually raise the prices of goods, hurting the
working class and other low-income Americans
the most .
Then there are the obstacles those susceptible to suicide face in receiving insurance-provided mental-health care. If you're a
white worker without medical coverage or have a policy with a deductible and co-payments that are high and your income, while low,
is too high to qualify for Medicaid, Trump and the GOP haven't done anything for you. Never mind the president's
tweet proclaiming that "the Republican Party Will Become 'The Party of Healthcare!'"
Let me amend that: actually, they have done something. It's just not what you'd call helpful. The
percentage of uninsured
adults, which fell from 18% in 2013 to 10.9% at the end of 2016, thanks in no small measure to
Obamacare , had risen to 13.7% by the end of last year.
The bottom line? On a problem that literally has life-and-death significance for a pivotal portion of his base, Trump has been
AWOL. In fact, to the extent that economic strain contributes to the alarming suicide rate among white workers, his policies are
only likely to exacerbate what is already a national crisis of epidemic proportions.
Trump is running on the claim that he's turned the economy around; addressing suicide undermines this (false) claim. To state
the obvious, NC readers know that Trump is incapable of caring about anyone or anything beyond his in-the-moment interpretation
of his self-interest.
Not just Trump. Most of the Republican Party and much too many Democrats have also abandoned this base, otherwise known as
working class Americans.
The economic facts are near staggering and this article has done a nice job of summarizing these numbers that are spread out
across a lot of different sites.
I've experienced this rise within my own family and probably because of that fact I'm well aware that Trump is only a symptom
of an entire political system that has all but abandoned it's core constituency, the American Working Class.
Yep It's not just Trump. The author mentions this, but still focuses on him for some reason. Maybe accurately attributing the
problems to a failed system makes people feel more hopeless. Current nihilists in Congress make it their duty to destroy once
helpful institutions in the name of "fiscal responsibility," i.e., tax cuts for corporate elites.
I'd assumed, the "working class" had dissappeared, back during Reagan's Miracle? We'd still see each other, sitting dazed on
porches & stoops of rented old places they'd previously; trying to garden, fix their car while smoking, drinking or dazed on something?
Those able to morph into "middle class" lives, might've earned substantially less, especially benefits and retirement package
wise. But, a couple decades later, it was their turn, as machines and foreigners improved productivity. You could lease a truck
to haul imported stuff your kids could sell to each other, or help robots in some warehouse, but those 80s burger flipping, rent-a-cop
& repo-man gigs dried up. Your middle class pals unemployable, everybody in PayDay Loan debt (without any pay day in sight?) SHTF
Bug-out bags® & EZ Credit Bushmasters began showing up at yard sales, even up North. Opioids became the religion of the proletariat
Whites simply had much farther to fall, more equity for our betters to steal. And it was damned near impossible to get the cops
to shoot you?
Man, this just ain't turning out as I'd hoped. Need coffee!
We especially love the euphemism "Deaths O' Despair." since it works so well on a Chyron, especially supered over obese crackers
waddling in crusty MossyOak™ Snuggies®
This is a very good article, but I have a comment about the section titled, "The Race Enigma." I think the key to understanding
why African Americans have a lower suicide rate lies in understanding the sociological notion of community, and the related concept
Emil Durkheim called social solidarity. This sense of solidarity and community among African Americans stands in contrast to the
"There is no such thing as society" neoliberal zeitgeist that in fact produces feelings of extreme isolation, failure, and self-recriminations.
An aside: as a white boy growing up in 1950s-60s Detroit I learned that if you yearned for solidarity and community what you had
to do was to hang out with black people.
" if you yearned for solidarity and community what you had to do was to hang out with black people."
amen, to that. in my case rural black people.
and I'll add Hispanics to that.
My wife's extended Familia is so very different from mine.
Solidarity/Belonging is cool.
I recommend it.
on the article we keep the scanner on("local news").we had a 3-4 year rash of suicides and attempted suicides(determined by chisme,
or deduction) out here.
all of them were despair related more than half correlated with meth addiction itself a despair related thing.
ours were equally male/female, and across both our color spectrum.
that leaves economics/opportunity/just being able to get by as the likely cause.
Actually, in the article it states:
"There are gender-based differences as well. From 1999 to 2017, the rate for men was substantially higher than for women -- almost
four-and-a-half times higher in the first of those years, slightly more than three-and-a-half times in the last."
which in some sense makes despair the wrong word, as females are actually quite a bit more likely to be depressed for instance,
but much less likely to "do the deed". Despair if we mean a certain social context maybe, but not just a psychological state.
Suicide deaths are a function of the suicide attempt rate and the efficacy of the method used. A unique aspect of the US is
the prevalence of guns in the society and therefore the greatly increased usage of them in suicide attempts compared to other
countries. Guns are a very efficient way of committing suicide with a very high "success" rate. As of 2010, half of US suicides
were using a gun as opposed to other countries with much lower percentages. So if the US comes even close to other countries in
suicide rates then the US will surpass them in deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods#Firearms
Now we can add in opiates, especially fentanyl, that can be quite effective as well.
The economic crisis hitting middle America over the past 30 years has been quite focused on the states and populations that
also tend to have high gun ownership rates. So suicide attempts in those populations have a high probability of "success".
I would just take this opportunity to add that the police end up getting called in to prevent on lot of suicide attempts, and
just about every successful one.
In the face of so much blanket demonization of the police, along with justified criticism, it's important to remember that.
As someone who works in the mental health treatment system, acute inpatient psychiatry to be specific, I can say that of the
25 inpatients currently here, 11 have been here before, multiple times. And this is because of several issues, in my experience:
inadequate inpatient resources, staff burnout, inadequate support once they leave the hospital, and the nature of their illnesses.
It's a grim picture here and it's been this way for YEARS. Until MAJOR money is spent on this issue it's not going to get better.
This includes opening more facilities for people to live in long term, instead of closing them, which has been the trend I've
seen.
One last thing the CEO wants "asses in beds", aka census, which is the money maker. There's less profit if people get better
and don't return. And I guess I wouldn't have a job either. Hmmmm: sickness generates wealth.
Bolton power over Trump is connected to Adelson power over Trump. To think about Bolton as pure advisor is to seriously
underestimate his role and influence.
Notable quotes:
"... But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety. ..."
"... A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U. ..."
"... "Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," ..."
"... Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble. ..."
"... The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo, especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas. ..."
"... Tulsi for Sec of State 2020... ..."
"... Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner for failing to "win". ..."
"... You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the last 50 years. ..."
"... I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people and far too many details. ..."
"... Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they could matter. ..."
"... Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central to many of our poor strategic decision making. ..."
"... I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he really does not want one. ..."
"... "Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats." ..."
"... So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks ..."
"... If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee? ..."
It's time for Trump to stop John Bolton and Mike Pompeo from
sabotaging his foreign policy | Mulshine
"I put that question to another military vet, former Vietnam Green Beret Pat Lang.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," said Lang of Trump.
But Lang, who later spent more than a decade in the Mideast, noted that Bolton has no direct
control over the military.
"Bolton has a problem," he said. "If he can just get the generals to obey him, he can start
all the wars he wants. But they don't obey him."
They obey the commander-in-chief. And Trump has a history of hiring war-crazed advisors who
end up losing their jobs when they get a bit too bellicose. Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
comes to mind."
" In Lang's view, anyone who sees Trump as some sort of ideologue is missing the point.
"He's an entrepreneurial businessman who hires consultants for their advice and then gets
rid of them when he doesn't want that advice," he said.
So far that advice hasn't been very helpful, at least in the case of Bolton. His big mouth
seems to have deep-sixed Trump's chance of a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. And
that failed coup in Venezuela has brought up comparisons to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion
during the Kennedy administration." Mulshine
--------------
Well, pilgrims, I worked exclusively on the subject of the Islamic culture continent for the
USG from 1972 to 1994 and then in business from 1994 to 2006. I suppose I am still working on
the subject. pl
I don't get it I suppose. I'd always thought that maybe you wanted highly opinionated Type A
personalities in the role of privy council, etc. You know, people who could forcefully
advocate positions in closed session meetings and weren't afraid of taking contrary
positions. But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't
stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety.
But these days it's the loudmouths who get these jobs, to our detriment. When will senior
govt. leaders understand that just because a person is a success in running for Congress
doesn't mean he/she should be sent forth to mingle with the many different personalities and
cultures running the rest of the world?
A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned
the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U.
No. I would like to see highly opinionated Type B personalities like me hold those jobs. Type
B does not mean you are passive. It means you are not obsessively competitive.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed,"
Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat
primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of
non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the
corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble.
Interesting post, thank you sir. Prior to this recent post I had never heard of Paul
Mulshine. In fact I went through some of his earlier posts on Trump's foreign policy and I
found a fair amount of common sense in them. He strikes me as a paleocon, like Pat Buchanan,
Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Scheuer, Doug Bandow, Tucker Carlson and others in that mold.
The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo,
especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly
at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec
and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for
campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss
of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas.
My best hope is that
Trump teams up with libertarians and maybe even paleocons to run his foreign policy. So far
Trump has not succeeded in draining the Swamp. Bolton, Pompeo and their respective staff
"are" indeed the Swamp creatures and they run their own policies that run against Trump's
America First policy. Any thoughts?
Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full
of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a
successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from
Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was
owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat
there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he
turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the
room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that
was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner
for failing to "win".
You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they
can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump
out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in
pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the
last 50 years.
I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to
walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people
and far too many details. I see he and his trade team not buckling to the Chinese at least not yet despite the intense
pressure from Wall St and the big corporations.
Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative
consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to
his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they
could matter.
Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to
their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart
enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central
to many of our poor strategic decision making.
Just out of curiosity: Did the deal go through in the end, despite Trump's ire? Or was
Trump so furious with the negotiating result of his Japanese partner that he tore up the
draft once it was presented to him?
I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in
using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he
really does not want one.
Mulshine's article has some good points, but he does include some hilariously ignorant bits
which undermine his credibility.
"Jose Gomez Rivera is a Jersey guy who served in the State Department in Venezuela at the
time of the coup that brought the current socialist regime to power."
Wrong. Maduro was elected and international observers seem to agree the election was
fair.
"Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American
public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of
course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats."
So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual
portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at
times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks and
shudders in its death throes underneath them, and at others it seems like they really have no
idea what to do, other than engage in juvenile antics, snort some glue from a paper bag and
set fires in the dumpsters behind the Taco Bell before going out into a darkened field
somewhere to violate farm animals.
If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to
find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee?
"... Historians will study this period when there was a convergence in the objectives of the US intelligence agencies, the leaders of the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, the majority of Republican politicians and the anti-Trump media. That common objective was stopping any entente between Moscow and Washington. ..."
"... Each group had its own motive. The intelligence community and elements in the Pentagon feared a rapprochement between Trump and Putin would deprive them of a 'presentable' enemy once ISIS's military power was destroyed. The Clinton camp was keen to ascribe an unexpected defeat to a cause other than the candidate and her inept campaign; Moscow's alleged hacking of Democratic Party emails fitted the bill. And the neocons, who 'promoted the Iraq war, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable' ( 8 ), hated Trump's neo-isolationist instincts. ..."
"... This is why the Democratic Party data hack, which the US intelligence services allege is the work of the Russians, obsesses the party, and the press. It strikes two targets: delegitimising Trump's election and stopping his promotion of a thaw with Russia. Has Washington's aggrieved reaction to a foreign power's interference in a state's domestic affairs, and its elections, struck no one as odd? Why do just a handful of people point out that, not long ago, Angela Merkel's phone was tapped not by the Kremlin but by the Obama administration? ..."
"... Now the Times is in the vanguard of those preparing psychologically for conflict with Russia. There is almost no remaining resistance to its line. On the right, as the Wall Street Journal called for the US to arm Ukraine on 3 August, Vice-President Mike Pence spoke on a visit to Estonia about 'the spectre of [Russian] aggression', encouraged Georgia to join NATO, and paid tribute to Montenegro, NATO's newest member. ..."
"... At this stage, it doesn't matter any more what Trump thinks. He is no longer able to get his way on the issue. Moscow has noted this and is drawing its own conclusions. ..."
Trump was after a good deal from Russia. A new partnership would have reversed deteriorating relations between the powers by encouraging
their alliance against ISIS and recognising the importance of Ukraine to Russia's security. Current US paranoia about everything
Kremlin-related has encouraged amnesia about what President Barack Obama said in 2016, after the annexation of the Crimea and Russia's
direct intervention in Syria. He too put the danger posed by President Vladimir Putin into perspective: the interventions in Ukraine
and the Middle East were, Obama said, improvised 'in response to a client state that was about to slip out of his grasp' (
5 ).
Obama went on: 'The Russians can't change us or significantly weaken us. They are a smaller country, they are a weaker country,
their economy doesn't produce anything that anybody wants to buy, except oil and gas and arms.' What he feared most about Putin was
the sympathy he inspired in Trump and his supporters: '37% of Republican voters approve of Putin, the former head of the KGB. Ronald
Reagan would roll over in his grave' ( 6 ).
By January 2017, Reagan's eternal rest was no longer threatened. 'Presidents come and go but the policy never changes,' Putin
concluded ( 7 ). Historians will study
this period when there was a convergence in the objectives of the US intelligence agencies, the leaders of the Hillary Clinton wing
of the Democratic Party, the majority of Republican politicians and the anti-Trump media. That common objective was stopping any
entente between Moscow and Washington.
Each group had its own motive. The intelligence community and elements in the Pentagon feared a rapprochement between Trump
and Putin would deprive them of a 'presentable' enemy once ISIS's military power was destroyed. The Clinton camp was keen to ascribe
an unexpected defeat to a cause other than the candidate and her inept campaign; Moscow's alleged hacking of Democratic Party emails
fitted the bill. And the neocons, who 'promoted the Iraq war, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable' (
8 ), hated Trump's neo-isolationist instincts.
The media, especially the New York Times and Washington Post, eagerly sought a new Watergate scandal and knew their
middle-class, urban, educated readers loathe Trump for his vulgarity, affection for the far right, violence and lack of culture (
9 ). So they were searching for any information
or rumour that could cause his removal or force a resignation. As in Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express, everyone
had his particular motive for striking the same victim.
The intrigue developed quickly as these four areas have fairly porous boundaries. The understanding between Republican hawks such
as John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the military-industrial complex was a given. The architects
of recent US imperial adventures, especially Iraq, had not enjoyed the 2016 campaign or Trump's jibes about their expertise. During
the campaign, some 50 intellectuals and officials announced that, despite being Republicans, they would not support Trump because
he 'would put at risk our country's national security and wellbeing.' Some went so far as to vote for Clinton (
10 ).
Ambitions of a 'deep state'?
The press feared that Trump's incompetence would threaten the US-dominated international order. It had no problem with military
crusades, especially when emblazoned with grand humanitarian, internationalist or progressive principles. According to the press
criteria, Putin and his predilection for rightwing nationalists were obvious culprits. But so were Saudi Arabia or Israel, though
that did not prevent the Saudis being able to count on the ferociously anti-Russian Wall Street Journal, or Israel enjoying
the support of almost all US media, despite having a far-right element in its government.
Just over a week before Trump took office, journalist Glenn Greenwald, who broke the Edward Snowden story that revealed the mass
surveillance programmes run by the National Security Agency, warned of the direction of travel. He observed that the US media had
become the intelligence services' 'most valuable instrument, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with
hidden intelligence officials.' This at a time when 'Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as
well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing
-- eager -- to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging
those behaviours might be' ( 11 ).
The anti-Russian coalition hadn't then achieved all its objectives, but Greenwald already discerned the ambitions of a 'deep state'.
'There really is, at this point,' he said 'obvious open warfare between this unelected but very powerful faction that resides in
Washington and sees presidents come and go, on the one hand, and the person that the American democracy elected to be the president
on the other.' One suspicion, fed by the intelligence services, galvanised all Trump's enemies: Moscow had compromising secrets about
Trump -- financial, electoral, sexual -- capable of paralysing him should a crisis between the two countries occur (
12 ).
Covert opposition to Trump
The suspicion of such a murky understanding, summed up by the pro-Clinton economist Paul Krugman as a 'Trump-Putin ticket', has
transformed the anti-Russian activity into a domestic political weapon against a president increasingly hated outside the ultraconservative
bloc. It is no longer unusual to hear leftwing activists turn FBI or CIA apologists, since these agencies became a home for a covert
opposition to Trump and the source of many leaks.
This is why the Democratic Party data hack, which the US intelligence services allege is the work of the Russians, obsesses
the party, and the press. It strikes two targets: delegitimising Trump's election and stopping his promotion of a thaw with Russia.
Has Washington's aggrieved reaction to a foreign power's interference in a state's domestic affairs, and its elections, struck no
one as odd? Why do just a handful of people point out that, not long ago, Angela Merkel's phone was tapped not by the Kremlin but
by the Obama administration?
The silence was once broken when the Republican representative for North Carolina, Tom Tillis, questioned former CIA director
James Clapper in January: 'The United States has been involved in one way or another in 81 different elections since World War II.
That doesn't include coups or the regime changes, some tangible evidence where we have tried to affect an outcome to our purpose.
Russia has done it some 36 times.' This perspective rarely disturbs the New York Times 's fulminations against Moscow's trickery.
The Times also failed to inform younger readers that Russia's president Boris Yeltsin, who picked Putin as his successor
in 1999, had been re-elected in 1996, though seriously ill and often drunk, in a fraudulent election conducted with the assistance
of US advisers and the overt support of President Bill Clinton. The Times hailed the result as 'a victory for Russian democracy'
and declared that 'the forces of democracy and reform won a vital but not definitive victory in Russia yesterday For the first time
in history, a free Russia has freely chosen its leader.'
Now the Times is in the vanguard of those preparing psychologically for conflict with Russia. There is almost no remaining
resistance to its line. On the right, as the Wall Street Journal called for the US to arm Ukraine on 3 August, Vice-President
Mike Pence spoke on a visit to Estonia about 'the spectre of [Russian] aggression', encouraged Georgia to join NATO, and paid tribute
to Montenegro, NATO's newest member.
No longer getting his way
But the Times, far from worrying about these provocative gestures coinciding with heightened tensions between great powers
(trade sanctions against Russia, Moscow's expulsion of US diplomats), poured oil on the fire. On 2 August it praised the reaffirmation
of 'America's commitment to defend democratic nations against those countries that would undermine them' and regretted that Mike
Pence's views 'aren't as eagerly embraced and celebrated by the man he works for back in the White House.'
At this stage, it doesn't
matter any more what Trump thinks. He is no longer able to get his way on the issue. Moscow has noted this and is drawing its own
conclusions.
Sure. Let's invade Venezuela. Another jolly little war. It's full of commies and has a sea
of oil. The only thing those Cuban-loving Venezuelans lack are weapons of mass destruction.
... ... ...
Venezuela is in a huge economic mess thanks to the crackpot economic policies of the Chavez
and Maduro governments – and US economic sabotage. But my first law of international
affairs is: 'Every nation has the absolute god-given right to mismanage its own affairs and
elect its own crooks or idiots.'
My reading is that the core psychological principle of neoliberalism, that life is an accumulation of moments of utility
and disutility, is alive and well within certain sectors of the "left". A speech (or email or comment at a meeting) should be
evaluated by how it makes us feel, and no one should have the right to make us feel bad.
Not sure about this "utility/disutility" dichotomy (probably you mean market fundamentalism -- belief that market ( and market
mechanisms) is a self regulating, supernaturally predictive force that will guide human beings to the neoliberal Heavens), but, yes,
neoliberalism infected the "left" and, especially, Democratic Party which was converted by Clinton into greedy and corrupt "DemoRats'
subservient to Wall Street and antagonistic to the trade unions. And into the second War Party, which in certain areas is even more
jingoistic and aggressive then Republicans (Obama color revolution in Ukraine is one example; Hillary Libya destruction is another;
both were instrumental in unleashing the civil war on Syria and importing and arming Muslim fundamentalists to fight it).
It might make sense to view neoliberalism as a new secular religion which displaced Marxism on the world arena (and collapse of
the USSR was in part the result of the collapse of Marxism as an ideology under onslaught of neoliberalism; although bribes of USSR
functionaries and mismanagement of the economy due to over centralization -- country as a single gigantic corporation -- also greatly
helped) .
Neoliberalism demonstrates the same level of intolerance (and actually series of wars somewhat similar to Crusades) as any monotheistic
religion in early stages of its development. Because at this stage any adept knows the truth and to believe in this truth is to be
saved; everything else is eternal damnation (aka living under "authoritarian regime" ;-) .
And so far there is nothing that will force the neoliberal/neocon Torquemadas to abandon their loaded with bombs jets as the tool
of enlightenment of pagan states ;-)
Simplifying, neoliberalism can be viewed an a masterfully crafted, internally consistent amalgam of myths and pseudo theories
(partially borrowed from Trotskyism) that justifies the rule of financial oligarchy and high level inequality in the society (redistribution
of the wealth up). Kind of Trotskyism for the rich with the same idea of Permanent Revolution until global victory of neoliberalism.
That's why neoliberals charlatans like Hayek and Friedman were dusted off, given Nobel Prizes and promoted to the top in economics:
they were very helpful and pretty skillful in forging neoliberal myths. Especially Hayek. A second rate economist who proved to be
the first class theologian .
Promoting "neoliberal salvation" was critical for the achieving the political victory of neoliberalism in late 1979th and discrediting
and destroying the remnants of the New Deal capitalism (already undermined at this time by the oil crisis)
Neoliberalism has led to the rise of corporate (especially financial oligarchy) power and an open war on labor. New Deal policies
aimed at full employment and job security have been replaced with ones that aim at flexibility in the form of unstable employment,
job loss and rising inequality.
This hypotheses helps to explain why neoliberalism as a social system survived after its ideology collapsed in 2008 -- it just
entered zombie stage like Bolshevism after WWII when it became clear that it can't achieve higher standard of living for the population
then capitalism.
Latest mutation of classic neoliberalism into "national neoliberalism" under Trump shows that it has great ability to adapt to
the changing conditions. And neoliberalism survived in Russia under Putin and Medvedev as well, despite economic rape that Western
neoliberals performed on Russia under Yeltsin with the help of Harvard mafia.
That's why despite widespread criticism, neoliberalism remains the dominant politico-economic theory amongst policy-makers both
in the USA and internationally. All key global neoliberal global institutions, such as the G20, European Union, IMF, World bank,
and WTO still survived intact and subscribe to neoliberalism. .
Neoliberalism has led to the rise of corporate (especially financial oligarchy) power and an open war on labor. New Deal policies
aimed at full employment and job security have been replaced with ones that aim at flexibility in the form of unstable employment,
job loss and rising inequality.
This hypotheses helps to explain why neoliberalism as a social system survived after its ideology collapsed in 2008 -- it just
entered zombie stage like Bolshevism after WWII when it became clear that it can't achieve higher standard of living for the population
then capitalism.
Latest mutation of classic neoliberalism into "national neoliberalism" under Trump shows that it has great ability to adapt to
the changing conditions.
that's why despite widespread criticism, neoliberalism remains the dominant politico-economic theory amongst policy-makers both
in the USA and internationally. All key global neoliberal global institutions, such as the G20, European Union, IMF, World bank,
and WTO still survived intact and subscribe to neoliberalism. .
"... As usually happens in times of distress, the Germans became a people for whom resolve was valued more highly than prudence, daring more than caution, and righteousness more than discretion. In many ways, they were a people not so different from today's Americans. ..."
"... What was needed, the Germans thought, was a strong leader -- someone who would put an end to politics as usual; most of all, someone who could unite all the divisions in Germany and dispel the clamor. They found that leader in Adolf Hitler, and for a time, most Germans were glad they did. ..."
"... How would we react if things got worse? If we were to lose the war in Iraq, leaving a fundamentalist regime in place; if we endured several more major terrorist attacks; if the economy collapsed; if fuel prices reached $7 per gallon -- would we cling even more fiercely to our democratic ideals? Or would we instead demand greater surveillance, more secret prisons, more arrests for "conspiracies" that amount to little more than daydreams, and more quashing of dissent? ..."
"... Our history suggests the latter. We Americans have had our flights from democracy -- the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, the Red Scare and the McCarthy era, Watergate -- but we have always pulled back from the brink and returned to normal. ..."
Imagine this situation: Your country has had a military setback in a war that was supposed to be over after a few months of "shock
and awe." Because of that war, it has lost the goodwill and prestige of much of the international community.
The national debt has grown to staggering size. Citizens complain bitterly about the government, especially the legislative branch,
for being a bunch of do-nothings working solely for themselves or for special interest groups. In fact, the political scene has pretty
much lost its center -- moderates are attacked by all sides as the political discourse becomes a clamor of increasingly extreme positions.
It seems there are election campaigns going on all the time, and they are increasingly vicious. The politicians just want to argue
about moral issues -- sexuality, decadent art, the crumbling family and the like -- while pragmatic matters of governance seem neglected.
Sound familiar? That society was Germany of the 1920s -- the ill-fated Weimar Republic. But it also describes more and more the
political climate in America today.
Germans were worried about the future of their country. They suffered from all sorts of terror, as assassinations, coup attempts
and crime pulled their society apart. The left blamed the right; the right blamed the left, and the political center simply dried
up.
To get themselves out of the mess, Germans might have demanded government that carefully mended fences with its allies and enemies;
one that judiciously hammered out compromises among the various political parties and sought the middle path.
But we know that didn't happen. In Germany of the 1920s, as now in 21st-century America, appeals to reason and prudence were no
way to get votes in times of crisis. Much more effective were appeals to the anger and fear of the German people. A politician could
attract more votes by criticizing the government than by praising it, and a vicious negative campaign was usually more effective
than a clean one. One of the problems of democracy is that voters aren't always rational, and appeals like these could be very effective.
As usually happens in times of distress, the Germans became a people for whom resolve was valued more highly than prudence, daring
more than caution, and righteousness more than discretion. In many ways, they were a people not so different from today's Americans.
What was needed, the Germans thought, was a strong leader -- someone who would put an end to politics as usual; most of all, someone
who could unite all the divisions in Germany and dispel the clamor. They found that leader in Adolf Hitler, and for a time, most
Germans were glad they did.
Of course, America is not 1920s Germany, and we are certainly not on the verge of a fascist state. But neither have we experienced
the deep crises the Germans faced. The setbacks of the Iraq/Afghan war are a far cry from the devastating loss of the First World
War; we are not considered the scourge of the international community, and we don't need wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf
of bread. But even in these relatively secure times, we have shown an alarming willingness to choose headstrong leadership over thoughtful
leadership, to value security over liberty; to accept compromises to constitutional principles, and to defy the opinion of the rest
of the world.
How would we react if things got worse? If we were to lose the war in Iraq, leaving a fundamentalist regime in place; if we endured
several more major terrorist attacks; if the economy collapsed; if fuel prices reached $7 per gallon -- would we cling even more
fiercely to our democratic ideals? Or would we instead demand greater surveillance, more secret prisons, more arrests for "conspiracies"
that amount to little more than daydreams, and more quashing of dissent?
Our history suggests the latter. We Americans have had our flights from democracy -- the internment of Japanese-Americans in World
War II, the Red Scare and the McCarthy era, Watergate -- but we have always pulled back from the brink and returned to normal.
The time is coming for us to pull back from the brink again. This must happen before the government gets so strong that it can
completely demonize opposition, gain complete control of the media, and develop dossiers on all its citizens. By then it will be
too late, and we'll have ourselves to blame.
Brian E. Fogarty, a sociology professor at the College of St. Catherine in St. Paul, is the author of "
War, Peace, and the Social
Order ."
"... It may look like Russiagate was a failure, but it was actually a success. It deflected the left's attention from endemic corruption within the leadership of the Democratic party, which supposedly represents the left. It rechannelled the left's political energies instead towards the convenient bogeymen targets of Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... What Mueller found – all he was ever going to find – was marginal corruption in the Trump camp. And that was inevitable because Washington is mired in corruption. In fact, what Mueller revealed was the most exceptional forms of corruption among Trump's team while obscuring the run-of-the-mill stuff that would have served as a reminder of the endemic corruption infecting the Democratic leadership too. ..."
"... Further, in focusing on the Trump camp – and relative minnows like Paul Manafort and Roger Stone – the Russiagate inquiry actually served to shield the Democratic leadership from an investigation into the much worse corruption revealed in the content of the DNC emails. ..."
"... What should have been at the front and centre of any inquiry was how the Democratic party sought to rig its primaries to prevent party members selecting anyone but Hillary as their presidential candidate. ..."
"... Trump faces opposition from within the establishment not because he is "anti-establishment" but because he refuses to decorate the pig's snout with lipstick. He is tearing the mask off late-stage capitalism's greed and self-destructiveness ..."
"... The corporate media, and the journalists they employ, are propagandists – for a system that keeps them wealthy. When Trump was a Republican primary candidate, the entire corporate media loved him because he was TV's equivalent of clickbait, just as he had been since reality TV began to usurp the place of current affairs programmes and meaningful political debate. ..."
"... The "[neo]liberal" corporate media shares the values of the Democratic party leadership. In other words, it is heavily invested in making sure the pig doesn't lose its lipstick. By contrast, Fox News and the shock-jocks, like Trump, prioritise making money in the short term over the long-term credibility of a system that gives them licence to make money. They care much less whether the pig's face remains painted. ..."
"... Just as too many on the left sleep-walked through the past two years waiting for Mueller – a former head of the FBI, the US secret police, for chrissakes! – to save them from Trump, they have been manipulated by liberal elites into the political cul-de-sac of identity politics. ..."
"... The "[neo]liberal" elites exploited identity politics to keep us divided by pacifying the most maginalised with the offer of a few additional crumbs. Trump has exploited identity politics to keep us divided by inflaming tensions as he reorders the hierarchy of "privilege" in which those crumbs are offered. In the process, both wings of the elite have averted the danger that class consciousness and real solidarity might develop and start to challenge their privileges. ..."
"... Were the US to get its own Corbyn as president, he or she would undoubtedly face a Mueller-style inquiry, and one far more effective at securing the president's impeachment than this one was ever going to be. ..."
Here are three important lessons for the progressive left to consider now that it is clear the inquiry by special
counsel Robert Mueller into Russiagate is never going to
uncover collusion between Donald Trump's camp and the Kremlin in the 2016 presidential election.
Painting the pig's face
The left never had a dog in this race. This was always an in-house squabble between different wings
of the establishment. Late-stage capitalism is in terminal crisis, and the biggest problem facing our corporate elites is how to
emerge from this crisis with their power intact. One wing wants to make sure the pig's face remains painted, the other is
happy simply getting its snout deeper into the trough while the food lasts.
Russiagate was never about substance, it was about who gets to image-manage the decline of a turbo-charged,
self-harming neoliberal capitalism.
The leaders of the Democratic party are less terrified of Trump and what he represents than they are of us
and what we might do if we understood how they have rigged the political and economic system to their permanent advantage.
It may look like Russiagate was a failure, but it was actually a success. It deflected the left's attention
from endemic corruption within the leadership of the Democratic party, which supposedly represents the left. It rechannelled the
left's political energies instead towards the convenient bogeymen targets of Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Mired in corruption
What Mueller found – all he was ever going to find – was marginal corruption in the Trump camp. And that was
inevitable because Washington is mired in corruption. In fact, what Mueller revealed was the most exceptional forms of corruption
among Trump's team while obscuring the run-of-the-mill stuff that would have served as a reminder of the endemic corruption infecting
the Democratic leadership too.
An anti-corruption investigation would have run much deeper and exposed far more. It would have highlighted
the Clinton Foundation, and the role of mega-donors like James Simons, George Soros and Haim Saban who funded Hillary's campaign
with one aim in mind: to get their issues into a paid-for national "consensus".
Further, in focusing on the Trump camp – and relative minnows like Paul Manafort and Roger Stone – the
Russiagate inquiry actually served to shield the Democratic leadership from an investigation into the much worse corruption revealed
in the content of the DNC emails. It was the leaking / hacking of those emails that provided the rationale for Mueller's investigations.
What should have been at the front and centre of any inquiry was how the Democratic party sought to rig its primaries to prevent
party members selecting anyone but Hillary as their presidential candidate.
So, in short, Russiagate has been two years of wasted energy by the left, energy that could have been spent
both targeting Trump for what he is really doing rather than what it is imagined he has done, and targeting the Democratic leadership
for its own, equally corrupt practices.
Trump empowered
But it's far worse than that. It is not just that the left wasted two years of political energy on
Russiagate. At the same time, they empowered Trump, breathing life into his phony arguments that he is the anti-establishment president,
a people's president the elites are determined to destroy.
Trump faces opposition from within the establishment not because he is "anti-establishment" but because he
refuses to decorate the pig's snout with lipstick. He is tearing the mask off late-stage capitalism's greed and self-destructiveness.
And he is doing so not because he wants to reform or overthrow turbo-charged capitalism but because he wants to remove the last,
largely cosmetic constraints on the system so that he and his friends can plunder with greater abandon – and destroy the planet more
quickly.
The other wing of the neoliberal establishment, the one represented by the Democratic party leadership, fears
that exposing capitalism in this way – making explicit its inherently brutal, wrist-slitting tendencies – will awaken the masses,
that over time it will risk turning them into revolutionaries. Democratic party leaders fear Trump chiefly because of the threat
he poses to the image of the political and economic system they have so lovingly crafted so that they can continue enriching themselves
and their children.
Trump's genius – his only genius – is to have appropriated, and misappropriated, some of the language of the
left to advance the interests of the 1 per cent. When he attacks the corporate "liberal" media for having a harmful agenda, for serving
as propagandists, he is not wrong. When he rails against the identity politics cultivated by "liberal" elites over the past two decades
– suggesting that it has weakened the US – he is not wrong. But he is right for the wrong reasons.
TV's version of clickbait
The corporate media, and the journalists they employ, are propagandists – for a system that keeps them
wealthy. When Trump was a Republican primary candidate, the entire corporate media loved him because he was TV's equivalent of clickbait,
just as he had been since reality TV began to usurp the place of current affairs programmes and meaningful political debate.
The handful of corporations that own the US media – and much of corporate America besides – are there both
to make ever-more money by expanding profits and to maintain the credibility of a political and economic system that lets them make
ever more money.
The "[neo]liberal" corporate media shares the values of the Democratic party leadership. In other
words, it is heavily invested in making sure the pig doesn't lose its lipstick. By contrast, Fox News and the shock-jocks, like Trump,
prioritise making money in the short term over the long-term credibility of a system that gives them licence to make money. They
care much less whether the pig's face remains painted.
So Trump is right that the "liberal" media is undemocratic and that it is now propagandising against him. But
he is wrong about why. In fact, all corporate media – whether "liberal" or not, whether against Trump or for him – is undemocratic.
All of the media propagandises for a rotten system that keeps the vast majority of Americans impoverished. All of the media cares
more for Trump and the elites he belongs to than it cares for the 99 per cent.
Gorging on the main course
Similarly, with identity politics. Trump says he wants to make (a white) America great again, and uses the
left's obsession with identity as a way to energize a backlash from his own supporters.
Just as too many on the left sleep-walked through the past two years waiting for Mueller – a former head
of the FBI, the US secret police, for chrissakes! – to save them from Trump, they have been manipulated by liberal elites into the
political cul-de-sac of identity politics.
Just as Mueller put the left on standby, into waiting-for-the-Messiah mode, so simple-minded, pussy-hat-wearing
identity politics has been cultivated in the supposedly liberal bastions of the corporate media and Ivy League universities – the
same universities that have turned out generations of Muellers and Clintons – to deplete the left's political energies. While we
argue over who is most entitled and most victimised, the establishment has carried on raping and pillaging Third World countries,
destroying the planet and siphoning off the wealth produced by the rest of us.
These liberal elites long ago worked out that if we could be made to squabble among ourselves about who was
most entitled to scraps from the table, they could keep gorging on the main course.
The "[neo]liberal" elites exploited identity politics to keep us divided by pacifying the most maginalised
with the offer of a few additional crumbs. Trump has exploited identity politics to keep us divided by inflaming tensions as he reorders
the hierarchy of "privilege" in which those crumbs are offered. In the process, both wings of the elite have averted the danger that
class consciousness and real solidarity might develop and start to challenge their privileges.
The Corbyn experience
3. But the most important lesson of all for the left is that support among its ranks for the Mueller inquiry
against Trump was foolhardy in the extreme.
Not only was the inquiry doomed to failure – in fact, not only was it designed to fail – but it has set a precedent
for future politicised investigations that will be used against the progressive left should it make any significant political gains.
And an inquiry against the real left will be far more aggressive and far more "productive" than Mueller was.
If there is any doubt about that look to the UK. Britain now has within reach of power the first truly progressive
politician in living memory, someone seeking to represent the 99 per cent, not the 1 per cent. But Jeremy Corbyn's experience as
the leader of the Labour party – massively swelling the membership's ranks to make it the largest political party in Europe – has
been eye-popping.
I have documented Corbyn's travails regularly in this blog over the past four years at the hands of the British
political and media establishment. You can find many examples
here.
Corbyn, even more so than the small, new wave of insurgency politicians in the US Congress, has faced a relentless
barrage of criticism from across the UK's similarly narrow political spectrum. He has been attacked by both the rightwing media and
the supposedly "liberal" media. He has been savaged by the ruling Conservative party, as was to be expected, and by his own parliamentary
Labour party. The UK's two-party system has been exposed as just as hollow as the US one.
The ferocity of the attacks has been necessary because, unlike the Democratic party's success in keeping a
progressive leftwinger away from the presidential campaign, the UK system accidentally allowed a socialist to slip past the gatekeepers.
All hell has broken out ever since.
Simple-minded identity politics
What is so noticeable is that Corbyn is rarely attacked over his policies – mainly because they have
wide popular appeal. Instead he has been hounded over fanciful claims that, despite being a life-long and very visible anti-racism
campaigner, he suddenly morphed into an outright anti-semite the moment party members elected him leader.
I will not rehearse again how implausible these claims are. Simply look through these previous
blog posts
should you be in any doubt.
But what is amazing is that, just as with the Mueller inquiry, much of the British left – including prominent
figures like Owen Jones and the supposedly countercultural Novara Media – have sapped their political energies in trying to placate
or support those leading the preposterous claims that Labour under Corbyn has become "institutionally anti-semitic". Again, the promotion
of a simple-minded identity politics – which pits the rights of Palestinians against the sensitivities of Zionist Jews about Israel
– was exploited to divide the left.
The more the left has conceded to this campaign, the angrier, the more implacable, the more self-righteous
Corbyn's opponents have become – to the point that the Labour party is now in serious danger of imploding.
A clarifying moment
Were the US to get its own Corbyn as president, he or she would undoubtedly face a Mueller-style inquiry, and
one far more effective at securing the president's impeachment than this one was ever going to be.
That is not because a leftwing US president would be more corrupt or more likely to have colluded with a foreign
power. As the UK example shows, it would be because the entire media system – from the New York Times to Fox News – would be against
such a president. And as the UK example also shows, it would be because the leaderships of both the Republican and Democratic parties
would work as one to finish off such a president.
In the combined success-failure of the Mueller inquiry, the left has an opportunity to understand in a much
more sophisticated way how real power works and in whose favour it is exercised. It is moment that should be clarifying – if we are
willing to open our eyes to Mueller's real lessons.
But sophistication of intelligence agencies now reached very high level. Russiage was pretty dirty but pretty slick operation. British
thre letter againces were even more devious, if we view Skripals poisoning as MI5/Mi6 "witness protection" operation due to possible
Skripal role in creating Steele dossier. So let's keep wanting the evnet. The election 2020 might be event more interesting the Elections
of 2016. Who would suggest in 2015 that he/she elects man candidate from Israel lobby instead of a woman candidate from the same lobby?
Notable quotes:
"... The consistent derogation of Trump in the New York Times or on MSNBC may be helpful in keeping the resistance fired up, but it is counterproductive when it comes to breaking down the Trump coalition. His followers take every attack on their leader as an attack on them. ..."
"... Adorno also observed that demagoguery of this sort is a profession, a livelihood with well-tested methods. Trump is a far more familiar figure than may at first appear. The demagogue's appeals, Adorno wrote, 'have been standardised, similarly to the advertising slogans which proved to be most valuable in the promotion of business'. Trump's background in salesmanship and reality TV prepared him perfectly for his present role. ..."
"... the leader can guess the psychological wants and needs of those susceptible to his propaganda because he resembles them psychologically, and is distinguished from them by a capacity to express without inhibitions what is latent in them, rather than by any intrinsic superiority. ..."
"... The leaders are generally oral character types, with a compulsion to speak incessantly and to befool the others. The famous spell they exercise over their followers seems largely to depend on their orality: language itself, devoid of its rational significance, functions in a magical way and furthers those archaic regressions which reduce individuals to members of crowds. ..."
"... Since uninhibited associative speech presupposes at least a temporary lack of ego control, it can indicate weakness as well as strength. The agitators' boasting is frequently accompanied by hints of weakness, often merged with claims of strength. This was particularly striking, Adorno wrote, when the agitator begged for monetary contributions. ..."
"... Since 8 November 2016, many people have concluded that what they understandably view as a catastrophe was the result of the neglect by neoliberal elites of the white working class, simply put. Inspired by Bernie Sanders, they believe that the Democratic Party has to reorient its politics from the idea that 'a few get rich first' to protection for the least advantaged. ..."
"... Of those providing his roughly 40 per cent approval ratings, half say they 'strongly approve' and are probably lost to the Democrats. ..."
One might object that Trump, a billionaire TV star, does not resemble his followers. But this misses the powerful intimacy that he
establishes with them, at rallies, on TV and on Twitter. Part of his malicious genius lies in his ability to forge a bond with people
who are otherwise excluded from the world to which he belongs. Even as he cast Hillary Clinton as the tool of international finance,
he said:
I do deals – big deals – all the time. I know and work with all the toughest operators in the world of high-stakes global finance.
These are hard-driving, vicious cut-throat financial killers, the kind of people who leave blood all over the boardroom table
and fight to the bitter end to gain maximum advantage.
With these words he brought his followers into the boardroom with him and encouraged them to take part in a shared, cynical exposure
of the soiled motives and practices that lie behind wealth. His role in the Birther movement, the prelude to his successful presidential
campaign, was not only racist, but also showed that he was at home with the most ignorant, benighted, prejudiced people in America.
Who else but a complete loser would engage in Birtherism, so far from the Hollywood, Silicon Valley and Harvard aura that elevated
Obama, but also distanced him from the masses?
The consistent derogation of Trump in the New York Times or on MSNBC may be helpful in keeping the resistance fired up, but
it is counterproductive when it comes to breaking down the Trump coalition. His followers take every attack on their leader as an
attack on them. 'The fascist leader's startling symptoms of inferiority', Adorno wrote, 'his resemblance to ham actors and asocial
psychopaths', facilitates the identification, which is the basis of the ideal. On the Access Hollywood tape, which was widely assumed
would finish him, Trump was giving voice to a common enough daydream, but with 'greater force' and greater 'freedom of libido' than
his followers allow themselves. And he was bolstering the narcissism of the women who support him, too, by describing himself as
helpless in the grip of his desires for them.
Adorno also observed that demagoguery of this sort is a profession, a livelihood with well-tested methods. Trump is a far
more familiar figure than may at first appear. The demagogue's appeals, Adorno wrote, 'have been standardised, similarly to the advertising
slogans which proved to be most valuable in the promotion of business'. Trump's background in salesmanship and reality TV prepared
him perfectly for his present role. According to Adorno,
the leader can guess the psychological wants and needs of those susceptible to his propaganda because he resembles them
psychologically, and is distinguished from them by a capacity to express without inhibitions what is latent in them, rather than
by any intrinsic superiority.
To meet the unconscious wishes of his audience, the leader
simply turns his own unconscious outward Experience has taught him consciously to exploit this faculty, to make rational use
of his irrationality, similarly to the actor, or a certain type of journalist who knows how to sell their sensitivity.
All he has to do in order to make the sale, to get his TV audience to click, or to arouse a campaign rally, is exploit his own
psychology.
Using old-fashioned but still illuminating language, Adorno continued:
The leaders are generally oral character types, with a compulsion to speak incessantly and to befool the others. The famous
spell they exercise over their followers seems largely to depend on their orality: language itself, devoid of its rational significance,
functions in a magical way and furthers those archaic regressions which reduce individuals to members of crowds.
Since uninhibited associative speech presupposes at least a temporary lack of ego control, it can indicate weakness as well
as strength. The agitators' boasting is frequently accompanied by hints of weakness, often merged with claims of strength. This was
particularly striking, Adorno wrote, when the agitator begged for monetary contributions. As with the Birther movement or Access
Hollywood, Trump's self-debasement – pretending to sell steaks on the campaign trail – forges a bond that secures his idealised status.
Since 8 November 2016, many people have concluded that what they understandably view as a catastrophe was the result of the
neglect by neoliberal elites of the white working class, simply put. Inspired by Bernie Sanders, they believe that the Democratic
Party has to reorient its politics from the idea that 'a few get rich first' to protection for the least advantaged.
Yet no one who lived through the civil rights and feminist rebellions of recent decades can believe that an economic programme
per se is a sufficient basis for a Democratic-led politics.
This holds as well when it comes to trying to reach out to Trump's supporters. Of those providing his roughly 40 per cent
approval ratings, half say they 'strongly approve' and are probably lost to the Democrats. But if we understand the personal
level at which pro-Trump strivings operate, we may better appeal to the other half, and in that way forestall the coming emergency.
"... While the Tea Party was critical of status-quo neoliberalism -- especially its cosmopolitanism and embrace of globalization and diversity, which was perfectly embodied by Obama's election and presidency -- it was not exactly anti-neoliberal. Rather, it was anti-left neoliberalism-, it represented a more authoritarian, right [wing] version of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Within the context of the 2016 election, Clinton embodied the neoliberal center that could no longer hold. Inequality. Suffering. Collapsing infrastructures. Perpetual war. Anger. Disaffected consent. ..."
"... Both Sanders and Trump were embedded in the emerging left and right responses to neoliberalism's crisis. Specifically, Sanders' energetic campaign -- which was undoubtedly enabled by the rise of the Occupy movement -- proposed a decidedly more "commongood" path. Higher wages for working people. Taxes on the rich, specifically the captains of the creditocracy. ..."
"... In other words, Trump supporters may not have explicitly voted for neoliberalism, but that's what they got. In fact, as Rottenberg argues, they got a version of right neoliberalism "on steroids" -- a mix of blatant plutocracy and authoritarianism that has many concerned about the rise of U.S. fascism. ..."
"... We can't know what would have happened had Sanders run against Trump, but we can think seriously about Trump, right and left neoliberalism, and the crisis of neoliberal hegemony. In other words, we can think about where and how we go from here. As I suggested in the previous chapter, if we want to construct a new world, we are going to have to abandon the entangled politics of both right and left neoliberalism; we have to reject the hegemonic frontiers of both disposability and marketized equality. After all, as political philosopher Nancy Fraser argues, what was rejected in the election of 2016 was progressive, left neoliberalism. ..."
"... While the rise of hyper-right neoliberalism is certainly nothing to celebrate, it does present an opportunity for breaking with neoliberal hegemony. We have to proceed, as Gary Younge reminds us, with the realization that people "have not rejected the chance of a better world. They have not yet been offered one."' ..."
In Chapter 1, we traced the rise of our neoliberal conjuncture back to the crisis of liberalism during the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, culminating in the Great Depression. During this period, huge transformations in capitalism proved impossible
to manage with classical laissez-faire approaches. Out of this crisis, two movements emerged, both of which would eventually shape
the course of the twentieth century and beyond. The first, and the one that became dominant in the aftermath of the crisis, was the
conjuncture of embedded liberalism. The crisis indicated that capitalism wrecked too much damage on the lives of ordinary citizens.
People (white workers and families, especially) warranted social protection from the volatilities and brutalities of capitalism.
The state's public function was expanded to include the provision of a more substantive social safety net, a web of protections for
people and a web of constraints on markets. The second response was the invention of neoliberalism. Deeply skeptical of the common-good
principles that undergirded the emerging social welfare state, neoliberals began organizing on the ground to develop a "new" liberal
govemmentality, one rooted less in laissez-faire principles and more in the generalization of competition and enterprise. They worked
to envision a new society premised on a new social ontology, that is, on new truths about the state, the market, and human beings.
Crucially, neoliberals also began building infrastructures and institutions for disseminating their new' knowledges and theories
(i.e., the Neoliberal Thought Collective), as well as organizing politically to build mass support for new policies (i.e., working
to unite anti-communists, Christian conservatives, and free marketers in common cause against the welfare state). When cracks in
embedded liberalism began to surface -- which is bound to happen with any moving political equilibrium -- neoliberals were there
with new stories and solutions, ready to make the world anew.
We are currently living through the crisis of neoliberalism. As I write this book, Donald Trump has recently secured the U.S.
presidency, prevailing in the national election over his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Throughout the election, I couldn't
help but think back to the crisis of liberalism and the two responses that emerged. Similarly, after the Great Recession of 2008,
we've saw two responses emerge to challenge our unworkable status quo, which dispossesses so many people of vital resources for individual
and collective life. On the one hand, we witnessed the rise of Occupy Wall Street. While many continue to critique the movement for
its lack of leadership and a coherent political vision, Occupy was connected to burgeoning movements across the globe, and our current
political horizons have been undoubtedly shaped by the movement's success at repositioning class and economic inequality within our
political horizon. On the other hand, we saw' the rise of the Tea Party, a right-wing response to the crisis. While the Tea Party
was critical of status-quo neoliberalism -- especially its cosmopolitanism and embrace of globalization and diversity, which was
perfectly embodied by Obama's election and presidency -- it was not exactly anti-neoliberal. Rather, it was anti-left neoliberalism-,
it represented a more authoritarian, right [wing] version of neoliberalism.
Within the context of the 2016 election, Clinton embodied the neoliberal center that could no longer hold. Inequality. Suffering.
Collapsing infrastructures. Perpetual war. Anger. Disaffected consent. There were just too many fissures and fault lines in
the glossy, cosmopolitan world of left neoliberalism and marketized equality. Indeed, while Clinton ran on status-quo stories of
good governance and neoliberal feminism, confident that demographics and diversity would be enough to win the election, Trump effectively
tapped into the unfolding conjunctural crisis by exacerbating the cracks in the system of marketized equality, channeling political
anger into his celebrity brand that had been built on saying "f*** you" to the culture of left neoliberalism (corporate diversity,
political correctness, etc.) In fact, much like Clinton's challenger in the Democratic primary, Benie Sanders, Trump was a crisis
candidate.
Both Sanders and Trump were embedded in the emerging left and right responses to neoliberalism's crisis. Specifically, Sanders'
energetic campaign -- which was undoubtedly enabled by the rise of the Occupy movement -- proposed a decidedly more "commongood"
path. Higher wages for working people. Taxes on the rich, specifically the captains of the creditocracy.
Universal health care. Free higher education. Fair trade. The repeal of Citizens United. Trump offered a different response to
the crisis. Like Sanders, he railed against global trade deals like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). However, Trump's
victory was fueled by right neoliberalism's culture of cruelty. While Sanders tapped into and mobilized desires for a more egalitarian
and democratic future, Trump's promise was nostalgic, making America "great again" -- putting the nation back on "top of the world,"
and implying a time when women were "in their place" as male property, and minorities and immigrants were controlled by the state.
Thus, what distinguished Trump's campaign from more traditional Republican campaigns was that it actively and explicitly pitted
one group's equality (white men) against everyone else's (immigrants, women, Muslims, minorities, etc.). As Catherine Rottenberg
suggests, Trump offered voters a choice between a multiracial society (where folks are increasingly disadvantaged and dispossessed)
and white supremacy (where white people would be back on top). However, "[w]hat he neglected to state," Rottenberg writes,
is that neoliberalism flourishes in societies where the playing field is already stacked against various segments of society,
and that it needs only a relatively small select group of capital-enhancing subjects, while everyone else is ultimately dispensable.
1
In other words, Trump supporters may not have explicitly voted for neoliberalism, but that's what they got. In fact, as Rottenberg
argues, they got a version of right neoliberalism "on steroids" -- a mix of blatant plutocracy and authoritarianism that has many
concerned about the rise of U.S. fascism.
We can't know what would have happened had Sanders run against Trump, but we can think seriously about Trump, right and left
neoliberalism, and the crisis of neoliberal hegemony. In other words, we can think about where and how we go from here. As I suggested
in the previous chapter, if we want to construct a new world, we are going to have to abandon the entangled politics of both right
and left neoliberalism; we have to reject the hegemonic frontiers of both disposability and marketized equality. After all, as political
philosopher Nancy Fraser argues, what was rejected in the election of 2016 was progressive, left neoliberalism.
While the rise of hyper-right neoliberalism is certainly nothing to celebrate, it does present an opportunity for breaking
with neoliberal hegemony. We have to proceed, as Gary Younge reminds us, with the realization that people "have not rejected the
chance of a better world. They have not yet been offered one."'
Mark Fisher, the author of Capitalist Realism, put it this way:
The long, dark night of the end of history has to be grasped as an enormous opportunity. The very oppressive pervasiveness
of capitalist realism means that even glimmers of alternative political and economic possibilities can have a disproportionately
great effect. The tiniest event can tear a hole in the grey curtain of reaction which has marked the horizons of possibility under
capitalist realism. From a situation in which nothing can happen, suddenly anything is possible again.4
I think that, for the first time in the history of U.S. capitalism, the vast majority of people might sense the lie of liberal,
capitalist democracy. They feel anxious, unfree, disaffected. Fantasies of the good life have been shattered beyond repair for most
people. Trump and this hopefully brief triumph of right neoliberalism will soon lay this bare for everyone to see. Now, with Trump,
it is absolutely clear: the rich rule the world; we are all disposable; this is no democracy. The question becomes: How will we show
up for history? Will there be new stories, ideas, visions, and fantasies to attach to? How can we productively and meaningful intervene
in the crisis of neoliberalism? How can we "tear a hole in the grey curtain" and open up better worlds? How can we put what we've
learned to use and begin to imagine and build a world beyond living in competition? I hope our critical journey through the neoliberal
conjuncture has enabled you to begin to answer these questions.
More specifically, in recent decades, especially since the end of the Cold War, our common-good sensibilities have been channeled
into neoliberal platforms for social change and privatized action, funneling our political energies into brand culture and marketized
struggles for equality (e.g., charter schools, NGOs and non-profits, neoliberal antiracism and feminism). As a result, despite our
collective anger and disaffected consent, we find ourselves stuck in capitalist realism with no real alternative. Like the neoliberal
care of the self, we are trapped in a privatized mode of politics that relies on cruel optimism; we are attached, it seems, to politics
that inspire and motivate us to action, while keeping us living in competition.
To disrupt the game, we need to construct common political horizons against neoliberal hegemony. We need to use our common stories
and common reason to build common movements against precarity -- for within neoliberalism, precarity is what ultimately has the potential
to thread all of our lives together. Put differently, the ultimate fault line in the neoliberal conjiuicture is the way it subjects
us all to precarity and the biopolitics of disposability, thereby creating conditions of possibility for new coalitions across race,
gender, citizenship, sexuality, and class. Recognizing this potential for coalition in the face of precarization is the most pressing
task facing those who are yearning for a new world. The question is: How do we get there? How do we realize these coalitional potentialities
and materialize common horizons?
Ultimately, mapping the neoliberal conjuncture through everyday life in enterprise culture has not only provided some direction
in terms of what we need; it has also cultivated concrete and practical intellectual resources for political interv ention and social
interconnection -- a critical toolbox for living in common. More specifically, this book has sought to provide resources for thinking
and acting against the four Ds: resources for engaging in counter-conduct, modes of living that refuse, on one hand, to conduct one's
life according to the norm of enterprise, and on the other, to relate to others through the norm of competition. Indeed, we need
new ways of relating, interacting, and living as friends, lovers, workers, vulnerable bodies, and democratic people if we are to
write new stories, invent new govemmentalities, and build coalitions for new worlds.
Against Disimagination: Educated Hope and Affirmative Speculation
We need to stop turning inward, retreating into ourselves, and taking personal responsibility for our lives (a task which is ultimately
impossible). Enough with the disimagination machine! Let's start looking outward, not inward -- to the broader structures that undergird
our lives. Of course, we need to take care of ourselves; we must survive. But I firmly believe that we can do this in ways both big
and small, that transform neoliberal culture and its status-quo stories.
Here's the thing I tell my students all the time. You cannot escape neoliberalism. It is the air we breathe, the water in which
we swim. No job, practice of social activism, program of self-care, or relationship will be totally free from neoliberal impingements
and logics. There is no pure "outside" to get to or work from -- that's just the nature of the neoliberalism's totalizing cultural
power. But let's not forget that neoliberalism's totalizing cultural power is also a source of weakness. Potential for resistance
is everywhere, scattered throughout our everyday lives in enterprise culture. Our critical toolbox can help us identify these potentialities
and navigate and engage our conjuncture in ways that tear open up those new worlds we desire.
In other words, our critical perspective can help us move through the world with what Henry Giroux calls educated hope. Educated
hope means holding in tension the material realities of power and the contingency of history. This orientation of educated hope knows
very well what we're up against. However, in the face of seemingly totalizing power, it also knows that neoliberalism can never become
total because the future is open. Educated hope is what allows us to see the fault lines, fissures, and potentialities of the present
and emboldens us to think and work from that sliver of social space where we do have political agency and freedom to construct a
new world. Educated hope is what undoes the power of capitalist realism. It enables affirmative speculation (such as discussed in
Chapter 5), which does not try to hold the future to neoliberal horizons (that's cruel optimism!), but instead to affirm our commonalities
and the potentialities for the new worlds they signal. Affirmative speculation demands a different sort of risk calculation and management.
It senses how little we have to lose and how much we have to gain from knocking the hustle of our lives.
Against De-democratization: Organizing and Collective Coverning
We can think of educated hope and affirmative speculation as practices of what Wendy Brown calls "bare democracy" -- the basic
idea that ordinary' people like you and me should govern our lives in common, that we should critique and try to change our world,
especially the exploitative and oppressive structures of power that maintain social hierarchies and diminish lives. Neoliberal culture
works to stomp out capacities for bare democracy by transforming democratic desires and feelings into meritocratic desires and feelings.
In neoliberal culture, utopian sensibilities are directed away from the promise of collective utopian sensibilities are directed
away from the promise of collective governing to competing for equality.
We have to get back that democractic feeling! As Jeremy Gilbert taught us, disaffected consent is a post-democratic orientation.
We don't like our world, but we don't think we can do anything about it. So, how do we get back that democratic feeling? How do we
transform our disaffected consent into something new? As I suggested in the last chapter, we organize. Organizing is simply about
people coming together around a common horizon and working collectively to materialize it. In this way, organizing is based on the
idea of radical democracy, not liberal democracy. While the latter is based on formal and abstract rights guaranteed by the state,
radical democracy insists that people should directly make the decisions that impact their lives, security, and well-being. Radical
democracy is a practice of collective governing: it is about us hashing out, together in communities, what matters, and working in
common to build a world based on these new sensibilities.
The work of organizing is messy, often unsatisfying, and sometimes even scary. Organizing based on affirmative speculation and
coalition-building, furthermore, will have to be experimental and uncertain. As Lauren Berlant suggests, it means "embracing the
discomfort of affective experience in a truly open social life that no
one has ever experienced." Organizing through and for the common "requires more adaptable infrastructures. Keep forcing the existing
infrastructures to do what they don't know how to do. Make new ways to be local together, where local doesn't require a physical
neighborhood." 5 What Berlant is saying is that the work of bare democracy requires unlearning, and detaching from, our
current stories and infrastructures in order to see and make things work differently. Organizing for a new world is not easy -- and
there are no guarantees -- but it is the only way out of capitalist realism.
Getting back democratic feeling will at once require and help us lo move beyond the biopolitics of disposability and entrenched
systems of inequality. On one hand, organizing will never be enough if it is not animated by bare democracy, a sensibility that each
of us is equally important when it comes to the project of determining our lives in common. Our bodies, our hurts, our dreams, and
our desires matter regardless of our race, gender, sexuality, or citizenship, and regardless of how r much capital (economic,
social, or cultural) we have. Simply put, in a radical democracy, no one is disposable. This bare-democratic sense of equality must
be foundational to organizing and coalition-building. Otherwise, we will always and inevitably fall back into a world of inequality.
On the other hand, organizing and collective governing will deepen and enhance our sensibilities and capacities for radical equality.
In this context, the kind of self-enclosed individualism that empowers and underwrites the biopolitics of disposability melts away,
as we realize the interconnectedness of our lives and just how amazing it feels to
fail, we affirm our capacities for freedom, political intervention, social interconnection, and collective social doing.
Against Dispossession: Shared Security and Common Wealth
Thinking and acting against the biopolitics of disposability goes hand-in-hand with thinking and acting against dispossession.
Ultimately, when we really understand and feel ourselves in relationships of interconnection with others, we want for them as we
want for ourselves. Our lives and sensibilities of what is good and just are rooted in radical equality, not possessive or self-appreciating
individualism. Because we desire social security and protection, we also know others desire and deserve the same.
However, to really think and act against dispossession means not only advocating for shared security and social protection, but
also for a new society that is built on the egalitarian production and distribution of social wealth that we all produce. In this
sense, we can take Marx's critique of capitalism -- that wealth is produced collectively but appropriated individually -- to heart.
Capitalism was built on the idea that one class -- the owners of the means of production -- could exploit and profit from the collective
labors of everyone else (those who do not own and thus have to work), albeit in very different ways depending on race, gender, or
citizenship. This meant that, for workers of all stripes, their lives existed not for themselves, but for others (the appropriating
class), and that regardless of what we own as consumers, we are not really free or equal in that bare-democratic sense of the word.
If we want to be really free, we need to construct new material and affective social infrastructures for our common wealth. In
these new infrastructures, wealth must not be reduced to economic value; it must be rooted in social value. Here, the production
of wealth does not exist as a separate sphere from the reproduction of our lives. In other words, new infrastructures, based on the
idea of common wealth, will not be set up to exploit our labor, dispossess our communities, or to divide our lives. Rather, they
will work to provide collective social resources and care so that we may all be free to pursue happiness, create beautiful and/or
useful things, and to realize our potential within a social world of living in common. Crucially, to create the conditions for these
new, democratic forms of freedom rooted in radical equality, we need to find ways to refuse and exit the financial networks of Empire
and the dispossessions of creditocracy, building new systems that invite everyone to participate in the ongoing production of new
worlds and the sharing of the wealth that we produce in common.
It's not up to me to tell you exactly where to look, but I assure you that potentialities for these new worlds are everywhere
around you.
"... The opposite of a neoliberal economic agenda isn't a progressive economic agenda, but democratic re-engagement. Neoliberalism taught us that "there is no alternative" to cutting taxes, cutting services and letting the banks treat us as they see fit. But of course not even the Coalition believes that any more. These days they proudly subsidise their friends and regulate their enemies in order to reshape Australia in their preferred form. ..."
"... While the hypocrisy is staggering, at least voters can now see that politics, and elections, matter. Having been told for decades that it was "global markets" that shaped our society, it's now clear that it is actually the likes of Barnaby Joyce and Tony Abbott who decide whether we get new coal mines or power stations. Luckily, millions of voters now realise that if it's OK to subsidise new coal mines, there's no reason we can't subsidise renewables instead. ..."
"... So, what to nationalise? What new machinery of state should we build first? Should we create a national anti-corruption watchdog, replace the productivity commission with a national interest commission, or abolish the failed network of finance sector regulators and build a new one from scratch? ..."
"... The death of neoliberalism means we can finally have a national debate about the size and role of government, and the shape of the economy and society we want to build. ..."
"... class warfare (by the rich against the 99%, though I should not need to say that) is still very much alive. ..."
"... The rise of nationalism is indeed worrying situation.. but its clear that mass discontent is driving a 'shift' away from the status quo and that opportunists of every creed are all trying to get in on the action.. ..."
"... the elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss is population growth and lack of natural resources and meaningful 'employment' .. which self serving politicians are exploiting via playing the fear card and creating further division in society in order to embrace and increase their own power. Further more, no one, it seems, has any valid answers as regards resolving the division and creating a path forward.. thereby making more conflict an inevitability. ..."
"... Like Octopus, the globalists have every one of their eight legs in a different pot of gold. On their arms, suction cups maintain an iron grip. Trying to pull those suckers out, leaves us raw and bleeding. To release their grip, without hurting ourselves, we must aim for the brain. ..."
"... Murdoch's media empire has arms in every Democracy on earth. As his poisonous ink spread across our lands, we wallowed in the dark. ..."
"... The Oil and Coal Tycoons have arms in every black hole on earth. As their suckers pull black gold from the land beneath our feet, we choke on the air we breathe. ..."
"... The Financial Tyrants have arms in our buildings, factories, farms and homes. Their suckers stripped our pockets bare and we ran out of money. ..."
"... The False Prophets spread their arms into our private lives. Their suckers turned our modest, humble faiths into global empires filled with mega-churches, televangelists, jet-setting preachers and evangelical armies Hell bent on disruption and destruction. ..."
"... Neoliberalism may be dead but the former Trotskyites who invented it are still alive and they still have an agenda. ..."
"... Neo Liberalism was a project cooked up back in the late 1970s by the Capital owning classes & enacted by successive govts of "right" or "left" ever since. They feared the growing power of the working & middle classes which they felt threatened their own power & wealth. So they set out to destroy any ability of the working class to organise & to gut the middle class. ..."
"... Key to this was decoupling wages from productivity & forcing us all into debt peonage. Deregulation of the financial markets & the globalization of capital markets, disastorous multilateral trade deals & off shoring jobs, slashing state social programmes, Union busting laws all part of the plan. All covered with a lie that we live in meritocracies & the "best & brightest" are in charge. The result has been evermore riches funneled to the wealthiest few percent & a wealth gap bigger than that of the gilded age ..."
"... The majority press are so organised around the idea that neoliberalism in the sense captured economically and to some extent socially as construed in the article above; ..."
"... Rumours of neoliberalism's death have been somewhat exaggerated. Its been on life support provided by the LNP since John Howard and there are still a few market fundamentalists lurking in the ranks of the ALP, just waiting for their chance to do New Labor MkII in memory of Paul Keating. ..."
"... Neoliberalism's lasting legacy will not be the ludicrous economic programs, privatizations and deregulation, those can all be rolled back if some party would grow a spine. The real damage was caused by the aping of the US and UK's cult of individual responsibility, the atomizing effects of neoliberal anti-social policy and demonization of collective action including unionism. ..."
The opposite of a neoliberal economic agenda isn't a progressive economic agenda, but
democratic re-engagement. Neoliberalism taught us that "there is no alternative" to cutting
taxes, cutting services and letting the banks treat us as they see fit. But of course not even
the Coalition believes that any more. These days they proudly subsidise their friends and
regulate their enemies in order to reshape Australia in their preferred form.
While the hypocrisy is staggering, at least voters can now see that politics, and elections,
matter. Having been told for decades that it was "global markets" that shaped our society, it's
now clear that it is actually the likes of Barnaby Joyce and Tony Abbott who decide whether we
get new coal mines or power stations. Luckily, millions of voters now realise that if it's OK
to subsidise new coal mines, there's no reason we can't subsidise renewables instead.
Neoliberalism: the idea that swallowed the world Read more
The parliament is filling with people of all political persuasions who, if nothing else,
decry the neoliberal agenda to shrink our government and our national vision. While there's
obviously quite a distance between MPs who want to build the nation, one new coal mine at a
time, and those who want to fill our cities with renewable energy, the whole purpose of
democracy is to settle such disputes at the ballot box.
So, what to nationalise? What new machinery of state should we build first? Should we create
a national anti-corruption watchdog, replace the productivity commission with a national
interest commission, or abolish the failed network of finance sector regulators and build a new
one from scratch?
... ... ...
The death of neoliberalism means we can finally have a national debate about the size and
role of government, and the shape of the economy and society we want to build. But we need to
do more than talk about tax and regulation. Australia is one of the oldest parliamentary
democracies in the world, and we once helped lead the world in the design of democratic
institutions and the creation of an open democratic culture. Let's not allow the legacy of
neoliberalism to be a cynical belief that there is no point repairing and rebuilding the
democratic institutions that ensure not just our economy thrives, but our society as well. A
quick look around the world provides clear evidence that there really are a lot of
alternatives.
Richard Denniss is chief economist for the Australia Institute
Mmmm, well, class warfare (by the rich against the 99%, though I should not need to say that)
is still very much alive.
Globalisation-driven financial deregulation was commenced here by Hawke Labor from 1983 as
a Laberal facade for the Australian chapter of the transnational ruling class policy of
self-enrichment. It was sold to the aspirationals as the ever-popular This Will Make You Rich
- as ever-rising house prices did, for home-owners then (paid for now through housing
unaffordability for their descendants). Then, transnational capital was able to loot both
aspirationals' productivity gains (easily 10% of GDP) plus usurious interest from the
borrowings made by the said aspirationals (easily 6% of GDP) to keep up with the Joneses.
Now, it loots 90% of all increases in GDP, leaving just 10% in crumbs from the filthy rich
man's table for 15 million workers to share.
We don't notice as much as we should, because the mainstream (mainly but not only Murdoch)
media is very good at persuading us - then and now - that there is nothing to see. It is a
tool of that transnational class, its role being to manufacture our consent to our own
exploitation. Thus they play the man because it is politically easier than open demands that
the public be robbed. In the case of penalty rates, thus adopting the obvious hypocrisy of
which "The Australian" accuses Shorten. Or they play the woman, in the case of the ferocious,
relentless media vilification of Julia Gillard and Gillard Labor – five years after the
demonization of Gillard Labor's Great Big New (Carbon) Tax, the need for one is now almost
universally accepted. Or they play the players, hence a focus on Dutton's challenge that
pretends that he has meaningful policies.
Labor's class traitors clearly intended to aggressively apply the standard neoliberal
model – look at how it helps their careers after politics (ask Anna Blight)! Shorten is
not working to promote some progressive agenda, he is doing as little as possible, and
expects to simply be voted into The Lodge as a committed servant of transnational
capitalism.
I stopped voting 40 years ago because the voting system is mathematically rigged to favor
the duopoly. Until a large number of minor parties can share their preferences and beat the
majors, which is now starting to happen. This is not just voting for a good representative,
but voting against the corrupt parties. A minority government should lead to proper debate in
parliament. More women will lead to lower levels of testosterone fuelled sledging and better
communication. A "Coalition of Representative Independents" could form government in the
future, leading by consensus and constantly listening to the community.
The rise of nationalism is indeed worrying situation.. but its clear that mass discontent is
driving a 'shift' away from the status quo and that opportunists of every creed are all
trying to get in on the action..
The big nut to crack is HOW do we collectively find sane and
honest leadership ? A huge part of the problem is the ongoing trend of disdain for government
in favor of embracing private monopolies as the be all and end all for solving the ongoing
societal rift. .. which has created a centralization of wealth and the power that that wealth
yields.. allied to the fact that huge swaths of the population in EVERY nation were hiding
when the brains were allocated.. and hence are very easy to dupe..
the elephant in the room
that no one wants to discuss is population growth and lack of natural resources and
meaningful 'employment' .. which self serving politicians are exploiting via playing the fear
card and creating further division in society in order to embrace and increase their own
power. Further more, no one, it seems, has any valid answers as regards resolving the
division and creating a path forward.. thereby making more conflict an inevitability.
Like Octopus, the globalists have every one of their eight legs in a different pot of gold.
On their arms, suction cups maintain an iron grip. Trying to pull those suckers out, leaves
us raw and bleeding. To release their grip, without hurting ourselves, we must aim for the
brain.
Murdoch's media empire has arms in every Democracy on earth. As his poisonous ink spread
across our lands, we wallowed in the dark.
The Oil and Coal Tycoons have arms in every black hole on earth. As their suckers pull
black gold from the land beneath our feet, we choke on the air we breathe.
The Financial Tyrants have arms in our buildings, factories, farms and homes. Their
suckers stripped our pockets bare and we ran out of money.
The False Prophets spread their arms into our private lives. Their suckers turned our
modest, humble faiths into global empires filled with mega-churches, televangelists,
jet-setting preachers and evangelical armies Hell bent on disruption and destruction.
Denniss offers us the cure! Start thinking fresh and new and starve the globalists to
death. They fed us BS, we ate BS and now we are mal-nourished. We need good, healthy
ideas.
Land. Infrastructure. Time.
Time - "WE" increased productivity and the globalists stole the rewards. Time to increase
our FREE time. 32 hours is the NEW full time. Pay us full time wages, give us full time
benefits, and reduce our work days by 20% and suddenly we have 20% more jobs. As the incomes
of billionaires drop, the money in circulation will increase. We are the job creators - not
globalists.
21st Century Infrastructure is about healthy human beings - not the effing economy. Think
healthcare, education, senior care and child care. If we find out you have sent your money
off-shore, your local taxes will increase by ten. So please, do, send your money off-shore -
our cities and towns would love to increase taxes on your stores, offices and real estate by
ten.
No more caps on taxes. If you are a citizen, you pay social taxes on every dime you get.
In America you will be paying 15.3% of every dollar to social security. That's $153,000.00 a
year for every million dollars you take out of our economy.
Land is not something you put in a museum, lock away in a vault, or wear on your neck.
Think fresh and new. If you own land, you are responsible for meeting community rules.
No more empty, weed filled lots allowed. If you have empty land, you better put in a nice
garden, pretty trees and walkways or we will do it for you and employ "eminent-domain" on
your bank accounts to pay for it.
No more empty buildings. If you own an empty building you will put it to good use, or we
will do it for you - and keep the profits to fund our local governments, schools, hospitals,
and senior/child care centers.
No more slumlords allowed. We have basic standards, for everyone. If we catch you renting
a slum to anyone, we will make repairs for you, and if you do not pay the bill, we will put a
lien on your building and wait until you sell it to pay ourselves back.
We do not trust you big-box types anymore. If you want to build your mega-store in our
cities, towns or communities, you must, first, deposit the entire cost of tearing it down,
and landscaping a park, or playground when you leave. While you stay, we will invest your
deposit in index funds and assure ourselves enough money down the road.
Sorry you BIG guys and gals, but you will find our countries are very expensive places for
you to invest. We put our families, our neighborhoods and our lives first.
However - and it's a big however - there is a very real danger that at the next election
the libs will again win by default due to the fact that many traditional labour voters are
defecting to the greens instead. Sadly, LNP supporters are a lot less likely to vote green.
Our best hope is to wipe the LNP out at the next election by voting labour, and then at the
election after that establishing the greens in opposition. It is unfortunatly unlikely to
happen at the next election....and I just hope that voters in certain seats understand that
by voting for the greens they might be in fact unwittingly handing the reins back to the
least green party of all: the LNP.
Neo Liberalism was a project cooked up back in the late 1970s by the Capital owning classes
& enacted by successive govts of "right" or "left" ever since. They feared the growing
power of the working & middle classes which they felt threatened their own power &
wealth. So they set out to destroy any ability of the working class to organise & to gut
the middle class.
Key to this was decoupling wages from productivity & forcing us all
into debt peonage. Deregulation of the financial markets & the globalization of capital
markets, disastorous multilateral trade deals & off shoring jobs, slashing state social
programmes, Union busting laws all part of the plan. All covered with a lie that we live in
meritocracies & the "best & brightest" are in charge. The result has been evermore
riches funneled to the wealthiest few percent & a wealth gap bigger than that of the
gilded age
The majority press are so organised around the idea that neoliberalism in the sense captured
economically and to some extent socially as construed in the article above; as normal and
natural that nothing can be done. As the system folds we see in its place Brexit, neoconservatism, Trump.
This is not new found freedom or Liberatarianism but a post liberal
world where decency and open mindedness and open nuanced debate take a a back seat to
populism and demagoguery.
The whole purpose of Anglophone liberal democracy has been twofold: 1. to establish and
protect private property rights and 2. TO guarantee some individual liberties. Guess who
benefits from the enshrinement of private property rights as absolute? Big owners, and you
know who they are. ... Individual tights are just not that sacred, summon the latest
bogeyman, and they can be shrunken or tossed.
Neoliberalism, the economic stablemate of big religion's Prosperity Evangelism cult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
.
Dual streams of bull shit to confuse the citizens while the Country's immense wealth is
stolen.
It seems there's been a turning point recently though in the ideas of neoliberalism, as
pointed out by Denniss that suddenly it's okay for all and sundry to talk about nationalising
industries and infrastructure. It will probably take a couple of decades to turn things
around in practical ways. And there are surely plenty of powerful supporters of the ideas of
neoliberalism still around.
Is neo-liberalism really dead or is it wishful thinking?
If neo-liberalism really is on the decline in Australia, all i can say is bravo to Australia,
use this opportunity to build a stronger government and regain the terrain that was lost
during the TINA (there is no alternative) years.
Here in Canada neo-liberalism is stronger than ever, maybe because of the proximity to the
cancerous tumor at the south, so when i read this article, i did it with a bit of skepticism
but also with a bit of envy and a bit of hope for the future.
Neoliberalism is *not* dead, and it is counter-productive to claim that it is. It is clearly
the driver of what passes for policy by the LNP government. Just as trickle-down economics
remains as the basis of the government's economic actions.
It will look like it's dead when back bone services and infrastructure utilities are returned
to public ownership.
Those things are not fit for market style private ownership for a few big reasons:
They are by their nature natural monopolies (so a market private ownership won't work and
will rapidly creep up prices of reduced service precisely because they not in a natural
market context.
These core services and utilities are mega scale operations beyond a natural market ROI
value.
These core sovereign services and utilities, are nation critical to the national economy
and political stability. The last thing we want to do is hand that sovereign power over to
private control.
Australia is a very fortunate country. It enjoys national sovereignty, unshackled by
crippling bonds to anything like the neoliberal EU. It is thus able to concentrate on solving
its own issues.
Great article. Must say that we do have more than one vote per electorate. They're called
preference votes. Kerryn Phelps get 23% of the primary PLUS a heap of preferences! But a
proportional system would change a whole lot of results
Firstly we are not in America. America is a basket case and has been since, well, forever.
Secondly the so called "housing crisis" is a simple consequence of a growing population.
In the 1950s there were just 8m people in Australia, there 10m in the 1960s and 12m in the
1970s. And, no, neo-liebralism didn't cause the growing population. People having sex and
living longer caused the growing population. It is therefore all the more remarkable that we
have actually built enough houses to house a population which has doubled in size.
Thirdly, in the last 30 years 1 billion people have been lifted out of poverty. When you
talk about huge, unprecedented, un-fucking-believable levels of poverty, super-massive
inequality, dissatisfaction (Really? This is now a measure?), unemployment/sub-employment and
casualization, collapse (collapse?) of public services, high(er) costs of living.....do you
think you're being a little overly dramatic?
Do you really think it all comes to back to one silly economic theory?
Nothing to do with the reality of automation, globalisation, growing populations and the
realities of living in 2018 rather than 1978?
Are voters around the world going hard against Neoliberalism? (I note it's now a
capitalised term).
In the US they voted for a billionaire who blamed immigrants for people's problems while
promising tax and spending cuts.....sounds like an even more extreme version of
neo-liberlaism to me.
In Britain they voted for Brexit to....oh that's right....kick out immigrants and burn
"red tape".
In Brazil, yep, more neo-liberalism on steroids.
In fact, looking around the world it's actually the far right which are seizing power.
And this is the issue with the obsessive preoccupation with community decline. It feeds
directly into the hands of fascism and the far right.
I'm not saying things are perfect. I would prefer to see much more government investment.
The only way we'll get that is to educate ourselves about how government finances work so
that we're not frightened off by talk of deficits.
However, by laying this all on the door of one rather silly economic theory is to ignore
that economics is nothing without human beings. It is human beings who are responsible for
all of the good and bad in the world. No theory is going change that. If the world is the way
it is it's because humans made it like this.
The "deterioration of the environment"? We did that not neo-liberalism .....
In answer to the headline article question, yes WE citizens should collectively strive to
think radically, bigger and better than the existing status quo.
PAY CITIZENS TO VOTE!
We must bypass the vested interests and create a new system which encourages active,
regular participation in democracy.... lest we wake up one day and realise too late that, by
stealth and citizen apathy, the plutocrats and their corporate fascist servants have usurped
our nation state, corrupted our law and weakened our institutions, to such a point that our
individual rights are permanently crushed.
Change is coming, like it or not. This century - there is great risk to society that
advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics and lifespan enhancing
genetic engineering will be used by ultra-rich plutocrats to make the vast majority of
humanity redundant (within a couple of generations).
Citizens should advocate for DIRECT DEMOCRACY in which citizens are PAID on a per vote per
issue basis (subject to verification checks that support the rewarding of effort- citizens
should be asked to first demonstrate that they have made effort to obtain sufficient
knowledge on a particular topic, prior to being rewarded for their service of voting. Such a
process can be opt-in, those who want to be paid, work to do so by learning about the
governance issue which is to be voted upon. In this way, a minimum wage can be obtained by
direct citizen participation in the governance of communities and our nation). We have the
technologies TODAY to undertake open-ledger, smart-phone enabled, digital/postal voting on a
per issue basis... which can be funded by EFFECTIVE taxation on large multinational
corporations and ultra-wealthy (foreign) shareholders. Citizen will is needed to influence
change - the major political parties did not want a Federal ICAC and they certainly will not
support paid direct citizen democracy unless voters overwhelming demand it.
Citizens already accept that politicians are paid to vote (and frequently "rewarded" for
their "service" to large corporations and wealthy (foreign) shareholders by unethical,
corrupt means). Thus, in principle, why can society not collectively accept direct payment to
citizens for their individual vote upon an issue? Why do citizens continue to accept
archaic systems of democracy which have clearly FAILED to meet the needs of our population in
the 21st century?
Citizens are not sufficiently politically engaged in democracy and their civic
responsibilities BECAUSE they are not incentivised to do so and because they are economic
slaves without the luxury of time to sort through deliberate overload of disinformation,
distortion, distraction and deception. Citizens are struggling to obtain objective
understanding and to think critically because these crucial functions of democracy are
innately discouraged by our existing 20th century economy (that is, slaves are busy support
the systems of plutocrats in order that they may live, ants to a queen).
We must advocate for change in the systems of democracy which are failing our communities,
our nation, our planet. For too long, plutocrats and their servants have maintained control
over economic slaves and the vast majority of the population because citizens have accepted
the status quo of being governed by the powerful.
Technology has permanently changed our species. We must all collectively act before innate
human greed, lust for power and fear of loss of control (by the wealthy few) lead the
majority on an irrational path toward destruction - using the very technologies which helped
set us free from the natural world!
In answer to the headline article question, yes WE citizens should collectively strive to
think radically, bigger and better than the existing status quo. PAY CITIZENS TO VOTE!
We must bypass the vested interests and create a new system which encourages active,
regular participation in democracy.... lest we wake up one day and realise too late that, by
stealth and citizen apathy, the plutocrats and their corporate fascist servants have usurped
our nation state, corrupted our law and weakened our institutions, to such a point that our
individual rights are permanently crushed.
Change is coming, like it or not. This century - there is great risk to society that
advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics and lifespan enhancing
genetic engineering will be used by ultra-rich plutocrats to make the vast majority of
humanity redundant (within a couple of generations).
Citizens should advocate for DIRECT DEMOCRACY in which citizens are PAID on a per vote per
issue basis (subject to verification checks that support the rewarding of effort- citizens
should be asked to first demonstrate that they have made effort to obtain sufficient
knowledge on a particular topic, prior to being rewarded for their service of voting. Such a
process can be opt-in, those who want to be paid, work to do so by learning about the
governance issue which is to be voted upon. In this way, a minimum wage can be obtained by
direct citizen participation in the governance of communities and our nation). We have the
technologies TODAY to undertake open-ledger, smart-phone enabled, digital/postal voting on a
per issue basis... which can be funded by EFFECTIVE taxation on large multinational
corporations and ultra-wealthy (foreign) shareholders. Citizen will is needed to influence
change - the major political parties did not want a Federal ICAC and they certainly will not
support paid direct citizen democracy unless voters overwhelming demand it.
Citizens already accept that politicians are paid to vote (and frequently "rewarded" for
their "service" to large corporations and wealthy (foreign) shareholders by unethical,
corrupt means). Thus, in principle, why can society not collectively accept direct payment to
citizens for their individual vote upon an issue? Why do citizens continue to accept
archaic systems of democracy which have clearly FAILED to meet the needs of our population in
the 21st century?
Citizens are not sufficiently politically engaged in democracy and their civic
responsibilities BECAUSE they are not incentivised to do so and because they are economic
slaves without the luxury of time to sort through deliberate overload of disinformation,
distortion, distraction and deception. Citizens are struggling to obtain objective
understanding and to think critically because these crucial functions of democracy are
innately discouraged by our existing 20th century economy (that is, slaves are busy support
the systems of plutocrats in order that they may live, ants to a queen).
We must advocate for change in the systems of democracy which are failing our communities,
our nation, our planet. For too long, plutocrats and their servants have maintained control
over economic slaves and the vast majority of the population because citizens have accepted
the status quo of being governed by the powerful.
Technology has permanently changed our species. We must all collectively act before innate
human greed, lust for power and fear of loss of control (by the wealthy few) lead the
majority on an irrational path toward destruction - using the very technologies which helped
set us free from the natural world!
Richard went off the rails in his opening sentence: "The opposite of a neoliberal economic
agenda isn't a progressive economic agenda, but democratic re-engagement."
I say this because economically misinformed democratic engagement is a shackle around
democracy, at best, if not fatal to democracy. And the biggest and most fundamental
misinformation, spouted every bit as much by ALP and Greens as the Libs, is that we must
strive for a "sustainable surplus".
As Richard rightly observes, "Neoliberalism taught us that "there is no alternative" to
cutting taxes, cutting services and letting the banks treat us as they see fit. But of course
not even the Coalition believes that any more." But that doesn't stop them, or Labor, or the
Greens from guaranteeing the continuance of the neoliberal cut & privatise mania by
insisting that they believe in "budget repair" and "return to surplus" - an insistence which
their economically illiterate or misled supporters accept. If you believe in the obviously
ridiculous necessity for a currency issuer to run balanced budgets, you are forced into
invalid neoliberal thinking, into accepting a false "necessity" for cuts and privatisations,
or economy-sedating taxation increases.
Rumours of neoliberalism's death have been somewhat exaggerated. Its been on life support
provided by the LNP since John Howard and there are still a few market fundamentalists
lurking in the ranks of the ALP, just waiting for their chance to do New Labor MkII in memory
of Paul Keating.
Neoliberalism's lasting legacy will not be the ludicrous economic programs, privatizations
and deregulation, those can all be rolled back if some party would grow a spine. The
real damage was caused by the aping of the US and UK's cult of individual responsibility, the
atomizing effects of neoliberal anti-social policy and demonization of collective action
including unionism.
All of which have hastened the atrophy of our democracy.
First things first lets get rid of the neo-liberal national dinosaurs still wallowing in
parliament unaware of the mass extinction awaiting them in March next year. At the same time
vote in a minority Labor government with enough independent cross benchers, including a
preponderance of Greens to keep the bastards honest.
Then just maybe we can start looking at the wider project of repairing Australian society
and democracy while we try and reverse the near-decade of damage the LNP have done with their
dangerous pro-fossil fuel stance, their insane climate change denial and hypocritical big
business friendly economic policies.
The irony is that it's simple. It's the Heath Robinson contraptions that the economic
priesthood for the plutocracy snow us with that are complicated, that turn us off economic
thinking because they are impenetrable and make no sense. The simplicity comes from
accepting the blinding obvious truth, once you think about it. The federal government is the
monopoly issuer of the AUD. The rest of the world are users, not issuers. Its "budgets" are
not our budgets. Nothing like them. Kind of the opposite. Its surpluses are the economy's
deficits. Its deficits are the economy's surpluses.
Money quote: " neoliberalism is the fight of finance to subdue society at large, and to
make the bankers and creditors today in the position that the landlords were under
feudalism."
Notable quotes:
"... ... if you take the Bible literally, it's the fight in almost all of the early books of the Old Testament, the Jewish Bible, all about the fight over indebtedness and debt cancellation. ..."
"... neoliberalism is the fight of finance to subdue society at large,and to make the bankers and creditors today in the position that the landlords were under feudalism. ..."
"... They call themselves free marketers, but they realize that you cannot have neoliberalism unless you're willing to murder and assassinate everyone who promotes an alternative ..."
"... Just so long as you remember that most of the strongest and most moving condemnations of greed and money in the ancient and (today) western world are also Jewish--i.e. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, the Gospels, Letter of James, etc. ..."
"... The history of Jewish banking after the fall or Rome is inextricable from cultural anti-judaism of Christian west and east and de facto marginalization/ghettoization of Jews from most aspects of social life. The Jewish lending of money on interest to gentiles was both necessary for early mercantilist trade and yet usury was prohibited by the church. So Jewish money lenders were essential to and yet ostracized within European economies for centuries. ..."
"... Now Christianity has itself long given up on the tradition teaching against usury of course. ..."
"... In John, for instance most of the references to what in English is translated as "the Jews" are in Greek clearly references to "the Judaeans"--and especially to the ruling elite among the southern tribe in bed with the Romans. ..."
Just finished reading the fascinating
Michael Hudson interview I linked to on previous thread; but since we're discussing Jews
and their religion in a tangential manner, I think it appropriate to post here since the
history Hudson explains is 100% key to the ongoing pain us humans feel and inflict. My
apologies in advance, but it will take this long excerpt to explain what I mean:
"Tribes: When does the concept of a general debt cancellation disappear historically?
"Michael: I guess in about the second or third century AD it was downplayed in the Bible.
After Jesus died, you had, first of all, St Paul taking over, and basically Christianity was
created by one of the most evil men in history, the anti-Semite Cyril of Alexandria. He
gained power by murdering his rivals, the Nestorians, by convening a congress of bishops and
killing his enemies. Cyril was really the Stalin figure of Christianity, killing everybody
who was an enemy, organizing pogroms against the Jews in Alexandria where he ruled.
"It was Cyril that really introduced into Christianity the idea of the Trinity. That's
what the whole fight was about in the third and fourth centuries AD. Was Jesus a human, was
he a god? And essentially you had the Isis-Osiris figure from Egypt, put into Christianity.
The Christians were still trying to drive the Jews out of Christianity. And Cyril knew the
one thing the Jewish population was not going to accept would be the Isis figure and the
Mariolatry that the church became. And as soon as the Christian church became the
establishment rulership church, the last thing it wanted in the West was debt
cancellation.
"You had a continuation of the original Christianity in the Greek Orthodox Church, or the
Orthodox Church, all the way through Byzantium. And in my book And Forgive Them Their Debts,
the last two chapters are on the Byzantine echo of the original debt cancellations, where one
ruler after another would cancel the debts. And they gave very explicit reason for it: if we
don't cancel the debts, we're not going to be able to field an army, we're not going to be
able to collect taxes, because the oligarchy is going to take over. They were very explicit,
with references to the Bible, references to the jubilee year. So you had Christianity survive
in the Byzantine Empire. But in the West it ended in Margaret Thatcher. And Father
Coughlin.
"Tribes: He was the '30s figure here in the States.
"Michael: Yes: anti-Semite, right-wing, pro-war, anti-labor. So the irony is that you have
the people who call themselves fundamentalist Christians being against everything that Jesus
was fighting for, and everything that original Christianity was all about."
Hudson says debt forgiveness was one of the central tenets of Judaism: " ... if
you take the Bible literally, it's the fight in almost all of the early books of the Old
Testament, the Jewish Bible, all about the fight over indebtedness and debt
cancellation. "
Looks like I'll be purchasing Hudson's book as he's essentially unveiling a whole new,
potentially revolutionary, historical interpretation.
@ karlof1 with the Michale Hudson link....thanks!!
Here is the quote that I really like from that interview
"
Michael: No. You asked what is the fight about? The fight is whether the state will be taken
over, essentially to be an extension of Wall Street if you do not have government planning.
Every economy is planned. Ever since the Neolithic (era), you've had to have (a form of)
planning. If you don't have a public authority doing the planning, then the financial
authority becomes the planners. So globalism is in the financial interest –Wall Street
and the City of London, doing the planning, not governments. They will do the planning in
their own interest. So neoliberalism is the fight of finance to subdue society at
large,and to make the bankers and creditors today in the position that the landlords were
under feudalism.
"
karlof1, please email me as I would like to read the book as well and maybe we can share a
copy.
And yes, it is relevant to Netanyahoo and his ongoing passel of lies because humanity has
been told and been living these lives for centuries...it is time to stop this shit and grow
up/evolve
@13 / 78 karlof1... thanks very much for the links to michael hudson, alastair crooke and the
bruno maraces articles...
they were all good for different reasons, but although hudson is being criticized for
glossing over some of his talking points, i think the main thrust of his article is very
worthwhile for others to read! the quote to end his article is quite good "The question is,
who do you want to run the economy? The 1% and the financial sector, or the 99% through
politics? The fight has to be in the political sphere, because there's no other sphere that
the financial interests cannot crush you on."
it seems to me that the usa has worked hard to bad mouth or get rid of government and the
concept of government being involved in anything.. of course everything has to be run by a
'private corp' - ie corporations must run everything.. they call them oligarchs when talking
about russia, lol - but they are corporations when they are in the usa.. slight rant..
another quote i especially liked from hudson.. " They call themselves free marketers,
but they realize that you cannot have neoliberalism unless you're willing to murder and
assassinate everyone who promotes an alternative ." that sounds about right...
@ 84 juliania.. aside from your comments on hudsons characterization of st paul "the
anti-Semite Cyril of Alexandria" further down hudson basically does the same with father
coughlin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin..
he gets the anti-semite tag as well.. i don't know much about either characters, so it's
mostly greek to me, but i do find some of hudsons views especially appealing - debt
forgiveness being central to the whole article as i read it...
it is interesting my own view on how money is so central to the world and how often times
I am incapable of avoiding the observation of the disproportionate number of Jewish people in
banking.. I guess that makes me anti-semite too, but i don't think of myself that way.. I
think the obsession with money is killing the planet.. I don't care who is responsible for
keeping it going, it is killing us...
Just so long as you remember that most of the strongest and most moving condemnations
of greed and money in the ancient and (today) western world are also Jewish--i.e. Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Micah, the Gospels, Letter of James, etc.
The history of Jewish banking after the fall or Rome is inextricable from cultural
anti-judaism of Christian west and east and de facto marginalization/ghettoization of Jews from
most aspects of social life. The Jewish lending of money on interest to gentiles was both
necessary for early mercantilist trade and yet usury was prohibited by the church. So Jewish
money lenders were essential to and yet ostracized within European economies for
centuries.
Now Christianity has itself long given up on the tradition teaching against usury of
course.
I too greatly admire the work of Hudson but he consistently errs and oversimplifies
whenever discussing the beliefs of and the development of beliefs among preNicene followers
of the way (as Acts puts is) or Christians (as they came to be known in Antioch within
roughly eight or nine decades after Jesus' death.) Palestinian Judaism in the time of Jesus
was much more variegated than scholars even twenty years ago had recognized. The gradual
reception and interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls in tandem with renewed research into
Phili of Alexandria, the Essenes, the so-called Sons of Zadok, contemporary Galilean zealot
movements styles after the earlier Maccabean resistance, the apocalyptism of post exilic
texts like Daniel and (presumably) parts of Enoch--all paint a picture of a highly diverse
group of alternatives to the state-Church once known as Second Temple Judaism that has been
mistaken as undisputed Jewish "orthodoxy" since the advent of historical criticism.
The
Gospel of John, for example, which dates from betweeen 80-120 and is the record of a much
earlier oral tradition, is already explicitly binitarian, and possibly already trinitarian
depending on how one understands the relationship between the Spirit or Advocate and the Son.
(Most ante-Nicene Christians understood the Spirit to be *Christ's* own spirit in distributed
form, and they did so by appeal to a well-developed but still largely under recognized strand
in Jewish angelology.)
The "theological" development of Christianity occurred much sooner
that it has been thought because it emerged from an already highly theologized strand or
strands of Jewish teaching that, like Christianity itself, privileged the Abrahamic covenant
over the Mosaic Law, the testament of grace over that of works, and the universal scope of
revelation and salvation as opposed to any political or ethnic reading of the "Kingdom."
None
of these groups were part of the ruling class of Judaean priests and levites and their
hangers on the Pharisees.
In John, for instance most of the references to what in English is
translated as "the Jews" are in Greek clearly references to "the Judaeans"--and especially to
the ruling elite among the southern tribe in bed with the Romans.
So the anti-Judaism/Semiti
of John's Gispel largely rests on a mistranslation. In any event, everything is much more
complex than Hudson makes it out to be. Christian economic radicalism is alive and well in
the thought of Gregory of Nysa and Basil the Great, who also happened to be Cappadocian
fathers highly influential in the development of "orthodox" Trinitarianism in the fourth
century.
I still think that Hudson's big picture critique of the direction later Christianity
took is helpful and necessary, but this doesn't change the fact that he simplifies the
origins, development, and arguably devolution of this movement whenever he tries to get
specific. It is a worthwhile danger given the quality of his work in historical economics,
but still one has to be aware of.
This "apostolic exhortation" is probably the most sharp critique of neoliberalism by a church leader.
Notable quotes:
"... "In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world," the pope wrote. "This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting." ..."
"... In his exhortation, the pope also attacked economic inequality, suggesting Christians have a duty to combat it to comply with the Ten Commandments -- specifically the prohibition on killing. ..."
Pope Francis delivers a speech March 15, 2013, during a meeting of the world's cardinals. (Osservatore Romano/EPA)
Pope Francis has released a sharply worded take on capitalism and the world's treatment of its poor, criticizing "trickle-down"
economic policies in no uncertain terms.
In the
first lengthy writing of his papacy -- also known as an "apostolic exhortation" -- Francis says such economic theories naively
rely on the goodness of those in charge and create a "tyranny" of the markets.
"In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a
free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world," the pope wrote. "This opinion,
which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and
in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting."
While popes have often warned against the negative impact of the markets, Francis's verbiage is note-worthy because of its use
of the phrase "trickle-down" -- a term that came into popular usage as a description for former president Ronald Reagan's economic
policies. While the term is often used pejoratively, it describes an economic theory that remains popular with conservatives in the
United States today.
The theory holds that policies benefiting the wealthiest segment of society will also help the poor, by allowing money to "trickle
down" from the top income levels into the lower ones. Critics, including President Obama, say the policies, usually focused on tax
cuts and credits that primarily benefit upper-income Americans, concentrate wealth in the highest income levels and that the benefits
rarely trickle down to the extent proponents suggest.
In his exhortation, the pope also attacked economic inequality, suggesting Christians have a duty to combat it to comply with
the Ten Commandments -- specifically the prohibition on killing.
"Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also
have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality," the pope wrote. "Such an economy kills."
"We have created new idols," Francis wrote. "The worship of the ancient golden calf ... has returned in a new and ruthless guise
in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose."
The pope also attacks "consumerism": "It is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging
to the social fabric."
Here is the entire passage:
I. SOME CHALLENGES OF TODAY'S WORLD
52. In our time humanity is experiencing a turning-point in its history, as we can see from the advances being made in so many
fields. We can only praise the steps being taken to improve people's welfare in areas such as health care, education and communications.
At the same time we have to remember that the majority of our contemporaries are barely living from day to day, with dire consequences.
A number of diseases are spreading. The hearts of many people are gripped by fear and desperation, even in the so-called rich
countries. The joy of living frequently fades, lack of respect for others and violence are on the rise, and inequality is increasingly
evident. It is a struggle to live and, often, to live with precious little dignity. This epochal change has been set in motion
by the enormous qualitative, quantitative, rapid and cumulative advances occuring in the sciences and in technology, and by their
instant application in different areas of nature and of life. We are in an age of knowledge and information, which has led to
new and often anonymous kinds of power.
No to an economy of exclusion
53. Just as the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we
also have to say "thou shalt not" to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not
a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a
case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality.
Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless.
As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any
means of escape.
Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a "disposable" culture
which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has
to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society's underside or its
fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the "exploited" but the outcast, the
"leftovers".
54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by
a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has
never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the
sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which
excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without
being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people's pain,
and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else's responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity
deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for
lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.
No to the new idolatry of money
55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves
and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the
denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35)
has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly
human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of
real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.
56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity
enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and
financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise
any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its
own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their
own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving
tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which
tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless
before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.
No to a financial system which rules rather than serves
57. Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful
derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since
it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response
which is outside of the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable,
unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement.
Ethics – a non-ideological ethics – would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. With this in
mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: "Not to share
one's wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but
theirs".
[55]
58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political
leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics
of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ
to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and a return of economics
and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings.
No to the inequality which spawns violence
59. Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples
is reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence. The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without
equal opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode.
When a society – whether local, national or global – is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programmes
or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility. This is not the case simply
because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust
at its root. Just as goodness tends to spread, the toleration of evil, which is injustice, tends to expand its baneful influence
and quietly to undermine any political and social system, no matter how solid it may appear. If every action has its consequences,
an evil embedded in the structures of a society has a constant potential for disintegration and death. It is evil crystallized
in unjust social structures, which cannot be the basis of hope for a better future. We are far from the so-called "end of history",
since the conditions for a sustainable and peaceful development have not yet been adequately articulated and realized.
60. Today's economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with
inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric. Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot
and never will be able to resolve. This serves only to offer false hopes to those clamouring for heightened security, even though
nowadays we know that weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create new and more serious conflicts. Some simply
content themselves with blaming the poor and the poorer countries themselves for their troubles; indulging in unwarranted generalizations,
they claim that the solution is an "education" that would tranquilize them, making them tame and harmless. All this becomes even
more exasperating for the marginalized in the light of the widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries – in
their governments, businesses and institutions – whatever the political ideology of their leaders.
CHAPTER TWO: AMID THE CRISIS
OF COMMUNAL COMMITMENT
50. Before taking up some basic questions related to the work of evangelization, it may be
helpful to mention briefly the context in which we all have to live and work. Today, we
frequently hear of a "diagnostic overload" which is not always accompanied by improved and
actually applicable methods of treatment. Nor would we be well served by a purely sociological
analysis which would aim to embrace all of reality by employing an allegedly neutral and
clinical method. What I would like to propose is something much more in the line of an
evangelical discernment. It is the approach of a missionary disciple, an approach "nourished by
the light and strength of the Holy Spirit".
[53]
51. It is not the task of the Pope to offer a detailed and complete analysis of contemporary
reality, but I do exhort all the communities to an "ever watchful scrutiny of the signs of the
times".
[54] This is in fact a grave responsibility, since certain present realities, unless
effectively dealt with, are capable of setting off processes of dehumanization which would then
be hard to reverse. We need to distinguish clearly what might be a fruit of the kingdom from
what runs counter to God's plan. This involves not only recognizing and discerning spirits, but
also – and this is decisive – choosing movements of the spirit of good and
rejecting those of the spirit of evil. I take for granted the different analyses which other
documents of the universal magisterium have offered, as well as those proposed by the regional
and national conferences of bishops. In this Exhortation I claim only to consider briefly, and
from a pastoral perspective, certain factors which can restrain or weaken the impulse of
missionary renewal in the Church, either because they threaten the life and dignity of God's
people or because they affect those who are directly involved in the Church's institutions and
in her work of evangelization.
52. In our time humanity is experiencing a turning-point in its history, as we can see from
the advances being made in so many fields. We can only praise the steps being taken to improve
people's welfare in areas such as health care, education and communications. At the same time
we have to remember that the majority of our contemporaries are barely living from day to day,
with dire consequences. A number of diseases are spreading. The hearts of many people are
gripped by fear and desperation, even in the so-called rich countries. The joy of living
frequently fades, lack of respect for others and violence are on the rise, and inequality is
increasingly evident. It is a struggle to live and, often, to live with precious little
dignity. This epochal change has been set in motion by the enormous qualitative, quantitative,
rapid and cumulative advances occuring in the sciences and in technology, and by their instant
application in different areas of nature and of life. We are in an age of knowledge and
information, which has led to new and often anonymous kinds of power.
53. Just as the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" sets a clear limit in order to safeguard
the value of human life, today we also have to say "thou shalt not" to an economy of exclusion
and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly
homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This
is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are
starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition
and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence,
masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without
possibilities, without any means of escape.
Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have
created a "throw away" culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about
exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it
means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society's
underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it.
The excluded are not the "exploited" but the outcast, the "leftovers".
54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that
economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater
justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the
facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power
and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are
still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that
selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it,
we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other
people's pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else's
responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the
market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of
opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.
55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly
accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us
overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of
the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf.
Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the
dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis
affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real
concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.
56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating
the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of
ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation.
Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to
exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which
unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of
interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies
and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread
corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst
for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything
which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is
defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.
57. Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come
to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human,
because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the
manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a
committed response which is outside the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are
absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he
calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement.
Ethics – a non-ideological ethics – would make it possible to bring about balance
and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political
leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: "Not to share one's wealth with
the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which
we hold, but theirs".
[55]
58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change
of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with
determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each
case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is
obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the
poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and to the return of economics and finance to an
ethical approach which favours human beings.
59. Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and
inequality in society and between peoples are reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate
violence. The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without equal
opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for
growth and eventually explode. When a society – whether local, national or global –
is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programmes or resources spent
on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility. This is not
the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the
system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root. Just as goodness tends to
spread, the toleration of evil, which is injustice, tends to expand its baneful influence and
quietly to undermine any political and social system, no matter how solid it may appear. If
every action has its consequences, an evil embedded in the structures of a society has a
constant potential for disintegration and death. It is evil crystallized in unjust social
structures, which cannot be the basis of hope for a better future. We are far from the
so-called "end of history", since the conditions for a sustainable and peaceful development
have not yet been adequately articulated and realized.
60. Today's economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that
unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric.
Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able
to resolve. It serves only to offer false hopes to those clamouring for heightened security,
even though nowadays we know that weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create
new and more serious conflicts. Some simply content themselves with blaming the poor and the
poorer countries themselves for their troubles; indulging in unwarranted generalizations, they
claim that the solution is an "education" that would tranquilize them, making them tame and
harmless. All this becomes even more exasperating for the marginalized in the light of the
widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries – in their governments,
businesses and institutions – whatever the political ideology of their leaders.
61. We also evangelize when we attempt to confront the various challenges which can arise.
[56] On occasion these may take the form of veritable attacks on religious freedom or new
persecutions directed against Christians; in some countries these have reached alarming levels
of hatred and violence. In many places, the problem is more that of widespread indifference and
relativism, linked to disillusionment and the crisis of ideologies which has come about as a
reaction to any-thing which might appear totalitarian. This not only harms the Church but the
fabric of society as a whole. We should recognize how in a culture where each person wants to
be bearer of his or her own subjective truth, it becomes difficult for citizens to devise a
common plan which transcends individual gain and personal ambitions.
62. In the prevailing culture, priority is given to the outward, the immediate, the visible,
the quick, the superficial and the provisional. What is real gives way to appearances. In many
countries globalization has meant a hastened deterioration of their own cultural roots and the
invasion of ways of thinking and acting proper to other cultures which are economically
advanced but ethically debilitated. This fact has been brought up by bishops from various
continents in different Synods. The African bishops, for example, taking up the Encyclical
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis , pointed out years ago that there have been frequent attempts
to make the African countries "parts of a machine, cogs on a gigantic wheel. This is often true
also in the field of social communications which, being run by centres mostly in the northern
hemisphere, do not always give due consideration to the priorities and problems of such
countries or respect their cultural make-up".
[57] By the same token, the bishops of Asia "underlined the external influences being
brought to bear on Asian cultures. New patterns of behaviour are emerging as a result of
over-exposure to the mass media As a result, the negative aspects of the media and
entertainment industries are threatening traditional values, and in particular the sacredness
of marriage and the stability of the family".
[58]
63. The Catholic faith of many peoples is nowadays being challenged by the proliferation of
new religious movements, some of which tend to fundamentalism while others seem to propose a
spirituality without God. This is, on the one hand, a human reaction to a materialistic,
consumerist and individualistic society, but it is also a means of exploiting the weaknesses of
people living in poverty and on the fringes of society, people who make ends meet amid great
human suffering and are looking for immediate solutions to their needs. These religious
movements, not without a certain shrewdness, come to fill, within a predominantly
individualistic culture, a vacuum left by secularist rationalism. We must recognize that if
part of our baptized people lack a sense of belonging to the Church, this is also due to
certain structures and the occasionally unwelcoming atmosphere of some of our parishes and
communities, or to a bureaucratic way of dealing with problems, be they simple or complex, in
the lives of our people. In many places an administrative approach prevails over a pastoral
approach, as does a concentration on administering the sacraments apart from other forms of
evangelization.
64. The process of secularization tends to reduce the faith and the Church to the sphere of
the private and personal. Furthermore, by completely rejecting the transcendent, it has
produced a growing deterioration of ethics, a weakening of the sense of personal and collective
sin, and a steady increase in relativism. These have led to a general sense of disorientation,
especially in the periods of adolescence and young adulthood which are so vulnerable to change.
As the bishops of the United States of America have rightly pointed out, while the Church
insists on the existence of objective moral norms which are valid for everyone, "there are
those in our culture who portray this teaching as unjust, that is, as opposed to basic human
rights. Such claims usually follow from a form of moral relativism that is joined, not without
inconsistency, to a belief in the absolute rights of individuals. In this view, the Church is
perceived as promoting a particular prejudice and as interfering with individual freedom".
[59] We are living in an information-driven society which bombards us indiscriminately with
data – all treated as being of equal importance – and which leads to remarkable
superficiality in the area of moral discernment. In response, we need to provide an education
which teaches critical thinking and encourages the development of mature moral values.
65. Despite the tide of secularism which has swept our societies, in many countries –
even those where Christians are a minority – the Catholic Church is considered a credible
institution by public opinion, and trusted for her solidarity and concern for those in greatest
need. Again and again, the Church has acted as a mediator in finding solutions to problems
affecting peace, social harmony, the land, the defence of life, human and civil rights, and so
forth. And how much good has been done by Catholic schools and universities around the world!
This is a good thing. Yet, we find it difficult to make people see that when we raise other
questions less palatable to public opinion, we are doing so out of fidelity to precisely the
same convictions about human dignity and the common good.
66. The family is experiencing a profound cultural crisis, as are all communities and social
bonds. In the case of the family, the weakening of these bonds is particularly serious because
the family is the fundamental cell of society, where we learn to live with others despite our
differences and to belong to one another; it is also the place where parents pass on the faith
to their children. Marriage now tends to be viewed as a form of mere emotional satisfaction
that can be constructed in any way or modified at will. But the indispensible contribution of
marriage to society transcends the feelings and momentary needs of the couple. As the French
bishops have taught, it is not born "of loving sentiment, ephemeral by definition, but from the
depth of the obligation assumed by the spouses who accept to enter a total communion of life".
[60]
67. The individualism of our postmodern and globalized era favours a lifestyle which weakens
the development and stability of personal relationships and distorts family bonds. Pastoral
activity needs to bring out more clearly the fact that our relationship with the Father demands
and encourages a communion which heals, promotes and reinforces interpersonal bonds. In our
world, especially in some countries, different forms of war and conflict are re-emerging, yet
we Christians remain steadfast in our intention to respect others, to heal wounds, to build
bridges, to strengthen relationships and to "bear one another's burdens" ( Gal 6:2).
Today too, various associations for the defence of rights and the pursuit of noble goals are
being founded. This is a sign of the desire of many people to contribute to social and cultural
progress.
"... By #SlayTheSmaugs, an elected Bernie delegate in Philly. ..."
"... #STS believes that the billionaire class are Smaugs (the greed incarnate dragon of The Hobbit), immorally hoarding wealth for no reason beyond ego gratification. To "Slay" the Smaugs, we need a confiscatory wealth tax, stronger democratic institutions to impose it, and a shared moral agreement that #GreedIsEvil to justify it. ..."
"... More; charitable foundations are not the same thing, in many cases, as true charity. Instead foundations often function as hoard preservers as well, and enrich their leadership too. ..."
"... After a certain level of accumulation money is simply ego gratifying points, it's not money any more. ..."
"... Wealth on this scale has nothing to do with financial security or luxurious living. For the trivial, it is (as per D. Trump) a game and money is how you keep score. For the serious, it has to do with power, with the ability to affect other people's lives without their consent. That is why the Smaugs' wealth is absolutely our business. It should be understood that we're talking about taking very large amounts of money and power away from very rich people, people for whom money and power are pretty much the only things they value. It will not be pretty. ..."
"... If we fail to prevent the imposition of this transnational regime there will only be three classes of humans left: kleptocrats, their favored minions, and slaves. ..."
"... A more modern similarity of the US is Rome. Vassals have been going full retard for several years now, traitors sell international competitors military secrets while the biggest merchants buy off the Senate. ..."
"... Isn't there an idiom about cutting off the head of the snake? Once you deal with the strongest opponents, it's easier to go after the others. Too big to fail is nothing short of feeding the beast. ..."
"... I disagree strongly with your premise that some sort of pure and natural meritocracy has ever existed, or could ever exist in human society. Corrupt and oppressive people will always define as "meritorious" those qualities that they themselves possess– whether wealth, "gentle birth," "technical skills," or whatever. We all possess the same merit of being human. ..."
"... Meritocracy is not the same as recognizing greater and lesser degrees of competence in various activities. It is absurd to deny that some are more skillful at some things than others. Assigning the relative "merit" to various competencies is what I find objectionable. ..."
"... Encouraging ethical behavior has nothing to do with ranking the "merit" levels of different occupations. While some occupations are inherently unethical, like that of an assassin, most can be performed in such a way as to do no harm to others, and some are nearly always beneficial to society at large. ..."
By #SlayTheSmaugs, an elected Bernie delegate in Philly.
#STS believes that the billionaire class are Smaugs (the greed incarnate dragon of
The Hobbit), immorally hoarding wealth for no reason beyond ego gratification. To "Slay" the Smaugs,
we need a confiscatory wealth tax, stronger democratic institutions to impose it, and a shared moral
agreement that #GreedIsEvil to justify it.
Worshiping Wealth
When Gordon Gekko proclaimed that 'Greed is Good' in 1987, it was an obvious rejection of several
millennia of teachings by traditional prophets and priests. Yet when Gekko preached greed, he was
merely reinforcing the current cultural norm; greed had already been rebranded a virtue. (Still,
the speech was to remind us Gekko was a bad guy). Consider that Madonna had proclaimed herself a
Material Girl three years earlier, and "Living Large" was cool. Conspicuous consumption is walking
the talk that greed is good.
Why had greed become good? I blame the creation of a credit-fueled culture of constant consumption
that necessarily praises coveting stuff, plus the dismantling of the regulatory state that had kept
Wall Street and wannabe oligarchs in check.
Our healthy cultural adoration of the self-made man, of respect for success, warped into worship
of the rich. They are not the same. Wealth can be inherited, stolen through fraud and other illegal
activities, or harvested from bubbles; none of these or myriad other paths to riches is due respect,
much less worship. Paired with another 80's definition-government is the problem-worshiping wealth
facilitates all the dysfunction in our government.
Remembering Greed is Evil
Thirty years later, the old social norm-the one that protected the many from the few, the one
that demonized greed as a deadly sin-is resurgent. We have a Pope who preaches against greed, and
who
walks his talk . We had a Presidential candidate of a major party-Bernie Sanders-who railed against
those living embodiments of greed, the Billionaire Class, and walked his talk by rejecting their
money. At the convention, he has invited delegates to four workshops, one of which is "One Nation
Now: Winning the Fight Against Racism and Greed". We have a late night comedian-John Oliver-
ridiculing the prosperity gospel
and taking on the debt
industry . We have mass consciousness rising, reflected in Occupy, the label "the 99%", BLM and
more.
But we need more voices insisting #GreedIsEvil. We need to teach that basic message at home, in
school, and in houses of worship. We need to send the right signals in our social interactions. We
need to stop coveting stuff, and start buying with a purpose: Shopping locally, buying American,
buying green and clean, and buying less. We need to waste less, share more and build community. We
need to re-norm-alize greed as evil, make it shameful again. Then we will have redefined ourselves
as citizens, not consumers.
But make no mistake: America cannot become a just nation simply by the 99% becoming more virtuous.
The cultural shift is necessary but not sufficient, for norms alone do not deliver social and economic
justice. Shame will not slay the Smaugs; we need structural change in the political economy.
Extreme greed, the greed of Smaugs, is categorically different than the petit greed underlying
the irrational, constant consumption and the worship of wealth. Extreme greed manifests as a hoard
of wealth so great that "purchasing power" is an irrelevant concept; a hoard so great it lacks any
utility other than to be sat upon as a throne, gratifying the Smaug's ego and symbolizing his power.
That greed must be understood as an intolerable evil, something so base and malevolent that the full
power of the state must be used against it.
This essay is my contribution to the cause of returning extreme greed to its rightful place in
the pantheon of ultimate evils. Here is the thesis: extreme greed must be 'slain' by the state because
extreme greed is brutally violent.
The Stealth Violence of False Scarcity and "Cutting Corners"
Greed's violence is quiet and deadly: The violence of false scarcity and of "corner cutting".
Scarcity is not having enough because there just isn't enough to go round, like the
nearly 50 million people who don't reliably have food during the year, including 15 million kids.
False scarcity is when actually, there's plenty to go around, but people generally don't have enough
because of hoarders.
It's a concentrated version of what happened to pennies in 1999. People keeping pennies in piggy
banks created a
shortage felt throughout New York City . If only people had broken open their piggy banks, and
used their pennies, there would have been plenty of pennies in circulation, and shopkeepers wouldn't
lose money by rounding purchases down. In this piece, I'm focusing on false scarcity of dollars,
not pennies, and the maiming and premature death that results from false dollar scarcity. But the
idea is essentially the same; there's just far fewer relevant piggy banks.
By the quiet violence of 'corner cutting', I'm referring to unsafe, even deadly, workplaces that
could be safe if the employers invested in safety.
Sporadically, greed also drives overt, and sometimes profoundly bloody violence to protect the
hoard. Think of employer violence against unions and union organizers,
a la Henry Ford , or
John D. Rockefeller . Nonetheless in this country now, the violence of greed tends to be more
covert. It is that quiet violence, in both forms, I want you to hear now.
As Sanders often reminds us, in this, the richest nation in the world, nearly 50 million people
are living in poverty; roughly one in seven Americans. And as Sanders explained, in a
speech in West Virginia , 130,000 people die each and every year as a result of poverty. I have
not read the study Sanders referred to, so I don't know how much it overlaps with
the rise
of suicide that accelerated after 2006 and which appears to be correlated with financial stress.
Nor do I know how it overlaps with the
documented increase in white mortality that also appears to correlate with financial stress.
Regardless of overlap, however, each of these studies reflects the quiet violence of false scarcity.
Naked Capitalism has featured many posts documenting the damage of greed;
this is a recent one .
Chronic and acute financial stress from false scarcity maims, and kills. And Smaugs create false
scarcity to feed money to their egos and maintain their oligarchic power.
As Lambert often says, they don't call it class warfare for nothing.
But wait, you might insist, how false is the scarcity, really? How much do a few billionaires
matter? Ranting that greed is evil is all well and good, but really, can a relative handful of people
be manufacturing scarcity where there is none, shortening and taking millions of lives in the process?
Aren't you making your target too narrow in going after the Smaugs?
Twenty people had hoarded $732,000,000,000. America is a nation of about 300,000,000 people. That
means 20 people could give a combined $2,370 to every American, and still hoard $1 billion each.
I'm not suggesting that's how the redistribution should be done, but it's notable that in an era
when
some 200 million Americans haven't been able to save $1000 for an emergency, twenty people could
give everyone over two grand while remaining fabulously wealthy.
Now, these 20 monstrous people, these full grown Smaugs, are not alone in their extreme greed.
Adding in the assets of the next 380 richest Americans brings the total wealth hoarded to $2.34 trillion.
That number is so large it's hard to process , so let's think this through.
First, imagine that we took all of that money with a confiscatory tax, except we again left each
of the 400 people with $1 billion. They would still be obscenely rich, so don't pity them.* Our tax
thus netted $1.94 trillion. Since that's still an unimaginable number, let's compare it to some recent
government spending.
In December 2015, Congress funded five years' worth of infrastructure construction. Congress and
President Obama were very self-congratulatory because our infrastructure is a mess, and building
things involves good paying jobs. So, how much did five years of infrastructure building and job
creation cost?
$305 billion . That's less than the $400 billion we let the 400 Smaugs keep at the start of this
thought experiment. With the $1.94 trillion we imagine confiscating, we could keep building at the
2015 pace for 32 years. Or we could spend it much faster, and create an economic boom the like of
which this nation hasn't seen in generations.
Even Bernie Sanders, he of the supposedly overly ambitious, unable-to-be-paid for initiatives,
only
proposed spending $1 trillion on infrastructure over five years -a bit more than half what our
tax would net. (Nor did this supposed radical call for a confiscatory wealth tax to fund his plan.)
Sanders estimated his proposal would create 13 million good paying jobs. With nearly double the money,
surely we get nearly double the jobs? Let's be conservative and say 22 million.
In sum, we could confiscate most of the wealth of 400 people-still leaving them obscenely rich
with $1 billion each-and create 22 million good paying jobs over five years. But we don't; we let
the Smaugs keep their hoards intact. Now consider this is only taxing 400 people; what if we taxed
the richest 2,000 people more justly? What if we taxed corporations effectively? What if we stopped
giving corporate welfare? A confiscatory wealth tax, however, simply isn't discussed in polite company,
any more than a truly progressive income tax is, or even serious proposals to end corporate welfare.
The best we can do is agree that really, someday soon, we should end the obscenity that is the carried
interest loophole.
False scarcity isn't simply a failure of charity, a hoarding of wealth that should be alms for
the poor. False scarcity is created through the billionaires' control of the state, of public policy.
But the quiet violence of greed isn't visited on the 99% only through the failure to pay adequate
taxes. Not even through the Smaugs' failure to have their corporations pay adequate wages, or benefits.
Predatory lending, predatory servicing, fraudulent foreclosure, municipal bond rigging, and pension
fund fleecing are just some of the many other ways immoral greed creates false scarcity.
While false scarcity has the broadest impact, it is not the only form of stealth violence used
by the billionaires in their class war against the rest of us. The Ford and Rockefeller style violence
of fists and guns may be rare in the U.S. these days, but a variant of it remains much too common:
Unsafe workplaces, the quiet violence of "cutting corners". Whether it's
the coal industry , the
poultry
industry , or the
fracking and
oil industries, or myriad other industries, unsafe workplaces kill, maim and sicken workers.
Part of the political economy restructuring we must do includes transforming the workplace.
Feel the Greed
Let us remember why this stealth violence exists-why false scarcity and unsafe workplaces exist.
People who have more money than they hope to spend for the rest of their lives, no matter how
many of their remaining days are "rainy"; people who have more money to pass on than their children
need for a lifetime of financial security, college and retirement included; people who have more
money to pass on than their grandchildren need for a similarly secure life–these people insist on
extracting still more wealth from their workers, their clients, and taxpayers for no purpose beyond
vaingloriously hoarding it.
Greed is evil, but it comes in different intensities. Petit greed is a corrosive illness that
decays societies, but can be effectively ameliorated through norms and social capital. Smaug greed
is so toxic, so potent, that the state is the only entity powerful enough to put it in check. Greed,
particularly Smaug greed, must be put in check because the false scarcity it manufactures, and the
unsafe workplaces it creates, maim and kill people. The stealth violence of Smaug greed justifies
a tax to confiscate the hoards.
#GreedIsEvil. It's time to #SlayTheSmaugs
*One of the arguments against redistribution is that is against the sacrosanct efficient market,
which forbids making one person better off if the price is making someone else worse off. But money
has diminishing returns as money after a certain point; the purchasing power between someone
with one billion and ten billion dollars is negligible, though the difference between someone with
ten thousand and a hundred thousand, or a hundred thousand and a million is huge. After a certain
level of accumulation money is simply ego gratifying points, it's not money any more. Thus taking
it and using it as money isn't making someone 'worse off' in an economic sense. Also, when considering
whether someone is 'worse off', it's worth considering where their money comes from; how many people
did they leave 'worse off' as they
extracted the money? Brett ,
July 22, 2016 at 10:07 am
After a certain level of accumulation money is simply ego gratifying points, it's not
money any more.
It quite literally isn't "money" as we regular folks know it beyond a certain point – it's
tied up in share value and other assets. Which of course raises the question – when you decide
to do your mass confiscation of wealth, who is going to be foolish enough to buy those assets
so you actually have liquid currency to spend on infrastructure as opposed to illiquid assets?
Or are you simply going to print money and spend it on them?
Wealth on this scale has nothing to do with financial security or luxurious living. For
the trivial, it is (as per D. Trump) a game and money is how you keep score. For the serious,
it has to do with power, with the ability to affect other people's lives without their consent.
That is why the Smaugs' wealth is absolutely our business. It should be understood that we're
talking about taking very large amounts of money and power away from very rich people, people
for whom money and power are pretty much the only things they value. It will not be pretty.
People become rich and stay that way because of a market failure that allows them to accumulate
capital in the same way a constricted artery accumulates blood. What I'm wondering, continuing
this metaphor, is what happens when all that money is released back into the market at once via
a redistribution - toxic shock syndrome.
You can see what happens to markets in places where "virtual money" (capital) brushes up against
the real economy: the dysfunctional housing situation in Vancouver, London, New York, and San
Francisco.
It may be wiser to argue for wealth disintegration instead of redistribution.
Yes I was thinking about that money is just something the government prints to make the system
work smoothly. But that, and pretty much any view of money, obscures the problem with the insanely
"wealthy".
If these people, instead of having huge bank accounts actually had huge armies the government
would move to disarm them. It wouldn't re-distribute the tanks and rifles. It would be obviously
removing a threat to everybody.
Now there would be the temptation to wave your hands and say you were "melting it into plowshares"
but that causes an accounting problem - that is, the problem being the use of accounting itself.
Destroying extreme wealth and paying for say roads is just two different things and making them
sound connected is where we keep getting bogged down. Not a full-on MMT'er yet but it really has
illuminated that fact.
The western assumption is that money is a commodity, from salt to gold, to bitcoin, we assume
it can be manufactured, but the underlaying reality is that it is a social contract and every
asset is presumably backed by debt.
Here is an interesting link which does make the point about the contractual basis of money in
a succinct fashion; http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.us/opinions/ideas/economics/jubilee/
Since the modern commodity of money is backed by debt and largely public debt, there is enormous
pressure to create as much debt as possible.
For instance, the government doesn't really budget, it just writes up these enormous bills, attaches
enough goodies to get the votes and the president can only pass or veto it and with all the backing
and no other method, a veto is a weak protection.
To budget is to prioritize and spend according to ability. What they could do would be to break
these bills into all their various "line items," have every legislator assign a percentage value
to each one, put them back together in order of preference and then the president would draw the
line.
It would balance the power and reduce the tendency to overspend, but it would blow up our financial
system, which if anyone notices, is based on the sanctity of government debt.
If instead of borrowing the excess money out of the system, to spend on whatever, if the government
threatened to tax it out, people would quickly find other ways to store value than as money in
the financial system.
Since most of us save for the same general reasons, from raising children to retirement, we
could invest in these as public commons, not try to save for our exact needs. This would serve
to strengthen communities and their environments, as everyone would be more dependent on those
around them, not just having a private bank account as their personal umbilical cord.
We treat money as both medium of exchange and store of value. As Rick points out above, a medium
is like blood in the body and it needs to be carefully regulated. Conversely, the store of value
in the body is fat and while many of us do carry an excess, storing it in the circulation system
is not wise. Clogged arteries, poor circulation and high blood pressure are analogous to a bloated
financial system, poor circulation and QE.
Money is not a commodity, but a contract.
Do you realize that this supposed billionaire wealth does not consist of actual US dollars
and that, if one were to liquidate such wealth (in order to redistribute it in "fair" equal-dollars)
that number might drastically change?
The main thing these people (and indeed your pension funds) are actually hoarding are financial
assets, and those, it turns out, are actually "scarce". Or, well, I don't know what else you would
call trillions of bonds netting a negative interest rate and an elevated P/E stock market in a
low-growth environment.
It's a bit of a pickle from a macro environment. You can't just force them to liquidate their
assets, or else the whole system would collapse. It also kind of escapes the point that someone
has to hold each asset. I would be excited to see what happens when you ask Bill Gates to liquidate
his financial assets (in order to distribute the cash). An interesting thought, for sure. And
one that would probably bring the market closer to reasonable valuations.
It is simply a wrong conclusion to say "Wealth is x, and if we distribute it, everyone would
get x divided by amount of recipients in dollar terms". Now if you wanted to redistribute Bill
Gates' stake in Microsoft in some "fair" way, you could certainly try but that's not really what
you proposed.
Either way you can't approach wealth policy from a macro perspective like this, because as
soon as you start designing macro-level policy to adjust (i.e. redistribute) this wealth, the
value of it will fluctuate very wildly in dollar terms and may well leave everyone less well off
in some weird feedback loop.
"The full power of the state must be used against" #extremegreed: Except, of course, "L'etat
c'est moi "
Of course as a Bernie supporter, the writer knows that, knows that it is a long game to even
start to move any of the hoard out of Smaug's cave, that there are dwarves with glittering eyes
ready to take back and reduce to ownership and ornamentation the whole pile (maybe they might
'share" a little with the humans of Lake Town who suffered the Dragon's Fire but whose Hero drove
a mystical iron arrow through the weak place in Smaug's armor, all while Sauron and Saruman are
circling and plotting and growing hordes of genetically modified Orcs and Trolls and summoning
the demons from below
The Elves seem to be OK with a "genteel sufficiency," their wealth being useful durable stuff
like mithril armor and those lovely houses and palaces up in the trees. Humans? Grabbers and takers,
in Tolkien's mythology. I would second that view - sure seems to me that almost any of us, given
a 1000-Bagger like Zuckerman or Jobs or that Gates creature fell into, or Russian or Israeli or
African or European oligarchs for that matter (pretty universal, and expected given Davos and
Bilderberg and Koch summits) the old insatiable lambic system that drives for pleasure-to-the-max
and helps our baser tribal drives and penchant for violence to manifest and "thrive" will have
its due. Like 600 foot motor yachts and private-jet escape pods and pinnacles islands with Dr.
No-style security provided by guns and accountants and lawyers and faux-legitimate political rulers
for hire
Lots of analysis of "the problem." Not so much in the way of apparent remedies, other than
maybe lots of bleeding, where the mopes will do most of it and if history is any guide, another
Smaug will go on around taking all the gold and jewels and other concentrated wealth back to another
pile, to sit on and not maybe even gloat over because the scales are just too large
Still hoping for the emergence of an organizing principle that is more attractive that "take
whatever you can and cripple or kill anyone who objects "
"People who have more money than they hope to spend for the rest of their lives, no matter
how many of their remaining days are "rainy"; people who have more money to pass on than their
children need for a lifetime of financial security, college and retirement included; people
who have more money to pass on than their grandchildren need for a similarly secure life–these
people insist on extracting still more wealth from their workers, their clients, and taxpayers
for no purpose beyond vaingloriously hoarding it."
These are people who are obscenely wealthy as opposed to merely wealthy. The fastest way to
challenge their toxic power would be to help the latter group understand that their interests
are not aligned with the former. Most millionaires (as opposed to billionaires) will eventually
suffer when the last few drops of wealth remaining to the middle and working classes are extracted.
Their future prosperity depends on the continued existence of a viable, mass consumer economy.
The billionaires imagine (in my view falsely) that they will thrive in a neo-feudal future–
where they own everything and the vast majority of humanity exists only to serve their needs.
This is the future they are attempting to build with the new TPP/TISA/TTIP regime. If we fail
to prevent the imposition of this transnational regime there will only be three classes of humans
left: kleptocrats, their favored minions, and slaves. Most neoliberal professionals, who imagine
that they will be in that second group, are delusional. Did the pharaohs have any need for people
like Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd?
Pharaohs didn't need a middle/professional class as large as the ones in most western democracies
today. But, we are going in the pharaonic direction.
The problem our polite, right wing professional classes face is that they are increasingly
too numerous for society's needs. Hence the creeping gig-i-fication of professional employment.
The wage stagnation in all but the most guild-ridden (medicine) professions.
It's so reminiscent of what happened to the industrial working class in the late 70s and 80s.
I still remember the "well-reasoned", literate arguments in magazine op-eds proclaiming how line
workers had become "excess" in the face of Asian competition and automation. How most just needed
to retrain, move to where the jobs are, tighten their belts, etc. It's identical now for lawyers,
radiologists, and many layers of the teaching professions. If I weren't part of that "professional"
class I'd find the Schadenfreude almost too delicious.
If we fail to prevent the imposition of this transnational regime there will only be three
classes of humans left: kleptocrats, their favored minions, and slaves.
Sounds about right, but you are overlooking the fact that the largest class will be The Dead.
They will not need nearly so many of Us, and we will be thinned, trimmed, pruned, marooned, or
otherwise made to go away permanently (quietly, for preference, I assume, but any way will do).
Ergo, the violence of ineffectual health care, toxic environment, poisonous food, dangerous
working conditions and violence (for instance, guns and toxic chemicals) in our homes, schools,
streets, workplaces, cities and, well, everywhere are not only a feature, but a major part of
the plan.
It has been extensively documented that the merely wealthy are very upset at the obscenely
wealthy.
If the author is truly focusing on a tax for obscene wealth I'd like to know a specific threshold.
Is it 1 Billion and up? annual limit how many times the median income before it kicks in?
Well, I'm happy to have a discussion about at what threshold a confiscatory wealth tax should
kick in; it's the kind of conversation we have with estate taxes.
I'm thinking a one off wealth tax, followed by a prevention of the resurrection of the problem
with a sharply progressive income tax. Is $1 billion the right number for this initial reclamation?
maybe. It is about the very top few, not the merely wealthy.
$1 billion is a reasonable amount of assets for determining whether to confiscate a portion
of a person's wealth in taxes. Or perhaps we could base it on a percentage of GDP. The U.S. GDP
in 2015 was approximately $17.9 trillion. Anyone with $1.79 billion or more in assets would have
1% of 1% of the U.S. GDP (0.01%). That's a lot of wealth, and surely justifies a heavy tax.
'Professionals, who imagine that they will be in that second group, are delusional. Did the
pharaohs have any need of Paul Krugman'
Sure they did. Those were called Priests who told the people what the gods were thinking. And
since Pharoah's concluded themselves gods. The slaves revolt by working less. Anybody notice the
dropping production levels the last couple of years? Whipping the slaves didn't turn out well
for the Egyptians.
A more modern similarity of the US is Rome. Vassals have been going full retard for several
years now, traitors sell international competitors military secrets while the biggest merchants
buy off the Senate.
Ceasar becomes more a figurehead until one leads a coup which has not happened yet. Aquiring
more slaves begins to cost more than what the return in general to the society brings but the
Smaugs do not care about that until the barbarians begin to revolt (See Orlando for example, the
shooter former employee of DHS. Probably pissed some of his comrades were deserted by US in some
manner.
My point was that the category of people in this priestly caste will likely be far, far smaller
than the millions of credentialed neoliberal professionals currently living large in the top 10%
of the developed world.
Interesting mental image– to see Paul Krugman chanting praises to the new Son of the Sun God
the Donald!!
Look, there's a simple way to #SlayTheSmaugs, and it's a confiscatory wealth tax coupled with
a sharply progressive income tax, as part of an overall restructuring of the political economy.
Simple, is of course, not easy; indeed my proposal is currently impossible. But like Bernie
I'm trying to change the terms of political debate, to normalize what would previously be dismissed
as too radical to be countenanced.
I don't think the looting professional class needs to be slain, in the #SlayTheSmaugs sense.
I think they can be brought to heel simply by enforcing laws and passing new ones that are already
within acceptable political debate, such as one that defines corruption as using public office
for private gain. I think norms matter to the looting professional class as well. Another re-norm-ilization
that needs to happen is remembering what a "profession" used to be
Friends and neighbors!! Most of this "wealth" is ephemeral, it is based on the "value of assets"
like stocks, bonds, real estate, et al. If all of this "wealth" gets liquidated at the same time,
values would collapse. These people are fabulously wealthy because of the incredible inflation
we have seen in the "assets" they hold.
Remember, during the Great Depression the "wealth" wasn't confiscated and redistributed, it
was destroyed because asset values collapsed and over 2000 banks failed wiping out customer accounts.
This also collapsed the money supply causing debt defaults, businesses failures, and worker laid
offs. No one had any money because there was none.
The US was on the gold standard limiting the creation of liquidity. President Roosevelt went
off the gold standard so that he could work to increase the money supply. It took a long time.
The result of the depression was decades of low debt, cheap housing, and hard working people who
remembered the hard times. The social mood gradually changed as their children, born in more prosperous
times, challenged the values of their parents.
Even though the bulk of what the super rich hold is in paper assets, they still hold tons of
real economy assets. They've succeeded in buying enough prime and even merely good real estate
(like multiple townhouses in Upper West Side blocks and then creating one monster home behind
the facade) to create pricing pressure on ordinary renters and homeowners in the same cities,
bidding art through the roof, owning mega-yachts and private airplanes, and most important of
all, using the money directly to reshape society along their preferred lines, witness charter
schools.
If you are going to fight against the "Greed is Good" mentality, you are going to have to address
the habits of the average middle class household. Just take a look at the over accumulation of
amenities and creature comforts. The desire to signal ones status/wealth through "stuff" is totally
out of control and completely divorced from means/income.
"But we need more voices insisting #GreedIsEvil. We need to teach that basic message at home,
in school, and in houses of worship. We need to send the right signals in our social interactions.
We need to stop coveting stuff, and start buying with a purpose: Shopping locally, buying American,
buying green and clean, and buying less. We need to waste less, share more and build community.
We need to re-norm-alize greed as evil, make it shameful again. Then we will have redefined ourselves
as citizens, not consumers."
Isn't there an idiom about cutting off the head of the snake? Once you deal with the strongest
opponents, it's easier to go after the others. Too big to fail is nothing short of feeding the
beast.
There was a time not that long ago that I would have opposed a "confiscatory wealth tax". After
looking at what most of those in the .1% are doing with their wealth, and their contempt for the
average person, those days are long gone. Plus it's good economics.
The only question is what is "obscene wealth". Well like pornography, I think we know it when
we see it.
I am wondering about the distribution of all this concentrated wealth; how much of it is spread
around in the equities and bond markets?
And if that amount was redistributed to the general public how much of it would return to the
equities and bond market?
I'm thinking not very much which would have catastrophic effects on both markets, a complete
reordering. This would undoubtedly crush the borrowing ability of our Federal government, upset
the apple cart in other words. With less money invested in the equities market it would undoubtedly
return to a lower more realistic valuation; fortunes would be lost with no redistribution.
Fair to ask: How do we achieve a confiscatory wealth tax without catastrophic unintended consequences?
But that's a very different question than: should we confiscate the Smaug's wealth?
One mechanism might be to have a government entity created to receive the stocks, bonds and
financial instruments, and then liquidate them over time. E.g. Buffett has been giving stock to
foundations for them to sell for awhile now; same kind of thing could be done. But sure, let's
have the "How" conversation
If lobbying were outlawed at the Federal level the billionaires and multi millionaires would
need to invest in something else. That signal has a multiplier effect.so your right eboit enforcement
of mostly what is on the books already. A 'wall' doesnt have to be built for illegal immigrants
either. Fine a couple dozen up the wazoo and the signal gets passed the game is over.
But until a few people's daughters are kidnapped or killed like in other 3rd world countries,
it wont change. That is sad but reality is most people do not do anything until it effects them.
I started slightly ahead of the crowd in summer of 2007 but that is because a regional banker
told me as we liked discussing history to look at debt levels of 1928 and what happened next.
On top of that, we are the like the British empire circa 1933 so we get the downside of that as
well.
Pain tends to be the catalyst of evolution that fully awakens prey to the predators.
I am sorry, Sir Smaug slayer. The underlying theme of your lengthy disquisition is that Sanders
is the legitimate voice of the 99%, and his future complicity within the Democratic Party is thereby
ameliorated by his current proposals within it. This is the true meat of your discourse ranging
so far and wide – even with the suggestion early on that we the 99% need tutoring on the evils
of greed.
Not so. That ship has sailed. Our Brexit is not yet upon us, but that it is coming, I have
no doubt. The only question is when. To paraphrase a Hannah Sell quote on such matters. . . for
decades working class people have had no representation in the halls of Congress. All of the politicians
. . . without exception, have stood in the interests of the 1% and the super-rich.
Bernie Sanders included. Hannah's remarks were more upbeat – she made an exception for Jeremy
Corbyn. Unfortunately, I can't do that. Bernie has folded. We need to acknowledge that.
One of the arguments against redistribution is that is against the sacrosanct efficient
market, which forbids making one person better off if the price is making someone else worse
off.
I think you mean downward redistribution here since upward redistribution seems to be rather
sacrosanct and definitely makes one person better off at the price of making many someones worse
off to make it happen.
Confiscatory wealth tax is too blunt an instrument to rectify the root causes discussed in
this article, and you do not want a blunt impact to the effect of disincentivizing pursuit of
financial success.
Further Centralization the populous' money will incite more corruption which is what allows
the have's to continue lording it over the have nots.
What are alternatives?
Instead Focus on minimizing corruption,
Then it will be possible to implement fair legislation that limits the options of the greed to
make decisions that results in unfair impacts on the lower class.
Increase incentives to share the wealth, (tax deductible charitable giving is an example).
We do need to encourage meritocracy whenever possible, corruption and oppression is the antithesis
to that.
We need to stop incentivizing utilization of debt, that puts the haves in control of the have
nots.
"Financial success. " As long as those words go together, and make an object of desire, the
fundamental problem ain't going away.
Of course the underlying fundamental problem of human appetite for pleasure and power ain't
going away either. Even if a lot of wealth was taken back (NOT "confiscated") from the current
crop and hopeful horde of kleptocrats
"We do need to encourage meritocracy whenever possible, corruption and oppression is the antithesis
to that."
I disagree strongly with your premise that some sort of pure and natural meritocracy has
ever existed, or could ever exist in human society. Corrupt and oppressive people will always
define as "meritorious" those qualities that they themselves possess– whether wealth, "gentle
birth," "technical skills," or whatever. We all possess the same merit of being human.
An Egyptologist, with an Oxbridge degree and extensive publications has no merit– in any meaningful
sense– inside a frozen foods warehouse. Likewise, the world's best frozen foods warehouse worker
has little to offer, when addressing a conference focused on religious practices during the reign
of Ramses II. Meritocracy is a neoliberal myth, intended to obscure the existence of oligarchy.
An Egyptologist, with an Oxbridge degree and extensive publications has no merit– in any
meaningful sense– inside a frozen foods warehouse. Likewise, the world's best frozen foods
warehouse worker has little to offer, when addressing a conference focused on religious practices
during the reign of Ramses II. Meritocracy is a neoliberal myth, intended to obscure the existence
of oligarchy.
I am confused.
You claim meritocracy is "a neoliberal myth, intended to obscure the existence of oligarchy",
but (seemingly) appeal to meritocratic principles to claim a warehouse worker doesnt offer much
to an academic conference. Can you clear up my misunderstanding?
I agree, btw, that Idealized meritocracy has never existed (nor can). Follow up question: There
has never been an ideal ethical human, does that mean we should stop encouraging ethical behavior?
Meritocracy is not the same as recognizing greater and lesser degrees of competence in various
activities. It is absurd to deny that some are more skillful at some things than others. Assigning
the relative "merit" to various competencies is what I find objectionable.
Encouraging ethical behavior has nothing to do with ranking the "merit" levels of different
occupations. While some occupations are inherently unethical, like that of an assassin, most can
be performed in such a way as to do no harm to others, and some are nearly always beneficial to
society at large.
Someone who did nothing but drink whiskey all day, and tell funny stories in a bar, is far
more beneficial to society at large than a busy, diligent economist dreaming up ways to justify
the looting of the kleptocrats.
Wealth Redistribution occurs when the peasants build a scaffold and frog march the aristocracy
up to a blade; when massive war wipes out a generation of aristocracy in gas filled trenches or
in the upcoming event.
"... The Russians say that the preposterous Protestant fundamentalist evangelicalism is a "pseudo-religion that represents Western egoism and noting more." This type of Protestantism is obviously anti-Christian at its very core, but this is precisely the type of bastardized and heretical Christianity that would be expected to unfold in the radical individualist atmosphere of the US. ..."
"... You may be interested to know that many Russian Orthodox Christians think the radical individualist Libertarianism so popular in the US is actually "Satanic." What they mean by that is that it is the polar opposite of the Church's teaching. ..."
"... You can have Christ or you can have Mammon. Which do you choose to worship? You surely cannot worship both. ..."
"... The modern economy is built largely on fraud; it creates money out of thin air. Who's going to pay for all of this? Why, the simple worker is going to, who produces the value behind all of this bubble. We need a fair economic system where money and capital are equivalent, and are the expression of real work. ..."
The truth is that neoliberalism really does against the teaching of the Church, especially the Orthodox and Catholic branches
of the Church which adhere more to the true religion.
The Russians say that the preposterous Protestant fundamentalist evangelicalism is a "pseudo-religion that represents Western
egoism and noting more." This type of Protestantism is obviously anti-Christian at its very core, but this is precisely the type
of bastardized and heretical Christianity that would be expected to unfold in the radical individualist atmosphere of the US.
You may be interested to know that many Russian Orthodox Christians think the radical individualist Libertarianism so popular
in the US is actually "Satanic." What they mean by that is that it is the polar opposite of the Church's teaching.
... You can have Christ or you can have Mammon. Which do you choose to worship? You surely cannot worship both.
Moscow Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church:
The modern economy is built largely on fraud; it creates money out of thin air. Who's going to pay for all of this? Why,
the simple worker is going to, who produces the value behind all of this bubble. We need a fair economic system where money and
capital are equivalent, and are the expression of real work.
His Holiness Kirill Gundyaev Patriarch of Moscow and all the Russias
[Jan 29, 2019] A State of Neoliberalism by Kevin "Rashid" Johnson (New African Black Panther Party)
Highly recommended!
References omitted
Notable quotes:
"... "number of refugees and displaced persons increased dramatically over the decade, doubling from 2007 to 2015, to approximately 60 million people. There are nine countries with more than 10 per cent of their population classified as refugees or displaced persons with Somalia and South Sudan having more than 20 per cent of their population displaced and Syria with over 60 per cent displaced." ..."
"... In The Road to Serfdom ..."
"... The Road to Serfdom ..."
"... 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 ..."
"... Masters of the Universe ..."
"... As an ideology, neoliberalism borrows heavily from Trotskyism. "One can view neoliberalism as Trotskyism refashioned for elite ..."
"... proletarians of all countries unite ..."
"... neoliberal elites of all countries unite. ..."
"... Today Trotskyism no more confines itself to "informing" the bourgeoisie. Today Trotskyism is the center and the rallying point for the enemies of the Soviet Union, of the proletarian revolution in capitalist countries, of the Communist International. Trotskyism is trying not only to disintegrate the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, but also to disintegrate the forces that make for the dictatorship of the proletariat the world over. ..."
"... The Origins and Doctrine of Fascism ..."
"... Donald Trump is a visible product of this culture, but clearly is not the choice of the elite ruling class to serve as their "front man" for President. Rather, his role seems to have been to polarize the electorate in such a way as to assure Hillary Clinton the election, just as Bernie Sanders played a role of mobilizing the left-neoliberal camp and then sheep-dogging it into Hillary's camp. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running for re-election. ..."
"... "An extraordinary feature of the U.S. electoral process is that the two dominant parties collude to dictate – via their own bipartisan "commission" – who is allowed to participate in the officially recognized presidential debates. Needless to say, the two parties set impossible barriers to the participation of any candidates other than their own . Most potential voters are thereby prevented from acquainting themselves with alternatives to the dominant consensus. ..."
"... Citizens United ..."
"... as deep in the shadows as possible ..."
"... Former president Jimmy Carter said Tuesday on the nationally syndicated radio show the Thom Hartmann Program that the United States is now an "oligarchy" in which "unlimited political bribery" has created "a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors ..."
The fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism is not simply a question of
private vs. state ownership of the means of production but of the nature of the state itself.
This is because the state is an instrument of class dictatorship. In this epoch, the state will
be either a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or a dictatorship of the proletariat. The
dictatorship of the proletariat has only one rationale for its existence which is to transform
class society into classless society and the state into a non-state that will wither away as
classless society is achieved. However, there is a great danger of the dictatorship of the
proletariat transforming back into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and thereby restoring
capitalism, so long as classes continue to exist under socialism.
Class struggle intensifies under socialism, and will until the basis of class divisions no
longer continues to be present. Communism is necessarily a global system, stateless and
classless and without national boundaries. At this stage in the evolution of
capitalist-imperialism, independent national states have ceased to exist as the global
capitalist system becomes ever more hegemonic. In this period the World Proletarian Socialist
Revolution cannot simply liberate one country at a time and meanwhile peacefully co-exist with
the global capitalist system. Rather we must wage revolution globally to defeat
capitalist-imperialism and achieve a global dictatorship of the proletariat. A system of global
revolutionary intercommunalism would be the logical form for this proletarian dictatorship.
The U.S. Military is deployed globally with bases in the majority of countries and
"partnership" arrangements to train and advise most of the world's armed forces. The U.S. is
the dominant force in NATO and of the United Nations' armed forces. A recent report by the
Institute for Economics and Peace found a mere ten nations on the planet are not at war and
completely free from conflict. The report cites an historic 10-year deterioration in world
peace, with the "number of refugees and displaced persons increased dramatically over
the decade, doubling from 2007 to 2015, to approximately 60 million people. There are nine
countries with more than 10 per cent of their population classified as refugees or displaced
persons with Somalia and South Sudan having more than 20 per cent of their population displaced
and Syria with over 60 per cent displaced."[1] According to the report, the
United States spends an outrageously high percentage of the globe's military expenditures -- 38
percent -- while the next largest military spender, China, accounted for considerably less, 10
percent of the global share. [2]
The principle contradiction in the world today is between the need of the monopoly
capitalist ruling class to consolidate its global hegemony and the chaos and anarchy (including
the threat of a Third World War) it is unleashing by attempting to do so. The so-called "War on
Terrorism" is but a front for capitalist-imperialism's aggressive attempts to consolidate its
global bourgeois dictatorship and subordinate every country to its hegemonic control. The
essence of communism is community, and capitalist-imperialism is the antithesis of community,
particularly under neo-liberalism, which is the final stage of imperialism. As George Monbiot
explained:
"The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938 . Among
the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich
Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt's
New Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare state, as manifestations of a
collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.
" In The Road to
Serfdom , published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing
individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control . Like Mises's book
Bureaucracy ,
The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy
people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax.
When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of
neoliberalism -- the Mont Pelerin Society -- it was supported financially by millionaires and
their foundations .
"With their help, he began to create what Daniel Stedman Jones describes in Masters of the
Universe as "a kind of neoliberal International": a transatlantic network of
academics, businessmen, journalists and activists. The movement's rich backers funded a
series of think tanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among them were the
American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of
Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They also
financed academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities of Chicago and
Virginia.
"As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek's view that governments should
regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way, among American apostles
such as Milton Friedman, to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for
efficiency." [3]
As an ideology, neoliberalism borrows heavily from Trotskyism. "One can view
neoliberalism as Trotskyism refashioned for elite . " [4] Instead of "
proletarians of all countries unite " we have [the] slogan "
neoliberal elites of all countries unite. " [5] Stalin purged Trotsky, but
some of his disciples made the transition to become founding intellectuals of neoliberal
ideology, and in particular its "neo-conservative" wing. "Neoliberalism is also an example of
emergence of ideologies, not from their persuasive power or inner logic, but from the private
interests of the ruling elite. Political pressure and money created the situation in which
intellectually bankrupt ideas could prevail much like Catholicism prevailed during Dark Ages in
Europe. In a way, this is return to Dark Ages on a new level." [6]
Trotsky's elitism and contempt for the masses led naturally to neoliberalism. As M.J. Olgin
pointed out: Today Trotskyism no more confines itself to "informing" the bourgeoisie.
Today Trotskyism is the center and the rallying point for the enemies of the Soviet Union, of
the proletarian revolution in capitalist countries, of the Communist International. Trotskyism
is trying not only to disintegrate the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, but
also to disintegrate the forces that make for the dictatorship of the proletariat the world
over.[7]
Neoliberalism also borrows from the ideology of fascism. As Giovanni Gentile, "The
Philosopher of Fascism" expressed in a quote often attributed to Mussolini: "Fascism should
more properly be called corporatism , since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
Gentile also stated in The Origins and Doctrine of Fascism , that "mankind only
progresses through division, and progress is achieved through the clash and victory of one side
over another." [8]
Neoliberalism is a new form of corporatism based on the ideology of market fundamentalism,
dominance of finance and cult of rich ("greed is good") instead of the ideology on racial or
national superiority typical for classic corporatism. Actually, some elements of the idea of
"national superiority" were preserved in a form superiority of "corporate management" and top
speculators over other people. In a way, neoliberalism considers bankers and corporations top
management to be a new Aryan race. As it relies on financial mechanisms and banks instead of
brute force of subduing people the practice of neoliberalism outside of the G7 is also called
neocolonialism. Neoliberal practice within G7 is called casino capitalism, an apt term that
underscore [s] the role of finance and stock exchange in this new social order. Neoliberalism
is an example of emergence of ideologies not from their persuasive power or inner logic, but
from the private interests of ruling elite. Political pressure and money created the
situation in which intellectually bankrupt ideas could prevail .
Neoliberalism is not a collection of theories meant to improve the economy. Instead, it
should be understood as a class strategy designed to redistribute wealth upward toward an
increasingly narrow fraction of population (top 1%). It is the Marxist idea of "class
struggle" turned on its head and converted into a perverted "revolt of the elite,"
unsatisfied with the peace of the pie it is getting from the society. While previously
excessive greed was morally condemned, neoliberalism employed a slick trick of adopting
"reverse," Nietzschean Ubermench morality in bastartized form propagated in the USA under the
name of Randism. [9]
This neoliberal transformation of the society into a top 1% (or, more correctly, 0.01%)
"have and have more" and "the rest" undermined and exploited by financial oligarchy with near
complete indifference to what happens with the most unprotected lower quintile of the
population. The neoliberal reformers don't care about failures and contradictions of the
economic system which drive the majority of country population into abject poverty, as it
happened in Russia. Nor do they care about their actions such as blowing financial bubbles,
like in the USA in 2008 can move national economics toward disaster. They have a somewhat
childish, simplistic "greed is good" mentality: they just want to have their (as large as
possible) piece of economic pie fast and everything else be damned. In a way, they are
criminals and neoliberalism is a highly criminogenic creed, but it tried to conceal the
racket and plunder it inflicts of the societies under the dense smoke screen of "free market"
newspeak.
That means that in most countries neoliberalism is an unstable social order as plunder
can't continue indefinitely. It was partially reversed in Chile, Russia, and several other
countries. It was never fully adopted in northern Europe.
One can see an example of this smoke screen in Thatcher's dictum of neoliberalism: "There
is no such thing as society. There are only individuals and families." In foreign policy
neoliberalism behaves like brutal imperialism which subdue countries either by debt slavery
or direct military intervention. In a neoliberal view the world consist of four concentric
cycles which in order of diminishing importance are .
Finance
Economics
Society
Planet
Finance is accepted as the most important institution of the civilization which should
govern all other spheres of life. It is clear that such a one-dimensional view is wrong, but
neoliberals like communists before them have a keen sense of mission and made its "long march
through the institutions" and changed the way Americans think (Using the four "M" strategy --
money, media, marketing, and management)
A well-oiled machine of foundations, lobbies, think-tanks, economic departments of major
universities, publications, political cadres, lawyers and activist organizations slowly and
strategically took over nation after nation. A broad alliance of neo-liberals,
neo-conservatives and the religious right successfully manufactured a new common sense,
assaulted Enlightenment values and formed a new elite, the top layer of society, where this
"greed is good" culture is created and legitimized. [10]
Donald Trump is a visible product of this culture, but clearly is not the choice of the
elite ruling class to serve as their "front man" for President. Rather, his role seems to have
been to polarize the electorate in such a way as to assure Hillary Clinton the election, just
as Bernie Sanders played a role of mobilizing the left-neoliberal camp and then sheep-dogging
it into Hillary's camp. As Bruce A. Dixon explained:
" Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the
Democratic party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat
running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to
the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination.
Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and
voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the
Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two-party
box." [11]
Once you realize what the principle contradiction in the world is, and how the game of
bourgeois "democracy" is played, the current election become as predictable and blatantly
scripted as professional wrestling. As Victor Wallace explained:
"An extraordinary feature of the U.S. electoral process is that the two dominant
parties collude to dictate – via their own bipartisan "commission" – who is
allowed to participate in the officially recognized presidential debates. Needless to say,
the two parties set impossible barriers to the participation of any
candidates other than their own . Most potential voters are thereby prevented from
acquainting themselves with alternatives to the dominant consensus.
"This practice has taken on glaring proportions in the 2016 campaign, which has been
marked by justified public distrust of both the dominant-party tickets. Preventing
election-theft would initially require breaking up the bipartisan stranglehold over who can
access the tens of millions of voters.
"Another distinctive U.S. trait is the absence of any constitutional guarantee of the
right to vote. Instead, a multiplicity of state laws govern voter-eligibility, as well as
ballot-access. A few states set ballot-access requirements so high as to effectively
disqualify their residents from supporting otherwise viable national candidacies. As for
voter-eligibility, it is deliberately narrowed through the time-honored practice of using
"states' rights" to impose racist agendas. Most states deny voting rights to ex-convicts, a
practice that currently disenfranchises some 6 million citizens, disproportionately from
communities of color. More recently, targeting the same constituencies, many states have
passed onerous and unnecessary voter-ID laws.
"The role of money in filtering out viable candidacies is well known. It was reinforced
by the Supreme Court'sCitizens Uniteddecision of 2010, which opened
the gate to unlimited corporate contributions.
"The priorities of corporate media point in a similar direction. Even apart from their
taste for campaign-advertising, their orientation toward celebrity and sensationalism prompts
them to give far more air-time to well known figures – the more outrageous, the better
– than to even the most viable candidates who present serious alternatives. Trump's
candidacy was thus "made" by the media, even as they kept the Sanders challenge to
Clintonas deep in the shadows as
possible." [12]
Moreover, the media, which in the U.S. is 90% owned by just six mega-corporations,
[13]
cooperates closely with the dominant establishment of the two parties in framing the questions
that are posed in the debates. And they explicitly maintain the fiction that the "commission"
running the debates is "non-partisan" when in fact it is bipartisan. [14]
"Turning finally to the voting process itself, the longest-running scandal is the
holding of elections on a workday. In recent years, the resulting inconvenience has been
partially offset by the institution of early voting, which however has the disadvantage of
facilitating premature choices and of being subject to varied and volatile rules set by state
legislatures.
"The actual casting of votes on Election Day is further subject to a number of possible
abuses. These include: 1) insufficient polling places in poor neighborhoods, sometimes
resulting in waiting periods so long that individuals no longer have the time to vote; 2) the
sometimes aggressive challenging of voters' eligibility by interested parties; 3) the use of
provisional ballots which may easily end up not being counted; and 4), perhaps most
significantly, the increasingly complete reliance on computerized voting, which allows for
manipulation of the results (via "proprietary" programs) in a manner that cannot be detected.
(The probability of such manipulation – based on discrepancies between exit-polls and
official tallies – was documented by Marc Crispin Miller
in his book on the 2004 election.
"The corporate media add a final abuse in their rush – in presidential races
– to announce results in some states before the voting process has been completed
throughout the country." [15]
Despite multiple releases of hacked e-mails by WikiLeaks revealing the whole process in
detail, it seems to have little effect on the masses or on the game. The most recent batch come
from Obama's personal e-mail account and reveal that the Bush administration contacted the
future president multiple times before the election in 2008, secretly organizing the transition
of power. In one e-mail President Bush states:
" We are now at the point of deciding how to staff economic policy during the
transition, who should be the point of contact with Treasury and how to blend the transition
and campaign economic policy talent.
Normally these decisions could be made after the election, and ideally after the
selection of a National Economic Advisor, but, of course, these are not normal times. "
[16]
.... ... ...
The illusion of "democracy" is wearing thin:
Former president Jimmy Carter said Tuesday on the nationally syndicated radio show the
Thom Hartmann Program that the
United States is now an "oligarchy" in which "unlimited political bribery" has created "a
complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors ." Both
Democrats and Republicans, Carter said, "look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to
themselves."
Carter was responding to a question from Hartmann about recent Supreme Court decisions on
campaign financing like Citizens United .
Transcript:
HARTMANN: Our Supreme Court has now said, "unlimited money in politics." It seems like
a violation of principles of democracy. Your thoughts on that?
CARTER: It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political
system. Now it's just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of
getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies
to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we've just seen a complete
subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect
and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election's over. The incumbents,
Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves.
Somebody's who's already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than
somebody who's just a challenger . [21]
... ... ...
Kevin "Rashid" Johnson is the Minister of Defense, New African Black Panther Party
(Prison chapter)
"... As our society rushes toward technological ataraxia , it may do us some good to ponder the costs of what has become Silicon Valley's new religious covenant. For the enlightened technocrat and the venture capitalist, God is long dead and buried, democracy sundered, the American dream lost. These beliefs they keep hush-hushed, out of earshot of their consumer base. Best not to run afoul of the millions of middle-class Americans who have developed slavish devotions to their smartphones and tablets and Echo Dots, pouring billions into the coffers of the ballooning technocracy. ..."
"... The problem with Silicon Valley elites is a bit simpler than that. They are all very smart, but their knowledge is limited. They know everything about electronics, computers, and coding, but know little of history, philosophy, or the human condition. Hence they see everything as an engineering problem, something with an optimal, measurable solution. ..."
"... As Tucker Carlson is realizing, Artificial Intelligence eliminating around 55% of all jobs (as the Future of Employment study found) so that wealthy people can have more disposable income to demand other services also provided by robots is madness. This is religious devotion either to defacto anarcho-capitalism, transhumanism, or both. ..."
"... @TheSnark -- valid observation: The Silicon Valley elites " know everything about electronics, computers, and coding, but know little of history, philosophy, or the human condition." Religion is not an engineering issue. Knowing a little about history, philosophy, human condition would help them to understand that humans need something for their soul. And the human soul is not described by boolean "1"s or "0"s ..."
"... Zuckerberg's comment about the Roman Empire is bizzare.to say the least. Augustus didn't create "200 years of peace". The Roman Empire was constantly conquering its neighbors. And of the first 5 Roman Emperors, Augustus was the only one who defintly died of natural causes ..."
"... This time period was an extremely violent time period. The fact that Zuckerberg doesn't realize this, indicates to me that while he is smart at creating a business, he is basically a pseudo-intellectual ..."
They've rejected God and tradition in favor of an egoistic radicalism that sees their fellow man as expendable.
As our society rushes toward technological ataraxia , it may do us some good to ponder the costs of what has become
Silicon Valley's new religious covenant. For the enlightened technocrat and the venture capitalist, God is long dead and buried,
democracy sundered, the American dream lost. These beliefs they keep hush-hushed, out of earshot of their consumer base. Best not
to run afoul of the millions of middle-class Americans who have developed slavish devotions to their smartphones and tablets and
Echo Dots, pouring billions into the coffers of the ballooning technocracy.
While Silicon Valley types delay giving their own children screens, knowing full well their deleterious effects on cognitive and
social development (not to mention their addictive qualities), they hardly bat an eye when handing these gadgets to our middle class.
Some of our Silicon oligarchs have gone so far as to call these products "demonic," yet on they go ushering them into schools, ruthlessly
agnostic as to whatever reckoning this might have for future generations.
As they do this, their political views seem to become more radical by the day. They as a class represent the junction of meritocracy
and the soft nihilism that has infiltrated almost every major institution in contemporary society. By day they inveigh against guns
and walls and inequality; by night they decamp into multimillion-dollar bunkers, safeguarded against the rest of the world, shamelessly
indifferent to their blatant hypocrisy. This cognitive dissonance results in a plundering worldview, one whose consequences are not
yet fully understood but are certainly catastrophic. Its early casualties already include some of the most fundamental elements of
American civil society: privacy, freedom of thought, even truth itself.
Hence a recent
New York Times profile of Silicon Valley's anointed guru, Yuval Harari. Harari is an Israeli futurist-philosopher whose apocalyptic
forecasts, made in books like Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow , have tantalized some of the biggest names on the political
and business scenes, including Barack Obama, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg. The Times portrays Harari as gloomy about the
modern world and especially its embrace of technology:
Part of the reason might be that Silicon Valley, at a certain level, is not optimistic on the future of democracy. The more
of a mess Washington becomes, the more interested the tech world is in creating something else, and it might not look like elected
representation. Rank-and-file coders have long been wary of regulation and curious about alternative forms of government. A separatist
streak runs through the place: Venture capitalists periodically call for California to secede or shatter, or for the creation
of corporate nation-states. And this summer, Mark Zuckerberg, who has recommended Mr. Harari to his book club, acknowledged a
fixation with the autocrat Caesar Augustus. "Basically," Mr. Zuckerberg told The New Yorker, "through a really harsh approach,
he established 200 years of world peace."
Harari understands that liberal democracy is in peril, and he's taken it upon himself to act as a foil to the anxieties of the
elite class. In return, they regale him with lavish dinner parties and treat him like their maharishi. Yet from reading the article,
one gets the impression that, at least in Harari's view, this is but a facade, or what psychologists call "reaction formation." In
other words, by paying lip service to Harari, who is skeptical of their designs, our elites hope to spare themselves from incurring
any moral responsibility for the costs of their social engineering. And "social engineering" is not a farfetched term to use. A portion
of the Times article interrogates the premise of Aldous Huxley's dystopian 1932 novel Brave New World , which tells
the story of a totalitarian regime that has anesthetized a docile underclass into blind submission:
As we boarded the black gull-wing Tesla Mr. Harari had rented for his visit, he brought up Aldous Huxley. Generations have
been horrified by his novel "Brave New World," which depicts a regime of emotion control and painless consumption. Readers who
encounter the book today, Mr. Harari said, often think it sounds great. "Everything is so nice, and in that way it is an intellectually
disturbing book because you're really hard-pressed to explain what's wrong with it," he said. "And you do get today a vision coming
out of some people in Silicon Valley which goes in that direction."
Here, Harari divulges with brutal frankness the indisputable link between private atheism and political thought. Lacking an immutable
ontology, man is left in the desert, unmoored from anything to keep his insatiable passions in check. His pride entices him into
playing the role of God.
At one point in the article, Harari wonders why we should even maintain a low-skilled "useless" class, whose work is doomed to
disappear over the next several decades, replaced by artificial intelligence. "You're totally expendable," Harari tells his audience.
This is why, the Times says, the Silicon elites recommend social engineering solutions like universal income to try and mitigate
the more unpleasant effects of that "useless" class. They seem unaware (or at least they're incapable of admitting) that human nature
is imperfect, sinful, and can never be perfected from on high. Since many of the Silicon breed reject the possibility of a
timeless, intelligent metaphysics (to say nothing of Christianity), such truisms about our natures go over their heads. Metaphysics
aside, the fact that our elites are even thinking this way to begin with -- that technology may render an entire underclass "expendable"
-- is in itself cause for concern. (As Keynes once quipped, "In the long run we are all dead.")
Harari seems to have a vendetta against traditions -- which can be extrapolated to the tradition of Western civilization writ
large -- for long considering homosexuality aberrant. He is quoted as saying, "If society got this thing wrong, who guarantees it
didn't get everything else wrong as well?" Thus do the Silicon elites have the audacity to shirk their entire Western birthright,
handed down to them across generations, in the name of creating a utopia oriented around a modern, hyper-individualistic view of
man.
When man abandons God, he begins to channel his religious desire, more devouring than even his sexual instinct, into other worldly
outlets. Thus has modern liberalism evolved from a political school of thought into an out-and-out ecclesiology, one that perverts
elements of Christian dogma into technocratic channels. (Of course, one can debate whether this was liberalism's intent in the first
place.) Our elites have crafted for themselves a new religion. Humility to them is nothing more than a vice.
The reason the elites are entertaining alternatives to democracy is because they know that so long as we adhere to constitutional
government -- our American system, even in its severely compromised form -- we are bound to the utterly natural constraints hardwired
by our framers (who, by the way, revered Aristotle and Jesus). Realizing this, they seek alternative forms in Silicon Valley social
engineering projects, hoping to create a regime that will conform to their megalomaniacal fancies.
If there is a silver lining in all this, it's that in the real word, any such attempt to base a political regime on naked ego
is bound to fail. Such things have been tried before, in our lifetimes, no less, and they have never worked because they cannot work.
Man should never be made the center of the universe because, per impossible, there is already a natural order that cannot
be breached. May he come to realize this sooner rather than later. And may Mr. Harari's wildest nightmares never come to fruition.
Paul Ingrassia is a co-host of the Right on Point podcast. To listen to his podcast, click
here .
"in the real word, any such attempt to base a political regime on naked ego is bound to fail. Such things have been tried before,
in our lifetimes, no less, and they have never worked because they cannot work."
But they can create hells on earth for many decades, in which millions are consumed, until played out.
As Kipling so aptly put it, in the final stanzas of a poem:
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
"The reason the elites are entertaining alternatives to democracy is because they know that so long as we adhere to constitutional
government -- our American system, even in its severely compromised form -- we are bound to the utterly natural constraints hardwired
by our framers (who, by the way, revered Aristotle and Jesus)."
Um, you do know that one of the gravest dangers the founders feared was democracy? And the bulwarks they put in place are all
meant to constraint majority rule? Now, if the argument you are making that the elites have so corrupted the hoi polloi that only
rule by a minority of REAL AMERICANS can save us, say so, don't do the idiotic dodge of invoking democratic arguments while obviously
advocating minority rule.
The problem with Silicon Valley elites is a bit simpler than that. They are all very smart, but their knowledge is limited.
They know everything about electronics, computers, and coding, but know little of history, philosophy, or the human condition.
Hence they see everything as an engineering problem, something with an optimal, measurable solution.
As a result, they do not even understand the systems they have built; witness Zuckerberg struggling to get Facebook under control.
If they go the way the author fears it will be by accident, not design. Despite their smarts, they really don't know what they
are doing in terms of society.
As Tucker Carlson is realizing, Artificial Intelligence eliminating around 55% of all jobs (as the Future of Employment study
found) so that wealthy people can have more disposable income to demand other services also provided by robots is madness. This
is religious devotion either to defacto anarcho-capitalism, transhumanism, or both.
They're literally selling out human existence for their own myopic short-term gain, yet have a moral superiority complex.
I suppose the consensus is that the useless class gets welfare depending on their social credit score. Maybe sterilization will
lead to a higher social credits score. Dark days are coming.
@TheSnark -- valid observation: The Silicon Valley elites " know everything about electronics, computers, and coding, but
know little of history, philosophy, or the human condition." Religion is not an engineering issue. Knowing a little about history,
philosophy, human condition would help them to understand that humans need something for their soul. And the human soul is not
described by boolean "1"s or "0"s
Western Culture is struggling to adapt to the new communication technologies that inhabit the Internet. That the developers of
these technologies see themselves as gods of a sort is entirely consistent with human history and nature.
The best historical example of how new communication technology can change society occurred about 500 years ago, when the printing
press was developed in Europe. A theologian and professor named Martin Luther (Perhaps you have heard of him?) composed a list
of 95 discussion questions regarding the then-current activities of The Church. That list, known as the "95 Theses" was posted
on the chapel door in Wittenburg, Germany. Before long, the list was transcribed and published. The list, and many responses,
were distributed throughout Europe. The Protestant Reformation was sparked.
The Press and Protestant Reformation it launched remains a primary foundation of today's Western Culture. It has initiated
much violence, much dissension, war with millions of deaths, The Enlightenment, and much else. The printing press ushered in the
modern era.
Just as the printing press enabled profound change in the world 500 years ago, The Internet is prompting similar disruption
today. I think we are in the early stages, and estimate that our great great grandchildren will be among the first to fully appreciate
what has been gained and lost as a result of this technology.
So the arrogance of religious believers convinced that they know "the TRUTH!", are the only ones to do so, and are justified in
forcing non-believers to act as "God says!" is to be completely ignored?
Methinks we're seeing a huge case of projection here .
The problem is also that once those religious foundations are gone, they don't come back easily. How can you talk to an atheist/muslim/buddhist
who doesn't even believe that lying is always sin? People in the west have started to think that all our nice freedoms and comfort
have magically come from the heart of humans, that we are all somehow equal and want the same things but the bible tells us the
real story: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.
Then we have religions who fundamentally do not even view death as a problem. Now this is where we enter the danger zone. In
the west we have lived on such a good, superior Christian foundation we seem to have forgotten how truly horrible and inferior
the alternatives are. Suddenly you get people who endorse cannibalism and child sacrifice again, I have seen this myself. How
do you even explain to somebody that this is wrong when he fundamentally disagrees on the morality of killing?
People don't understand that Christian morality was hard fought for, they refuse to understand that human beings do not have
a magical switch that makes them disapprove of murder.
Thousands were burned alive in England just for wanting to read the bible. It is like a technological innovation. We found
a trick in the human condition, we discovered the truth about humanity. Now these coddled silicon valley people who have grown
up in a Christian society with Christian morality and protections in their arrogance think that Christian behavior is the base
of human morality anyway and needs no protection. Thanks to them in no small part the entire world is currently doing its utmost
to reject the reality of the bible. We see insane propositions that say we should not judge people. Or that everyone is equal.
Of course the bible never says that with the meaning they imply, but it was coopted beautifully for their own evil agenda. Yes
evil, did I mention that our technocratic genius overlords don't believe in that either?
How can you talk with somebody that has rejected the most base truths of human life. How can you say a murderer is equal to
a non-criminal? You must understand that these new age fake Christians truly think like this, they truly believe that everyone
is equal. You can't allow yourself to think that 'oh they just mean we are all equal like.. on a human level, in our humanity'.
Nono, I made the mistake to be too charitable with them. They actually think we are all equal no matter what. I found it hard
to believe that we have degenerated so much, I have been in a quasi state of shock for a long time over this.
Zuckerberg's comment about the Roman Empire is bizzare.to say the least. Augustus didn't create "200 years of peace". The
Roman Empire was constantly conquering its neighbors. And of the first 5 Roman Emperors, Augustus was the only one who defintly
died of natural causes
This time period was an extremely violent time period. The fact that Zuckerberg doesn't realize this, indicates to me that
while he is smart at creating a business, he is basically a pseudo-intellectual
Can the elite be afflicted by some mass disease. Is Neoconservatism a deadly infection ?
Theoretically Democracy depends on information freely available and responsibility of the citizenry to make decisions based on
that information. The political elites have made certain precious little of reliable, unclouded and relevant information ever gets
broadcast even while popularizing, promoting and rewarding every form of misrepresentation, ignorance and irresponsibility. In
other words they spearheaded a dangerous disease to stay in power. And eventually got infected themselves.
Notable quotes:
"... "But what if the elites get things wrong? What if the policies they promulgate produce grotesque inequality or lead to permanent war? Who then has the authority to disregard the guardians, if not the people themselves? How else will the elites come to recognize their folly and change course?" ..."
"... That is how they maintain control and manipulate government to facilitate their own interests to the detriment of the rest of society. Bretix and President Trump have upset their apple cart, which they felt certain was invulnerable and immune to challenge. ..."
"... The elites aren't interested in polls showing Americans want out of Syria and Afghanistan, are they? Can't have mere citizens having influencing decisions like that. ..."
"... An excellent piece. I would add only that the so-called elites mentioned by Mr Bacevich are largely the products of the uppermost stratum of colleges and universities, at least in the USA, and that for a generation or more now, those institutions have indoctrinated rather than educated. ..."
"... As their more recent alumni move into government, media and cultural production, the primitiveness of their views and their inability to think - to say nothing of their fundamental ignorance about our civilization other than that it is bad and evil - begin to have real effect. ..."
"But what if the elites get things wrong? What if the policies they promulgate produce
grotesque inequality or lead to permanent war? Who then has the authority to disregard the
guardians, if not the people themselves? How else will the elites come to recognize their
folly and change course?"
What if, on election day, you only have a choice between 2 candidates. Both favoring all
the wrong choices, but one tends to talk up Christianity and family and the other talks up
diversity.
And both get their funding from the very wealthy and corporations. And any 3rd choices
would be "throwing your vote away". How would you ever get to vote for someone who might
change course?
Democracy has little to actually do with choice or power.
mlopez, January 18, 2019 at 6:22 pm
GB may not have been any utopia in 1914, but it was certainly geo-politically dominant. It's common people's social,
economic and cultural living standards most assuredly was vastly improved over Russian, or European peasants. There can be no
serious comparison with third world countries and regions.
As for the US, there can be absolutely no debate about its own dominance, or material standard of living after 1945 as
compared to any where else in the world. More importantly, even uneducated and very contemporary observers were capable of
recognizing how our elites had sold out their interests in favor of the furtherance of their own.
If we are on about democratic government, then it's been generations since either country and their peoples have had any
real democracy. Democracy depends on information freely available and responsibility of the citizenry to make decisions based
on that information. The political elites have made certain precious little of reliable, unclouded and relevant information
ever gets broadcast even while popularizing, promoting and rewarding every form of misrepresentation, ignorance and
irresponsibility.
That is how they maintain control and manipulate government to facilitate their own interests to the detriment of the
rest of society. Bretix and President Trump have upset their apple cart, which they felt certain was invulnerable and immune
to challenge.
Hello / Goodbye, January 19, 2019 at 11:40 am
The elites aren't interested in polls showing Americans want out of Syria and Afghanistan, are they? Can't have mere
citizens having influencing decisions like that.
Patzinak, January 19, 2019 at 5:07 pm
What ineffable flummadiddle!
Prominent Brexiteers include Boris Johnson (dual UK/US citizenship, educated in Brussels and at Eton and Oxford, of mixed
ancestry, including a link - by illegitimate descent - to the royal houses of Prussia and the UK); Jacob Rees-Mogg (son of a
baron, educated at Eton and Oxford, amassed a solid fortune via hedge fund management); Arron Banks (millionaire, bankroller
of UKIP, made to the Brexit campaign the largest ever political donation in UK politics).
So much for "the elite" being against Brexit!
But the main problem with Brexit is this. Having voted by a slim margin in favour of Brexit, the Great British Public
then, in the general election, denied a majority to the government that had undertaken to implement it, and elected a
Parliament of whom, by a rough estimate, two thirds oppose Brexit.
It ain't that "the elite" got "things wrong". It's that bloody Joe Public can't make his mind what to do - and go through
with it.
Rossbach, January 20, 2019 at 2:14 pm
"Whether the imagined utopia of a dominant Great Britain prior to 1914 or a dominant America after 1945 ever actually
existed is beside the point."
It wasn't to restore any defunct utopia that led people to vote for Brexit or Donald Trump; it was to check the descent of
the Anglosphere into the totalitarian dystopia of forced multi-cultural globalism that caused voters to reject the EU in
Britain and Hillary Clinton in the US. It is because they believed that only with the preservation of their national
independence was there any chance or hope for a restoration of individual liberty that our people voted as they did.
Ratings System, January 17, 2019 at 1:27 pm
It's why they won't enjoy their privileges much longer. That stale charade can't and won't last.
We don't have a meritocracy. We have a pseudo-meritocracy with an unduly large contingent of aliens, liars, cheats,
frauds, and incompetents. They give each other top marks, speak each other's PC language, and hire each other's kids. And
they don't understand why things are falling apart, and why they are increasingly hated by real Americans.
A very nasty decade or two is coming our way, but after we've swept out the filth there will be a good chance that
Americans will be Americans again.
Paul Reidinger, January 17, 2019 at 2:03 pm
An excellent piece. I would add only that the so-called elites mentioned by Mr Bacevich are largely the products of
the uppermost stratum of colleges and universities, at least in the USA, and that for a generation or more now, those
institutions have indoctrinated rather than educated.
As their more recent alumni move into government, media and cultural production, the primitiveness of their views and
their inability to think - to say nothing of their fundamental ignorance about our civilization other than that it is bad and
evil - begin to have real effect. The new dark age is no longer imminent. It is here, and it is them. I see no way to
rectify the damage. When minds are ruined young, they remain ruined.
"... the Davos crew is trying to combat populism, according to The Washington Post . It is kind of amazing that the rich people at Davos would not understand how absurd this is. ..."
"... The real incredible aspect of Davos is that so many political leaders and news organizations would go to a meeting that is quite explicitly about rich people trying to set an agenda for the world. ..."
"... It is important to remember, the World Economic Forum is not some sort of international organization like the United Nations, the OECD, or even the International Monetary Fund. It is a for-profit organization that makes money by entertaining extremely rich people. The real outrage of the story is that top political leaders, academics, and new outlets feel obligated to entertain them. ..."
"... Davos ought to be treated as a conspiracy against labor, representative government, environmental regulation and decent living standards, but of course our admiring national press corps doesn't see it that way -- their bosses attend, after all. ..."
"... It may be best to avoid the term "populist" because it tends to be applied indiscriminately to the likes of Trump and to leftist reformers. Or if it is used for Trump it should be "fake populist". Opposition to corporatist globalization can be populistic, but Trump's version so far has been mostly fake. ..."
"... Two kinds of populism: rightwing populism (which often looks like fascism) and leftwing populism. They are quite different critters and they don't have a lot to do with each other though they agree on a few things. ..."
"... People REALLY need to re-read 1984 & refresh their memories of Orwellian good-is-bad brainwashing ..."
"... Trump is a rightwing populist, but it is very confusing. In the US anyway and often in general, rightwing populists are NOT the enemies of the rich. Note Mussolini and Hitler. Fascism really is a type of rightwing populism. ..."
"... Rightwing populism pretends to be for the people and is to some extent (protectionism, isolationalism, nationalism) but in a lot of other ways, it's just fake and it's always a cover for class rule and rule by the rich. ..."
"... The rich will go to fascism or rightwing populism if they get a threat from the Left (read Trotsky), but they don't really like them very much, think they are classless brutes, barbarians, racists, bigots, etc. ..."
"... They're not worried about Donnie. He's no class traitor. They're worried about the populism of the Left and possibly about rightwing populism in Europe. Bolzonaro and Trump are hardly threats to capital. ..."
"... He pretends to be a populist because it helps him. For example, he doesn't care about illegal immigration. He's been happy to hire undocumented workers his whole life, even now in office. But it gets his base fired up so he rails about immigration. He has no ideology, he will use whatever helps him. ..."
"... Rightwing populism is NOT cool in my boat. Rightwing populism is Bolsonaro. It's Duterte too, but that's a bit different, he's a bit more pro-people. Erdogan is a rightwing populist too, but he's rather socialist. Marie Le Pen is out and out socialist and she gets called rightwing populist. Orban is 5X more socialist than Venezuela and he gets called rightwing populist. It's all very confusing. ..."
"... But in the US and Latin America, rightwing populism is ugly stuff all right, and it tends to be associated with fascism! ..."
Let's see, cattle ranchers are against vegetarianism, coal companies are against restricting CO2 emissions, and the Davos crew
is trying to combat populism, according to
The Washington Post . It is kind of amazing that the rich people at Davos would not understand how absurd this is.
Yeah, we get that rich people don't like the idea of movements that would leave them much less rich, but is it helpful to their
cause to tell us that they are devoting their rich people's conference to combating them? The real incredible aspect of Davos
is that so many political leaders and news organizations would go to a meeting that is quite explicitly about rich people trying
to set an agenda for the world.
It is important to remember, the World Economic Forum is not some sort of international organization like the United Nations,
the OECD, or even the International Monetary Fund. It is a for-profit organization that makes money by entertaining extremely rich
people. The real outrage of the story is that top political leaders, academics, and new outlets feel obligated to entertain them.
And the fact that so many Americans -(and especially American workers) still mistake Von Clownstick as a so called ''Populist''
- and being on their side - is... unbearable!
He IS in fact a rigthwing populist of a sort. That's what rightwing populism in the US looks like, and what it's always looked
like. Bunch of crap huh? Gimme Marie Le Pen any day.
"The real incredible aspect of Davos is that so many political leaders and news organizations would go to a meeting that is
quite explicitly about rich people trying to set an agenda for the world." \
Agreed - like how people almost worship British Royals.. or American celebrities... and yet, unfortunately, isn't it true that
the greedmongers at Davos are not "trying," but rather "largely succeeding" at setting said world agenda?
Nothing to see here, folks, move right along . . .
Davos and TED Talks. One entertains the rich, the other the smart. The skiing is better at Davos, the ideas are better at a
TED Talk. Just remember, most of the rich aren't smart and most of the smart aren't rich. So it's all rather silly, 'though it's
easier to get rich if you're smart than it is to get smart if you're rich. Don't ask me how I know that, but I'll tell you, if
you have an ounce of human kindness in you, learning the second half of that lesson is more painful than the first.
None of this would be half as much fun outside the glare of publicity, or if not heavily spiced with the envy of the excluded.
Ishi--I don't disagree with you. Just not as stupid as the Davos drivel. Perhaps I should have said 'less bad' ideas, but I
liked the cadence of 'better' and 'better.' Gotta have cadence if you want to get the People Marching.
Davos ought to be treated as a conspiracy against labor, representative government, environmental regulation and decent
living standards, but of course our admiring national press corps doesn't see it that way -- their bosses attend, after all.
Firstly we have to treat the so called ''Populists'' as a conspiracy against labor - because they pretended in the utmost conspirational
way to be on labors side.
While It always was as clear as mud that Davos was a Party of the Rich!
It may be best to avoid the term "populist" because it tends to be applied indiscriminately to the likes of Trump and to
leftist reformers. Or if it is used for Trump it should be "fake populist". Opposition to corporatist globalization can be populistic,
but Trump's version so far has been mostly fake.
You guys need to read up. Two kinds of populism: rightwing populism (which often looks like fascism) and leftwing populism.
They are quite different critters and they don't have a lot to do with each other though they agree on a few things.
That's basically my take, too. The term is purposely misused by the propagandists to get normal people thinking "Populism"
must be something they don't like. People REALLY need to re-read 1984 & refresh their memories of Orwellian good-is-bad brainwashing.
[and even "brainwashing" is an orwellian term! Brain-NUMBING, maybe... but nothing's getting cleaned, that's for sure]
Nope US rightwing populism has often looked a lot like Trump's crap. I mean some of it was better. I have a soft spot for Huey
Long. But in the US, rightwing populism just helps the rich mostly and it tends to be fascist.
''The term is purposely misused by the propagandists to get normal people thinking "Populism" must be something they don't
like'' You mean some con-artists have conned people who liked the term ''Populism'' into liking idiocy - racism and nationalism?.
Trump is a rightwing populist, but it is very confusing. In the US anyway and often in general, rightwing populists are
NOT the enemies of the rich. Note Mussolini and Hitler. Fascism really is a type of rightwing populism.
Rightwing populism pretends to be for the people and is to some extent (protectionism, isolationalism, nationalism) but
in a lot of other ways, it's just fake and it's always a cover for class rule and rule by the rich.
The rich will go to fascism or rightwing populism if they get a threat from the Left (read Trotsky), but they don't really
like them very much, think they are classless brutes, barbarians, racists, bigots, etc.
But the rich allow them because they think they can control them and not let them get out of hand. This is what happened in
Germany. This is what often happens actually.
In a sense, rightwing populism IS fake populism because it pretends to be for the people while often fucking them over with
rightwing class rule via fascism. It's still populism, it's just not for the people. It's fraudulent, iike most rightwing bullshit.
- AND! -
to suggest - or imply? - that the type of ''Populism'' Trump -(and other so called ''Populists) represent - IS to ''leave the
Davos Crowd much less rich'' -
could be the funniest thing ever written on this blog?
They're not worried about Donnie. He's no class traitor. They're worried about the populism of the Left and possibly about
rightwing populism in Europe. Bolzonaro and Trump are hardly threats to capital.
He pretends to be a populist because it helps him. For example, he doesn't care about illegal immigration. He's been happy
to hire undocumented workers his whole life, even now in office. But it gets his base fired up so he rails about immigration.
He has no ideology, he will use whatever helps him.
and to makes sure not to be misunderstood - I also think Davos is ''pathetic'' and ''hypocritical'' - and everything
else one wants to throw at it -
BUT as one of my favorite American Philosophers said:
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
And I think he meant the current ''Populists'' of this planet! -(and lets include especially the Brazilian one too)
But isn't it GREAT- that also ''the rich'' are starting to battle morons and a...holes like Baron von Clownsticks -(or the
nationalistic idiots in the UK - or the Neo Nazis in Germany?) -
For I while I thought I was left ALL alone in order to battle the type of ''Populism''- which is nothing else than the sick
racist phantasies of some nationalistic a...holes?
Rightwing populism is NOT cool in my boat. Rightwing populism is Bolsonaro. It's Duterte too, but that's a bit different,
he's a bit more pro-people. Erdogan is a rightwing populist too, but he's rather socialist. Marie Le Pen is out and out socialist
and she gets called rightwing populist. Orban is 5X more socialist than Venezuela and he gets called rightwing populist. It's
all very confusing.
But in the US and Latin America, rightwing populism is ugly stuff all right, and it tends to be associated with fascism!
I would also say ideas like people age and gradually become irrelevant no matter how
strongly they are propelled by the power of the state and MSM. When neoliberalism became the
object of jokes, it is clear that its time has passed.
Neoliberal ideology experienced a severe crisis in 2007 and was by-and-large
discredited.
But Neoliberalism as a social system is resilient and can continue to exist for some time
even after ideology itself was discredited. Probably 30-50 years, if we think that
neoliberalism is a perverted flavor of Trotskyism (Financial elite of all countries unite;
Permanent neoliberal revolution until the global victory of neoliberalism) and Bolshevism
lasted 50 years after the crisis of its ideology in early 60th.
So I think that neoliberalism entered its "zombie phase." It became more bloodthirsty,
aggressive (look at Trump) and even managed to stage revenge in Argentina and Brasil deposing
less neoliberal governments with hardcore neoliberal.
But ideas age and die like people and in 2019 the ideas of neoliberalism are essentially
dead. So now it is clinging by the pure power of propaganda and coercion. That is the road to
nowhere, and I expect this neoliberalism position in the USA will be further undermined
by-elections of 2020. Maybe tax regime will start to change to byte top 1%, and maybe there is
be local and quickly suppressed insurrections/strikes, like in France; I do not know. But with
the level of inequality intact, the cracks might widen.
Degeneration of the neoliberal elite (Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, Pompeo, etc.) is another
obvious problem. Filters work in such a way that capable (and this potentially dangerous to the
system) people are eliminated at early stages of political selection. That might s danger for
the USA is not so distant future as a viable, cohesive society and currently, the Congress
really reminds Soviet Politburo. Bunch on Mayberry Machiavelli.
At least in Australia politicians started openly discuss alternatives. Here in the USA,
there is dead silence. That means that the Congress is a part of the problem, not a part of the
solution.
Another problem is with the level of militarism in the USA society. The size of MIC is a
huge problem and like cancer is curable only by surgical means. The fact is that politicians
are arguing about 5 billion wall which is something like one percent of F35 program cost (
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-10/f-35-program-costs-jump-to-406-billion-in-new-pentagon-estimate
)
At this point, people stop to trust both politicians and MSM re-defining them as "fake news"
which means the crisis of legitimacy of the neoliberal elite. And I think that the USA either
reached this point or is very close.
That's why the US neoliberal elite decided to cement the cracks in the neoliberal
ideological façade via Russophobia in best neo-McCarthyism fashion. The idea is to
define the common enemy and mobilizing the society against it, leaving internal frictions on
the "day after." But it looks like neoliberalism which Sheldon Wolin defined as "inverted
totalities" is bad on mass mobilization. It no longer can produce slogans or politician who can
ignite passion of common people. Obama was a fake. So is Trump.
And Russiagate gambit produced some unwanted to neoliberals externalities like the society
attention to intelligence-driven machinations and their role as a political force under
neoliberalism. Including the role of British intelligence services.
For the last couple of weeks, I've been wanting to write a response to Aaron Major's (paywalled)
article on ideas and economic power for
Catalyst.
Major argues that they don't matter nearly as much as you might think. This means that a lot of recent work focusing on economic
ideas leads us in the wrong direction.
And yet, though motivated by a genuine concern for the damage that neoliberalism has done, building a critique of neoliberalism
through an idea-centered framework is both politically disarming and reinforces pernicious aspects of the neoliberal project.
One of the recurring points that emerges from a close reading of idea-centered accounts of political and economic change is that
the materialist social context -- the structure of social divisions formed along economic lines and the way power is distributed
across those divisions -- exerts a great deal of influence over both the content of ideas as well as their relative influence.
The neoliberal political-economic agenda, like others before it, advances through a favorable balance of social forces while simultaneously
trying to obscure the role that power and material advantage plays in its success. If the strength and resilience of the elitist,
pro-capital, and dehumanizing policies and practices that are often summarized as "neoliberal" is reduced to, or primarily explained
as, the impact of ideas, and those ideas are not grounded in the balance of material forces that gives them shape and influence,
then one can easily walk away with the impression that the solution to neoliberalism is found in intellectual debate and critique,
and not what is really needed: political mobilization.
Here, in particular, he focuses on the work of Mark Blyth:
Mark Blyth's Great Transformations helped spur the recent surge in idea-centered political economy and so serves as a useful starting
point for this discussion. Like other political economists, Blyth argues that transitions from one political-economic era to another
are caused by deep, punctuated crisis. However, whereas realist political science imagines perfectly rational actors approaching
a crisis like any other problem to be solved, Blyth questions this basic premise. Political actors are not rational, he argues,
but rather rely on prevailing norms and ideas to serve as a kind of "instruction sheet" that they follow. During moments of crisis,
dominant models of economic management fail, leaving political actors grasping for some way of understanding the nature of the
problems that they face and means to address them. This opens the door to once-sidelined experts and intellectuals to chart a
new path forward by writing a new, workable instruction sheet.
Major respects what Blyth is doing – but thinks it is nonetheless misconceived.
To make a strong ideational argument stick, it is not enough to show that some ideas mattered for some social or policy change.
Rather, one has to be able to support two additional claims. First, that the formation, circulation, and debate over different
policy ideas can be explained independent of other material forces. Materialist political economy, from which Blyth is trying
to break, does not deny that economic policymaking has an important ideational component of the sort that Blyth describes, but
it also insists that material social factors play a powerful agenda-setting role, limiting the scope of policy debate. Second,
a strong ideational argument needs to be able to explain why one set of ideas beat out other, competing ideas in purely ideational
terms. A strong ideational argument suggests that the victory of one idea over another can be explained by the character of the
idea itself, not by the power or position of the actors who champion it. Great Transformations falters on both counts. What Blyth's
account reveals, though he never addresses it explicitly, is that the ideas that framed early New Deal policy innovations were
themselves shaped by the structures of US industry and agriculture and the strength of competing economic classes. It is because
US labor was organized and militant that the Roosevelt administration sought an economic program that would forge an alliance
with the working class. The political capacity of social classes not only affected which policies worked, and which policies failed
-- it also affected how policies were crafted and which ones were advanced. Blyth's more recent Austerity: History of a Dangerous
Idea is marred by the same analytical unevenness the book is hamstrung by the insistence that the story of austerity can be told
as a history of ideas. Taken as a whole, Blyth's work points to a critical challenge that scholars have faced in trying to make
idea-centered arguments for political and economic change stick, and that is explainingidea selection. Rarely does anything of
historical significance happen without heated debate, and the turn to neoliberalism is no exception. Margaret Thatcher may have
successfully exported her pithy, dismissive "There Is No Alternative," but her numerous opponents begged to differ. Sides are
formed, measures are proposed, and rationalizations are given. But who wins? Blyth's own accounts of major policy change highlights
critical moments in times of crisis when state elites were grappling with competing ideas, but neither Great Transformations nor
Austerity can really explain why some ideas went on to shape policy and others found their way into the dustbin of history.
"... The French bourgeoisie is the politically most experienced ruling class in Europe. It has no illusions about the challenge it faces. Le Point put its file on the revolt of the vests under the self-telling title "What is waiting us". ..."
"... But it's not only the king who is naked. The whole system is naked. In the many pages devoted by the magazine to demonstrate that what the Vests want is unfeasible, not even a single serious word is written about what needs to be done to deal with the deep causes which led the French to revolt. Today's capitalism of Macron, Merkel and Trump does not produce a Roosevelt and New Deal or Popular Fronts – and we have to wait to see if it will produce a Hitler as some are trying to achieve. For the time being, it only produces Yellow Vests! ..."
"... In Oscar Wilde's masterpiece "The Picture of Dorian Gray", the main character looks every night at his horrible real self in the mirror. But he looks at it alone. ..."
"... This is where Macron made his most fatal mistake, being arrogant and markedly cut off from reality – with the confidence given to him by the mighty elite forces, which elected him and by his contempt of the common people which characterizes him. ..."
"... Observing Macron, the people understood what lied ahead for them. They felt their backs against the wall – they felt that they had only themselves to rely on, that they had to take themselves action to save themselves and their country. ..."
"... This was the decisive moment, the moment the historical mission of Macron was achieved . By establishing the most absolute control of Finance over Politics, he himself invited Revolution. His triumph and his tragedy came together. ..."
"... Many established "leftists" or "radical" intellectuals, who used to feverishly haul capitalism over the coals – although the last thing they really wanted was to experience a real revolution during their lifetime – they too, stand now frightened, looking at an angry Bucephalus running ahead of them. They prefer a stable capitalism, of which they can constitute its "consciousness", writing books, appearing on shows and giving lectures, analyzing its crises and explaining its tribulations. They idea that the People could at some point take seriously what they themselves said, never crossed their minds either! ..."
"... Today, four out of five French people disapprove of Macron's policies and one in two demands that he resigns immediately. We assume that this percentage is greater than the percentage of Russians who wanted the ousting of Tsar Nicholas II in February 1917. ..."
"... France is currently almost in a state of Power Vacuum . The president and the government cannot in essence govern and the people cannot tolerate them. It is not a situation of dual power, but a situation of dual legitimacy , in Mélenchon 's accurate description. ..."
"... This is a typical definition of a revolutionary situation . As history teaches us, the emergence of such a situation is necessary but not sufficient condition for a victorious Revolution. What is required in or order to turn a rebellion into a potentially victorious Revolution, is a capable and decided leadership and an adequate strategy, program and vision. These elements do not seem to exist, at last not for now, in today's France, as they did not exist in May 1968 or during the Russian Revolution of February 1917. Therefore, the present situation remains open to all possible eventualities; there must be no doubt however, that this is the beginning of a period of intense political and class conflicts in Europe, and that the Europe, as we know it, is already history. ..."
"... Or at least, for the people to be given the opportunity to develop an effective way of controlling state power. ..."
"... By reversing Marx's famous formula in German Ideology , the ideas of the dominant class do not dominate society. This is why the situation can be described as revolutionary. ..."
"... Although it is difficult to form an opinion from afar about how the situation may unfold, the formation of a such a United Front from grassroots could perhaps offer a way out with regards to the need for a political leadership for the movement, or even of the need to work out a transitional economic program for France, which must also serve as a transitional program for Europe . ..."
"... Contrary to how things were a century ago, certain factors such as the educational level of the lower social classes, the existence of a number of critical, radical thinkers with the necessary intellectual skills and the Internet, render such a possibility a much more realistic scenario today, than in the past. ..."
The magazine LePoint is one of the main media outlets of the French
conservative "centre-right". One of its December issues carries the cover title France
Faces its History. 1648, 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871 four centuries of revolutions.
The cover features also a painting by Pierre-Jérôme Lordon, showing people
clashing with the army at Rue de Babylone , in Paris, during the
Revolution of 1830. Perhaps this is where Luc Ferry, Chirac's former minister, got his idea
from, when, two days ago, he asked the Army to intervene and the police to start shooting and
killing Yellow Vests.
Do not be surprised if you haven't heard this from your TV or if you don't know that the
level of police repression and violence in France, measured in people dead, injured and
arrested, has exceeded everything the country has experienced since 1968. Nor should you
wonder why you don't know anything about some Yellow Vest's new campaign calling for a
massive run on French banks. Or why you have been lead you to believe that the whole thing is
to do with fuel taxes or increasing minimum wage.
The vast majority of European media didn't even bother to communicate to their readers
or viewers the main political demands of the Yellow Vests ; and certainly, there hasn't
been any meaningful attempt to offer an insightful interpretation of what's happening in
France and there is just very little serious on-the-ground reporting, in the villages and
motorways of France.
Totalitarianism
Following Napoleon's defeat in Waterloo, European Powers formed the Holy Alliance banning
Revolutions.
Nowadays, Revolutions have just been declared inconceivable (Soros – though not just
him – has been giving a relentless fight to take them out of history textbooks or, as a
minimum, to erase their significance and meaning). Since they are unthinkable they cannot
happen. Since they cannot happen they do not happen.
In the same vein, European media sent their journalists out to the streets in Paris on
Christmas and New Year's days, counted the protesters and found that they weren't too many
after all. Of course they didn't count the 150,000 police and soldiers lined up by Macron on
New Year's Eve. Then they made sure that they remain "impartial" and by just comparing
numbers of protesters, led viewers to think that we are almost done with it – it was
just a storm, it will pass.
The other day I read a whole page article about Europe in one of the most "serious" Greek
newspapers, on 30.12. The author devoted just one single meaningless phrase about the Vests.
Instead, the paper still found the way to include in the article the utterly stupid statement
of a European Right-Wing politician who attributed the European crisis to the existence of
Russia Today and Sputnik! And when I finally found a somewhat more serious article online
about the developments in France, I realized that its only purpose was to convince us that
what is happening in France surely has nothing to do with 1789 or 1968!
It is only a pity that the people concerned, the French themselves, cannot read in Greek.
If they could, they would have realized that it does not make any sense to have "Revolution"
written on their vests or to sing the 1789 song in their demonstrations or to organize
symbolic ceremonies of the public "decapitation" of Macron, like Louis XV. And the French
bourgeois press would not waste time everyday comparing what happens in the country now with
what happened in 1968 and 1789.
Totalitarianism is not just a threat. It's already here. Simply it has omitted to
announce its arrival. We have to deduce its precence from its results.
A terrified
ruling class
The French bourgeoisie is the politically most experienced ruling class in Europe. It has
no illusions about the challenge it faces. Le Point put its file on the
revolt of the vests under the self-telling title "What is waiting us".
A few months ago, all we had about Macron in the papers was praise, inside and outside of
France – he was the "rising star" of European politics, the man who managed to pass the
"reforms" one after the other, no resistance could stop him, he would be the one to save and
rebuild Europe. Varoufakis admired and supported him, as early as of the first round of the
2017 elections.
Now, the "chosen one" became a burden for those who put him in office. Some of them
probably want to get rid of him as fast as they can, to replace him with someone else, but
it's not easy – and even more so, it is not easy given the monarchical powers conferred
by the French constitution to the President. The constitution is tailored to the needs of a
President who wants to safeguard power from the people. Those who drafted it could not
probably imagine it would make difficult for the Oligarchy also to fire him!
And who would dare to hold a parliamentary or presidential election in such a situation,
as in France today? No one knows what could come out of it. Moreover, Macron does not have a
party in the sense of political power. He has a federation of friends who benefit as long as
he stays in power and they are damaged when he collapses.
The King is naked
"The King is naked", points out Le Point's editorial, before, with almost sadistic
callousness, posing the question: "What can a government do when a remarkable section of the
people vomits it?"
But it's not only the king who is naked. The whole system is naked. In the many pages
devoted by the magazine to demonstrate that what the Vests want is unfeasible, not even a
single serious word is written about what needs to be done to deal with the deep causes which
led the French to revolt. Today's capitalism of Macron, Merkel and Trump does not produce a
Roosevelt and New Deal or Popular Fronts – and we have to wait to see if it will
produce a Hitler as some are trying to achieve. For the time being, it only produces Yellow
Vests!
They predicted it, they saw it coming, but they didn't believe it!
Yet they could have predicted all that. It would have sufficed, had they only taken
seriously and studied a book published in France in late 2016, six months before the
presidential election, highlighting the explosive nature of the social situation and warning
of the danger of revolution and civil war.
The title of the book was "Revolution". Its author was none other than Emmanuel Macron
himself. Six months later, he would become the President of France, to eventually verify, and
indeed rather spectacularly, his predictions. But the truth is probably, that not even he
himself gave much credit to what he wrote just to win the election.
By constantly lying, politicians, journalists and intellectuals reasonably came to believe
that even their own words are of no importance. That they can say and do anything they want,
without any consequence.
In Oscar Wilde's masterpiece "The Picture of Dorian Gray", the main character looks every
night at his horrible real self in the mirror. But he looks at it alone.
This is where Macron made his most fatal mistake, being arrogant and markedly cut off from
reality – with the confidence given to him by the mighty elite forces, which elected
him and by his contempt of the common people which characterizes him.
Unwise and Arrogant, he made no effort to hide – this is how sure he felt of
himself, this is how convinced his environment was that he could infinitely go on doing
anything he wanted without any consequences (same as our Tsipras). Thus, acting foolishly and
arrogantly, he left a few million eyes to see his real face. This was the last straw that
made the French people realize in a definite way what they had already started figuring out
during Sarkozy's and Hollande's, administration, or even earlier. Observing Macron, the
people understood what lied ahead for them. They felt their backs against the wall –
they felt that they had only themselves to rely on, that they had to take themselves action
to save themselves and their country.
There was nobody else to make it in their place.
Macron as a Provocateur.
Terror in Pompeii
This was the decisive moment, the moment the historical mission of Macron
was achieved . By establishing the most absolute control of Finance over Politics, he himself invited
Revolution. His triumph and his tragedy came together.
It was just then, that Bucephalus (*) sprang from the depths of historical Memory,
galloping without a rider, ready to sweep away everything in his path.
Now those in power look at him with fear, but fearful too are both the "radical right" and
the "radical left". Le Pen has already called on protesters to return to their homes and give
her names to include in her list for the European election!
Mélenchon supports the Vests – 70% of their demands coincide with the program
of his party, La France Insoumise – but so far he hasn't dared to join the
people in demanding Macron's resignation, by adopting the immense, but orphan, cry of the
people heard all over France: "Macron resign". Perhaps he feels that he hasn't got the steely
strength and willpower required for attempting to lead such a movement.
The unions' leadership is doing everything it can to keep the working class away from the
Vests, but this stand started causing increasing unrest at its base.
Many established "leftists" or "radical" intellectuals, who used to feverishly haul
capitalism over the coals – although the last thing they really wanted was to
experience a real revolution during their lifetime – they too, stand now frightened,
looking at an angry Bucephalus running ahead of them. They prefer a stable capitalism, of
which they can constitute its "consciousness", writing books, appearing on shows and giving
lectures, analyzing its crises and explaining its tribulations. They idea that the People
could at some point take seriously what they themselves said, never crossed their minds
either!
In fact, this is also a further confirmation of the depth of the movement. Lenin ,
who, in any event knew something about revolutions, wrote in 1917: "In a revolutionary
situation, the Party is a hundred times farther to the left than the Central Committee and
the workers a hundred times farther to the left than the Party."
"Revolutionary
Situation" and Power Vacuum
Today, four out of five French people disapprove of Macron's policies and one in two
demands that he resigns immediately. We assume that this percentage is greater than the
percentage of Russians who wanted the ousting of Tsar Nicholas II in February 1917.
France is currently almost in a state of Power Vacuum . The president and
the government cannot in essence govern and the people cannot tolerate them. It is not a
situation of dual power, but a situation of dual legitimacy , in
Mélenchon 's accurate description.
This is a typical definition of a revolutionary situation . As history
teaches us, the emergence of such a situation is necessary but not sufficient condition for a victorious Revolution. What is required in or order to turn
a rebellion into a potentially victorious Revolution, is a capable and decided leadership and
an adequate strategy, program and vision. These elements do not seem to exist, at last not
for now, in today's France, as they did not exist in May 1968 or during the Russian
Revolution of February 1917. Therefore, the present situation remains open to all possible
eventualities; there must be no doubt however, that this is the beginning of a period of
intense political and class conflicts in Europe, and that the Europe, as we know it, is
already history.
People's Sovereignty at the center of demands
Starting from fuel tax the revolting French have now put at the centre of their demands,
in addition to Macron's resignation, the following:
preserving the purchasingpower of the poorest social strata, e.g.
with the abolition of VAT on basic necessities to ensure decent standards of living for the
entire population,
the right of people to provoke referendums on any issue, the Citizens'
Initiative Referendum (RIC), including referendums to revokeelectedrepresentatives (the President, MPs, mayors, etc. ) when they violate their mandate,
all that in the context of establishing a SixthFrenchRepublic .
In other words, they demand a profound and radical " transformation " of the
Western bourgeois-democratic regime, as we know it, towards a form of directdemocracy in order to take back the state, which has gradually and in a totalitarian
manner – but while keeping up democratic appearances – passed under direct and
full control of the Financial Capital and its employees. Or at least, for the people to be
given the opportunity to develop an effective way of controlling state power.
These are not the demands of a fun-club of Protagoras or of some left-wing or right-wing
groupuscule propagating Self-Management or of some club of intellectuals. Nor are they the
demands of only the lowest social strata of the French nation.
They are supported, according to the polls and put forward by at least three quarters of
French citizens, including a sizeable portion of the less poor. In such circumstances, these
demands constitute in effect the Will of the People, the Will of the Nation.
The Vests are nothing more than its fighting pioneers. And precisely because it is the
absolute majority of people who align with these demands, even if numbers have somewhat gone
down since the beginning of December, the Vests are still wanted out on the streets.
By reversing Marx's famous formula in German Ideology , the ideas
of the dominant class do not dominate society. This is why the situation can be
described as revolutionary.
And also because it is not only the President and the Government, who have been debunked
or at least de-legitimized, but it's also the whole range of state and political
institutions, the parties, the unions, the "information" media and the "ideologists" of the
regime.
The questioning of the establishment is so profound that any arguments about violence and
the protesters do not weaken society's support for them. Many, but not all, condemn violence,
but there are not many who don't go on immediately to add a reminder of the regime's social
violence against the people. When a famous ex-boxer lost his temper and reacted by punching a
number of violent police officers, protesters set up a fundraising website for his legal
fees. In just two hours they managed to raise around 120.000 euro, before removing the page
over officials' complaints and threats about keeping a file on anyone who contributes money
to support such causes.
Until now, an overwhelming majority of the French people supports the demands while an
absolute majority shows supports for the demonstrations; but of course, it is difficult to
keep such a deadlock and power-void situation going for long. They will sooner or later
demand a solution, and in situations such as these it is often the case that public opinion
shifts rapidly from the one end of the political spectrum to the other and vice versa,
depending on which force appears to be more decisive and capable of driving
society out of the crisis.
The organization of the Movement
Because the protesters have no confidence in the parties, the trade unions, or anyone else
for that matter, they are driven out of necessity into self-organization, as they already do
with the Citizens' Assemblies that are now emerging in villages, cities and motorway camps.
Indeed, by the end of the month, if everything goes well, they will hold the first "
AssemblyofAssemblies ".
Similar developments have also been observed in many revolutionary movements of this kind
in various countries. A classic example is the spontaneous formation of the councils (
Soviets ) during the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917.
Although it is difficult to form an opinion from afar about how the situation may unfold,
the formation of a such a United Front from grassroots could perhaps offer a
way out with regards to the need for a political leadership for the movement,
or even of the need to work out a transitional economic program for
France, which must also serve as a transitional program for Europe .
Contrary to how things were a century ago, certain factors such as the educational level
of the lower social classes, the existence of a number of critical, radical thinkers with the
necessary intellectual skills and the Internet, render such a possibility a much more
realistic scenario today, than in the past.
Because the movement's Achilles' Heel is that, while it is already in the process of
forming a political proposition, it still, at least for now, does not offer any economic
alternative or a politically structured, democratically controlled leadership.
Effective Democracy is an absolute requirement in such a front, because it is the
only way to synthesize the inevitablydifferentlevels of
consciousness within the People and to avoid a split of the movement between "left"
and "right", between those who are ready to resort to violence to achieve their ends and
those who have a preference for more peaceful, gradual processes.
Such a " front " could perhaps also serve as a platform for solidifying a
program and vision, to which the various parties and political organizations could
contribute.
In her CritiqueoftheRussianRevolutionRosaLuxemburg , the leader of the German Social Democracy was overly critical
of the Bolsheviks , even if, I think, a bit too severe in some points. But she closes
her critique with the phrase: " They at least dared "
Driven by absolute Need, guided by the specific way its historical experience has formed
its consciousness, possessing a Surplus of Consciousness, that is able to feel the
unavoidable conclusions coming out of the synthesis of the information we all possess, about
both the "quality" of the forces governing our world and the enormous dangers threatening our
countries and mankind, the French People, the French Nation has already crossed the
Rubicon.
By moving practically to achieve their goals at a massive scale, and regardless of what is
to come next, the French people has already made a giant leap up and forward and, once more
in its history, it became the world's forerunner in tackling the terrible economic,
ecological, nuclear and technological threats against human civilization and its
survival.
Without the conscious entry of large masses into the historical scene, with all the
dangers and uncertainties that such a thing surely implies, one can hardly imagine how
humanity will survive.
Don Lemon -- has it nailed. As we told you Tuesday night - you could've seen this coming - the FBI has suspected this for some
time.
The bureau opened a criminal investigation into the president more than a year ago, on the grounds that no loyal American would
fire a leader as impressive as FBI director James Comey. Putin must have ordered it. The Washington Post concurred with this.
As one of the paper's columnists noted, Trump has also "endorsed populism." That's right. Populism.
It has the stink of Russia all over it. Smells like vodka and day-old herring.
The quote below is from Tucker book... Tucker Carlson for President ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... What was written as an allegory is starting to feel like a documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath the waves. ..."
"... Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they continue as if what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences that were predictable even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the Internet. ..."
"... They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers. ..."
Most terrifying of all, the crew has become incompetent. They have no idea how to sail. They're spinning the ship's wheel like
they're playing roulette and cackling like mental patients.
The boat is listing, taking on water, about to sink. They're totally
unaware that any of this is happening. As waves wash over the deck, they're awarding themselves majestic new titles and raising
their own salaries. You look on in horror, helpless and desperate. You have nowhere to go. You're trapped on a ship of fools.
Plato imagined this scene in The Republic. He never mentions what happened to the ship. It would be nice to know. What
was written as an allegory is starting to feel like a documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath
the waves.
The people who did it don't seem aware of what they've done. They don't want to know, and they don't want you to tell them.
Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they continue as if what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences
that were predictable even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the Internet.
They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers.
Which brings us to recent commentary from Fox News host Tucker Carlson on his eponymous
show, Tucker Carlson Tonight . Among other things Carlson asked why investors (think
hedge funds, private equity, venture capital, etc.) are taxed at lower rates than are typical
workers. Carlson's specific target was Mitt Romney.
The junior Utah senator famously earned hundreds of millions while running private equity
(vulture) firm Bain Capital.
Questionable, but still interesting perspective. Ignore marketing crap -- clearly there is marketing push within this presentation
-- she wants your subscriptions. "This is Main Street vs Wall Street" dichotomy sounds plausible. Neoliberalism is, in essence, is the
restoration of power of financial oligarchy.
But the idea of secret open bailout might explain why shale oil became so prominent despite high cost of producing it: Wall Street
was subsidised via backchannels for bringing price downand supporting shale companies by the US goverment
$21 trillion in "missing money" at the DOD and HUD that was discovered by Dr. Mark Skidmore and Catherine Austin Fitts in 2017
has now become a national security issue. The federal government is not talking or answering questions, even though the DOD recently
failed its first ever audit.
Fitts says, "This is basically an open running bailout. Under this structure, you can transfer assets out of the federal government
into private ownership, and nobody will know and nobody can stop it. There is no oversight whatsoever. You can't even know who is
doing it. I'm telling you they just took the United States government, they just changed the governance model by accounting policy
to a fascist government. If you are an investor, you don't know who owns those assets, and there is no evidence that you do. . .
. If the law says you have to produce audited financial statements and you refuse to do so for 20 years, and then when somebody calls
you on it, you proceed to change the accounting laws that say you can now run secret books for all the agencies and over 100 related
entities."
In closing, Fitts says, "We cannot sit around and passively depend on a guy we elected President. The President cannot fix this.
We need to fix this. . . . This is Main Street versus Wall Street. This is honest books versus dirty books. If you want the United
States in 10 years to resemble anything what it looked like 20 years ago, you are going to have to do it, and there is no one else
who can do it. You have to first get the intelligence to know what is happening."
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Catherine Austin Fitts, Publisher of "The Solari Report." Donations:
https://usawatchdog.com/donations/
Greg, with all due respect I don't you understand what CAF is saying. Forget about a dollar reset. The fascists, using
the Treasury, Exchange Stabilization Fund, HUD, DOD and any agency they choose, have turned the US government into a gigantic
money laundering operation. And they maintain two sets of books - the public numbers are a complete sham. Any paper assets held
by private citizens are not secure, are likely rehypothecated, and when convenient can be frozen or siezed by these fascists in
Washington. There is no limit to how many dollars the FED can create secretly and funnel out through the ESF/Treasury to prop
up and bail out any bank, black ops, pet project, mercenary army or paper assets they choose. The missing $21 trillion is probably
a drop in the bucket as there is no audit and no honest books for us to examine. In sum, all paper asset pricing in dollars is
a fraud and a sham. Any paper assets you think you own, whether it be stocks, bonds, or real estate are pure illusion: they can
be repriced or stolen at any time; in reality, you own nothing. To the man and woman on the street I say this: get out of paper,
get out of these markets and convert to tangibles in your physical possession - and do it secretly and privately, avoid insurances,
records, paper trails. This mass defrauding of the American people by this corrupt government in Washington will come crashing
down when the US dollar is displaced from reserve status; this is what China and Russia and the BRICS are setting the stage for:
world trade without the US dollar. When this happens, your dollars will become virtual toilet paper and all of your paper assets
will go poof.
"We have to fix this". Ok how does the individual fix this? Private armies are running around doing whatever private armies
do and I, the one man, is suppose to fix this. Please, will someone tell us what we are suppose to do, specific instructions not
a mix of large words that say " we must fix this", damn, we need a leader. Greg you ask almost every person you interview what
the middle class should be doing to protect themselves and you never get a "real" answer, just a dance around. Also you ask numerous
people what this coming change is going to look like and again, just silence or dance music, no answers. Damn we need a leader.
Your trying very hard to give us information that will help us weather the coming storm, so thank you for all you do, and you
do more than anyone else out there.
Question, why in part do I feel I am being lied to? Is it subscription hustle or is it, don't you believe your lying eyes!
Without knowing exactly what is what, anyone who would've watched Herbert Walker Bush's funeral with reactions from those who
received cards, whether they be Bush family, the Clintons, the Obamas and entourage. Jeb Bush went from being proud and patriotic
to panic like the funeral that he was at was for the whole family.
Joe Biden looked like he had a major personal accident and no way to get to the bathroom for cleanup.
George W. Bush after being asked a question, of which the answer was, "Yep" then proceeded to appear resigned and stoic! What
ever was on those cards essentially amounted to, for all those receiving a card, "the gig is up" and it appears they all damn
well knew it.
So, Catherine Austin Fitts, explain your, "Trump is colluding with the Bushies," I would say, that Canary in this mine of inquiry
is dead. I'm just an old disabled Vietnam vet of plebeian background and certainly not a revolving door Washington DC Beltway
patrician, so any explanation needs to be delivered in slow, logical step-by-step progression for I have not mastered the art
of selling the sizzle in hopes that the dupes will later pay for the steak. I prefer, Greg, when you actually get more combative
with Ms. Fitts. Make America, great again and do so, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.
35 min: Fitts gives a great synopsis of the problem. She never deviates in all of her interviews. greg doesn't seem to understand
at all. She repeats herself MULTIPLE TIMES and greg is still asking the same irrelevant PREPPER questions. IT DOES NOT MATTER
WHAT ASSETS YOU HOLD GREG, AND THAT INCLUDES GOLD!!!! WHEN YOU'RE EXISTING IN A TYRANNICAL SYSTEM THAT STEALS AT WILL FROM ITS'
CONSTITUENCY YOU CAN'T actually OWN ANYTHING!!!! lord! only so many ways to say
She lost credibility when she said Trump has "made a deal with the Bushes." That defies logic. The Bushes made a deal with
Trump! Trump has gained full control of the military with a $ 1 1/2 trillion war chest. Trump and Putin are putting the China
toothpaste back in the tube.
This woman clearly knows nothing about the plan..she has not even mentioned that the world bank president has resigned who
was appointed by obumma. And that is HUGE. She was in government in the corruption, but she doesn't know how things will be fixed..she's
not in that loop of current things in the new reset..shes coming from her own perceptions
This woman always make me sick to my stomach. She comes out and says a bunch of scary stuff and offers no solution. If it's
too much for just one person, then we the people need to take control. We don't need a central bank. We need local and state banks
like the Bank of North Dakota then we can migrate over to them and then shut down the Fed.
"... Tucker Carlson's critique of unrestrained capitalism last week sent the Respectable Righ t into apoplectic fury. That's why it's irrelevant -- and why Carlson is increasingly emerging as a name to conjure with. ..."
"... Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it's infuriating ..."
"... Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... The Right Should Reject Tucker Carlson's Victimhood Populism ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... National Review? ..."
"... [T]he primary responsibility for creating a life of virtue and purpose rests with families and individuals. In fact, it is still true that your choices are far more important to your success than any government program or the actions of any nefarious banker or any malicious feminist. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson Claims Market Capitalism Has Undermined American Society. He's Wrong. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... America Needs Virtue before Prosperity ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Most young Americans prefer socialism to capitalism, new report finds ..."
"... Socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a group of responsible people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that protects normal people ..."
"... Carlson's economic populism pairs with his support for patriotic immigration reform: both policies aim to serve the people's interest and strengthen America as a unified community. This vision conflicts with multinational corporations who would rather see America as one giant strip mall filled with atomized customers. Not surprisingly, these companies oppose patriotic immigration reform. Also not surprisingly, so does Conservatism Inc. ..."
"... The only institution that can stand up to corporations and tell them to change is the state -- which happens to be the only institution patriots can have any influence over. Academia, Hollywood, corporate America, and the Establishment Media are all under the thrall of Cultural Marxists. (The churches are a more complicated matter, but fewer Americans listen to religious leaders in our day and age.) ..."
"... Washington Watcher [ email him ] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway. ..."
"... Don't cry in 2020 if Donald Trump loses because he took advice from the same market capitalists who tried to sink him and his movement back in 2016 – the same people who destroyed Romney's chances in 2012. He's already well on his way with deregulation and tax cuts for the rich. Unfortunately, some of his supporters seem eager to help him in that losing effort. ..."
"... In my view, I think the message is clear. Government's role of facilitator, monitor and guarantor of fair practices has decided to jump in bed on the side of business and that without guarantee of a fair distribution to the US citizens, who in the case of government subsidies, contracts and bailouts are footing the bill for a good deal of financial misconduct and lousy adherence to best practices as they reap the benefits. ..."
"... Oh–I get it. The problem is not Capitalism. It's that we don't have more of it. God you people are brazenly ingenuous. ..."
"... Deregulating big biz without corresponding relaxations on common people is wrong and we must oppose it. No tax cuts for biz without much bigger ones for the common people! ..."
"... Some below average dude above said "this country has nothing resembling Capitalism going on. Big Business is in bed with Big Feral Gov't. "Crony Capitalism" may not roll off the tongue, but that's the usual fair description of it." Hear that on Fox News? Oh, if only we were all controlled and dominated by Capitalists. If only capitalists owned all the major media. If only Capitalists owned all the politicians. If only capitalists made up all the leading politicians. If only all the bankers were Capitalists If only the Fed was made up of capitalists. Then we would finally have true capitalism. ..."
"... But wait a minute. That's EXACTLY the situation that we do have. What that means is that we have EXACTLY the capitalism that capitalism produces. We have EXACTLY the capitalism that the leading capitalists, who will always control the capitalist government and the capitalist economy, want and need. ..."
"... And before anyone starts with "its the globalists." Globalism is capitalism. Capitalism brought the black slaves here, capitalism is bringing the Mexicans here. Slave labor/cheap labor is the name of the game, always has been. Nothing new. Globalism=capitalism ..."
"... Capitalist wars are also driving the refugees from their homelands. Whether in Iraq, Sudan or Honduras, wars are a twofer for capitalists, massive war profiteering, theft of resources, with the added bonus of driving refugees into Europe/America to lower the standard of living and decrease wages for us. ..."
"... Privatization of public property/resources is theft, privatization today is strictly about prioritizing money away from the commons and general welfare and giving total monopoly to the inbred 1% rent-seeking parasites, monopoly of resources (food, water, air, shelter), monopoly of control, monopoly of propaganda, monopoly of Policy, monopoly of money, monopoly of war. ..."
"... Most people, including below average guy above don't wan't to accept this, usually because of ignorance or "muh capitalism" and "muh free markets " brainwashing by Fox "News". They have been programmed subconsciously into thinking that any other alternative method will not work or it is "evil socialism". They are still interested in making rentier classes out of each other and fucking over their children's future, while propping up their capitalist overlords. ..."
"... Meet the New World Order. Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354-500-revealed-the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/ ..."
"... and give it a rest with the "freedumb" BS you goon. The US has the largest prison population in the world. You go to jail for smoking a joint for goodness sake. At the same time capitalist bankers make off with trillions in stolen wealth without a slap on the wrist. ..."
"... Not to mention the spying/surveillance, Patriot Act, assassinations and indefinite detention of Americans with no due process, Anti-BDS laws, a totally rigged judicial system, a healthcare system that is nothing short of a racket, a fake media totally controlled by the capitalist war profiteers and corporate parasites. Everything that you accuse "communists" of is what is actually happening under the Capitalists. ..."
"... I agree with Tucker that the family unit is the most important reason why America is degenerating, resulting in less people getting married, less children, less everything, creating a vacuum that can only be filled by foreign invasion. The lack of strong families is also the reason for the rise in suicides, drug addiction, crime, treason, etc., etc. ..."
"... Militant feminism has made it such that husbands and wives become economic competitors rather than complementary partners. Families have become less important as compared to each partner seeking financial success above all else ..."
"... There is a disincentive to have children because it is an obstacle to climbing the corporate ladder. If you don't have children, there is not a lot of benefit to being married, so divorces increase. ..."
"... As Tucker says, no woman wants to marry a man who makes less than she does. So, as more women are forced into the workforce, less marriages happen. ..."
"... Uncontrolled immigration helps the ruling class to reduce wages, also contributing to declining families. Legal immigration decimates the middle class ..."
"... If that isn't enough, mass distribution of pornography, deviant sex, gender perversion, LGBTQXYZZY , all contribute to the breaking of traditional intimacy between one man and one woman, that is the foundation of marriage and stable families. ..."
"... And there are the fake wars. As sons, and now daughters, go off to fight in foreign lands that have not attacked us, only one parent stays behind to raise the family, inadequately. Moreover, when these traumatized soldiers return from battle, they are seldom able to re-integrate into the family unit, and in a large number of cases, divorces and criminal behavior result. ..."
"... 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!" ..."
Tucker Carlson's critique of unrestrained capitalism last week sent the Respectable Right into apoplectic
fury. That's why it's irrelevant -- and why Carlson is increasingly emerging as a name to conjure with.
In a now-celebrated monologue on his Fox News show, Carlson blamed multinational
corporations and urban elites for the decline of Middle America. [
Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it's infuriating , Fox
News , January 3, 2019] He listed several social ills that he attributed to unrestrained
capitalism, including predatory loans, higher drug use ,
declining marriage
rates , and shuttered factories.
Carlson lambasted "conservatives" who bemoan the decay of the family but refuse to consider
if capitalism played any role in that tragedy. According to Carlson, "conservatives" consider
criticism of the free market to be
apostasy.
He offered this blunt advice to Republicans who want to make America great again.
Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion.
Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool to
worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not
exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys
families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.
Needless to say, this opinion was met with frothing anger by several
Conservatism Inc. writers, a crowd that seems to believe the free market a holy thing that must not
suffer blasphemy. They were upset that anyone would dare suggest that the state could act to
rectify social ills, arguing that this was rank demagogy and antithetical to conservatism.
National Review published several op-eds condemning Tucker's monologue -- a sure sign
of Respectable Right displeasure.
David
French , briefly Bill Kristol's Never
Trump catspaw, represented the typical response in
The Right Should Reject Tucker Carlson's Victimhood Populism . [ National
Review , January 4, 2019]. French claims to agree with Carlson that Middle America suffers
from numerous ills, but he argues the state should play no role with fixing them. Thus payday
loans are a necessary part of capitalism, drug criminalization is bad because it puts nice
minorities in jail, and radical feminism and Affirmative Action aren't serious concerns.
Carlson is advancing a form of victim-politics populism that takes a series of tectonic
cultural changes -- civil rights, women's rights, a technological revolution as significant
as the industrial revolution, the mass-scale loss of religious faith, the sexual revolution,
etc. -- and turns the negative or challenging aspects of those changes into an angry tale of
what they are doing to you.
French's solution is for the working class to go to
community college and for America to magically experience an organic renewal of virtue.
It's all up to the individual to make America better:
[T]he primary responsibility for creating a life of virtue and purpose rests with families
and individuals. In fact, it is still true that your choices are far more important to your
success than any government program or the actions of any nefarious banker or any malicious
feminist.
It is certainly true that your family and your own choices has a great influence over
whether you live a virtuous and even happy life. But that does not show how social ills will
somehow be corrected by self-help advice.
Additionally, as one man from a
Midwest town destroyed by plant closures pointed out on Twitter, community college and
re-training are not sufficient in equaling the old
manufacturing jobs . "'New tech always comes along to save the day' does not apply. The
late 19th-Century farm workers who flocked to Henry Ford for jobs after the
last great labor upheaval have nowhere to go this time," the man, Tom Ferguson, tweeted.
Greenville has only 8,000 residents, but is the largest city in Montcalm County. The plant
closure eliminated 3,000 jobs. As long as we're quantifying, I'll note the equivalence to
3,000,000 (sic) jobs being lost in New York City.
4/20 The local community
college offered communications and other job-skills courses. My recollection says this noble
effort, measured across 3,000 layoffs, was not very meaningful.
8/20 "New tech always comes
along to save the day" does not apply. The late 19th-Century farm workers who flocked to
Henry Ford for jobs after the last great labor upheaval have nowhere to go this time.
11/20
(See the whole thread here , here , or (as a screenshot)
here .)
French also failed to consider how much influence a "
malicious
feminist " can have over the lives of
normal people. Just one "offensive" tweet can cost somebody their career and reputation if
Leftists stir up a mob . Good luck finding a job if your
Google history is says you're a sexist. Additionally,
Human Resources Departments are run to conform to Leftist dictates, and your private speech
and views could draw the suspicion of HR at any time.
Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro
attacked Carlson in two separate articles. The first, for his own website, zealously defended
the greatness of the free market and the purity of movement conservatism: "Traditional
conservatives recognized that the role of economics is to provide prosperity – to raise
the GDP," is a sentence that best summarizes Shapiro's ridiculous retconning of a
once-great movement [ Tucker
Carlson Claims Market Capitalism Has Undermined American Society. He's Wrong. , by Ben
Shapiro, Daily Wire , January 4, 2019]
Shapiro truly believes the free market is one of the greatest things to ever exist and it
must not be restrained. All social problems, according to him, are due to individual choices
and we should not seek collective solutions to social ills like declining marriage rates and
fewer good jobs for working-class males. Trust the free market and insist a virtue renewal will
resolve the problems state aims to solve.
Shapiro followed up his Daily Wire column with a short column in National
Review that also insisted we need a virtue renewal instead of a state intervention into
the market. Shapiro believes we just need Americans to stop wanting "stuff" and exhibit virtue
in order to bring back Middle America [
America Needs Virtue before Prosperity , by Ben Shapiro, National Review ,
January 8, 2019].
"Carlson's claim that material gain isn't enough to provide happiness doesn't lead him back
to virtue, which would bolster additional freedom. It leads him to the same material solutions
that undercut virtue in the first place," Shapiro concluded,.
It would be nice if people would make themselves better and get the right job training after
they read one National Review column. But that's not going to happen and Shapiro
offers no means for enacting a renewal of virtue.
In effect, all of Carlson's Conservatism Inc. critics demand we must do nothing about the
woes of working-class whites and the free market will figure out something.
So at a time when a majority of Americans -- including a majority of Republicans --
support single-payer healthcare and other big government initiatives, Conservatism Inc.
pundits offer platitudes about limited government and the greatness of capitalism [
Most young Americans prefer socialism to capitalism, new report finds , by Kathleen
Elkins, CNBC , August 14, 2018].
This will not end well. Indeed, Carlson anticipated noted this response in his monologue:
Socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a group of responsible
people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that protects normal
people
(Carson did not directly mention immigration, somewhat surprising because it has been one of
his long-standing concerns. But it ties into this debate. Many of the Conservativism Inc, types
outraged at Tucker also support mass immigration and buy into the notion that America is a "
nation of
immigrants ." They see America as primarily an economy or an idea, not a nation. Tucker's
national populism reverses those false notions -- America is a nation first and its
primary responsibility
is to its citizens , not the GDP.
Carlson's economic populism pairs with his support for patriotic immigration reform: both
policies aim to serve the people's interest and strengthen America as a unified community. This
vision conflicts with multinational corporations who
would rather see America as one giant strip mall filled with atomized customers. Not
surprisingly, these companies oppose patriotic immigration reform. Also not surprisingly, so
does Conservatism Inc.
The unfortunate fact is that American corporations pose the greatest threat to our
fundamental liberties and way of life. They censor free speech, make banking difficult for
political dissidents, exclusively promote progressive causes, listen to foreign governments
more than our own, promote mass immigration, and demonstrate a loyalty only to their own
profits and power. Currently, in fact, they are increasingly
boycotting Tucker Carlson's show, to Leftist
applause .
The only institution that can stand up to corporations and tell them to change is the state
-- which happens to be the only institution patriots can have any influence over. Academia,
Hollywood, corporate America, and the Establishment Media are all under the thrall of Cultural
Marxists. (The churches
are a more
complicated matter, but fewer Americans listen to religious leaders in our day and
age.)
Americans cannot expect a civic renewal from our social institutions. Conservatives wield
zero influence over a culture that encourages drug use, sexual promiscuity, agnosticism, and
women's' choosing career over family. We are not going to experience a social renaissance just
by wishing for one.
If we want our society to improve, we have to push for state policies with that goal in
mind. There is no other option.
It's time to discard the worn-out conservative dogmas and make the state serve the people.
National populism is the only path for Republicans to remain viable and (yes!) make our country
great again.
Washington Watcher [ email him ] is an anonymous source
Inside The Beltway. Tucker Carlson Routs Conservatism Inc. On Unrestrained Capitalism --
And Immigration, by Washington Watcher - The Unz Review
The first two comments on this blog perfectly illustrate why conservatives are in so much
trouble: they refuse to let go of old – harmful – dogmas, preferring to
rationalize them instead; they fail to embrace the policies that could realistically assure a
positive outcome for themselves and their beliefs. This leaves them vulnerable to rhetorical
conmen like Ben Shapiro and outfits like the National Review – controlled opposition if
I ever saw it.
It's not surprising to me that the National Review would oppose Carlson's viewpoint, as
the article mentioned. Here are the readership demographics of the National Review: 60+ with
an average annual salary somewhere north of $200,000. With that in mind, ask yourself if it
is really more likely that the National Review is interested in preserving the principles of
free market capitalism than they are merely interested in preserving the pocketbooks of their
donors and readers.
And let's be honest, Ben Shapiro was brought in by the National Review to
run interference after the disastrous failure of their market capitalism-based NeverTrump
critiques back in 2016; their front cover during that campaign was entitled "Against Trump".
Despicable.
Ben Shapiro's shtick is to mix "muh feminism" rhetoric popular with the youth
with "muh unregulated markets" rhetoric popular with the National Review donors in order to
obscure the line between the two. The end result is that you hear exactly what you want to
hear (a temporary, but hollow, pleasure) while nothing is ever ultimately done to address the
cause of "muh feminism" in the first place which just so happens to be some of the same
things pushed by the National Review, as Tucker Carlson noted. This is the kind of thing that
explains why you lost the culture war. You embraced rhetoric over reason with no mind to the
future.
What the responder here has done is merely repackage old assertions with new rhetoric. He
makes the same kind of outlandish and unrealistic claims as Shapiro, even if he is unaware
– wishing for miracles, essentially. He points out an issue (say the tax code) and then
claims this problem is the ultimate source of all our problems. Lost in this analysis is any
sense of probability. What is the probability that the tax code (or anything else he
mentioned) will spontaneously fix itself against the wishes of the public, according to all
the polls? Answer: very small, probably zero. So, why bother with that approach?
Ask yourself why we shouldn't address the crime rate with the same logic. We could abolish
the prison system and just hope that there is a solution to the ensuing rampant dysfunction
by wishing for it. Obviously, that's stupid and the public would never go for it, ever. So,
why is this logic smart for economics and politics?
Could the National Review and their conman Ben Shapiro really be so obtuse as to really
believe that their suggestions are even a remote possibility? I doubt it. Or maybe they have
an ulterior motive, as I have already mentioned: run interference with cleverly chosen words
while fundamental problems affecting actual republican voters go unaddressed – poverty,
suicide, revocation of fundamental liberties, a growing police state, and rampant internet
censorship; meanwhile, rich National Review donors continue to line their pocketbooks with
cheap labor immigration.
Also unaddressed in multiple – often disingenuous – critiques of Tucker
Carlson is exactly how supporters of voodoo economics have any solutions themselves beyond
mere rhetoric. Do they even bother at this point? I didn't see much in these rebuttals other
than assertions and semantics games. Perhaps, instead, these people have a track record of
success that might lead one to believe Elysium is around the corner? Hardly. They have a
track record of continual failure. So, why believe them here?
Wage growth has been stagnant for decades while healthcare costs, public debt, and tuition
have soared. They've done next to nothing on immigration; their proposal before Trump was to
double it. These are also the same people who claimed NAFTA would be great for the American
worker – that people could just get retrained. Also wrong. NAFTA has exploded the trade
deficit while workers often work longer hours for less pay and fewer benefits. The culture
wars? Total failure. Freedom of religion, of speech, and of association are on life support
– often at the behest of multinational corporations that threaten boycotts or deny
service to conservative viewpoints. What about the rise of China? Totally wrong. That nation
is eating our lunch. Sucks that we had to export our industries to them. As we speak, they're
considering an armed assault against Taiwan while Rand says their military is probably strong
enough to defeat ours if we came to their defense.
Meanwhile, cultural conservatives have lost every battle in the United States mainland.
The movement is so weak we can't even protect our own borders because, according to Nancy
Pelosi, "that's not who we are." You want to know who else agrees with Nancy? Multinational
corporations and National Review donors. Funny how those issues go hand-in-hand. It's almost
like these trucons care more about low taxes than mass immigration. Which do you care more
about?
And that's why conservatives lose. They refuse to choose between pie-in-the-sky dogma that
benefits others at their expense and practical solutions to the issues at hand. They'll
justify the current order with statements like "this isn't capitalism, if only we had real
capitalism" not realizing that this is the real capitalism the ruling class wants because it
benefits them economically, not you the ordinary man.
Ironically, this result is similar to Alexander Fraser Tytler's critique of democracy
– that it ends as soon as the public realizes they can vote themselves free goodies.
The often missed point of Lord Tytler's argument is that, when given a choice, the average
person will forego sacrifice with long-term benefits, instead choosing short-term pleasures
with long-term consequences; the end result is dysfunction and ruin. In this case, market
capitalists make the same mistake. They embrace disastrous long-term policies –
immigration, deregulation, monopolies, a warped tax code, punishing the poor – in order
to preserve their short-term bank accounts. We will lose the nation if they and their
supporters are allowed to carry the day. That's what happens when you let your enemy control
every lever of power in society; they use it to their benefit and at your expense. And that's
exactly what free market capitalists advocate, even if they don't directly state it. Thus,
the need for regulation and the exercise of power from the sole places where we have it: the
government and the military.
Don't cry in 2020 if Donald Trump loses because he took advice from the same market
capitalists who tried to sink him and his movement back in 2016 – the same people who
destroyed Romney's chances in 2012. He's already well on his way with deregulation and tax
cuts for the rich. Unfortunately, some of his supporters seem eager to help him in that
losing effort.
In my view, I think the message is clear. Government's role of facilitator, monitor and
guarantor of fair practices has decided to jump in bed on the side of business and that
without guarantee of a fair distribution to the US citizens, who in the case of government
subsidies, contracts and bailouts are footing the bill for a good deal of financial
misconduct and lousy adherence to best practices as they reap the benefits.
Solutions:
a. no member of an elected position should be permitted to own stock, sit on the boards of
stock or financial instititions which they are the creators of regulations and laws.
b. elected and appointed government employees are barred from consulting and working as or
with private sector companies.
c. senior military leaders are barred from working with or for private industry in any
manner related to government provides services and goods, (except as instructors, and similar
capacities)
just for starters -- I am a pro capitalist. But what we are experiencing is not capitalism.
@Achmed E. Newman As a long-time libertarian, I'd agree with you for the most part. But
I've had an epiphany in the last 2 years. All freedoms are not created equal. One of the
things beltway-tarians such as the Koch-funded Cato Institute push is the idea that an
increase in freedom in any area is good because the benefits "trickle down." Bullcrap!
Deregulating big biz without corresponding relaxations on common people is wrong and we must
oppose it. No tax cuts for biz without much bigger ones for the common people!
Some below average dude above said "this country has nothing resembling Capitalism going on.
Big Business is in bed with Big Feral Gov't. "Crony Capitalism" may not roll off the tongue,
but that's the usual fair description of it." Hear that on Fox News? Oh, if only we were all controlled and dominated by Capitalists. If
only capitalists owned all the major media. If only Capitalists owned all the politicians. If
only capitalists made up all the leading politicians. If only all the bankers were
Capitalists If only the Fed was made up of capitalists. Then we would finally have true
capitalism.
But wait a minute. That's EXACTLY the situation that we do have. What that means is that
we have EXACTLY the capitalism that capitalism produces. We have EXACTLY the capitalism that
the leading capitalists, who will always control the capitalist government and the capitalist
economy, want and need.
Newsflash! There can be no Capitalism that is different from what we've got today. You
would have to kill all the capitalists, to start over, because they would just buy their way
right back to the top. The money all accrues to the top, very quickly. It's like a bad game
of Monopoly. They take the money they've accumulated, and, realizing that money is just a
means to an end, put it to work. They buy political power, and use the combination of
political and financial/economic power to cement their monopoly. The very first thing they do
it to pull up the "ladder of success" after themselves.
When nobody else can climb the ladder, we get frustrated, and want to change the rules to
allow an "even playing field." This is exactly what the early winners of Capitalism will not
allow, and they go to great lengths to prevent it. They also complain bitterly about any and
all attempts to even out the effects of Capitalism.
That "evil government" that you hate is nothing more than the organization of the
capitalists. Every member of the government is a Capitalist, often funded into power by even
richer capitalists. We do not have a government, we have puppets of capitalists or as you Fox
News Hannity enthusiasts call it "the deep state"
Government was intended to be of the people, by the people, for the people, and to serve the
people, not the Corporation.
To the (((shill))) Shapiro
If we all had a PhD, there would be EXACTLY the same number of people being paid poverty
wages and exactly the same number unemployed. McDonalds and Wal-Mart don't pay a penny more
for a fry cook or greeter with a PhD. It's capitalism that determines the jobs and the pay,
not the education level of the masses.
When capitalism tells the masses to "go get an education" as being the solution to their
poverty, it's nothing more than saying, "you workers need to compete harder among yourselves
for the few good-paying jobs that capitalism has to offer." Thanks to the capitalists sending
the good paying middle class jobs to slave labor countries so they could make a few dollars
more.
And before anyone starts with "its the globalists."
Globalism is capitalism. Capitalism brought the black slaves here, capitalism is bringing the
Mexicans here. Slave labor/cheap labor is the name of the game, always has been. Nothing new.
Globalism=capitalism
Capitalist wars are also driving the refugees from their homelands. Whether in Iraq, Sudan
or Honduras, wars are a twofer for capitalists, massive war profiteering, theft of resources,
with the added bonus of driving refugees into Europe/America to lower the standard of living
and decrease wages for us.
Privatization of public property/resources is theft, privatization today is strictly about
prioritizing money away from the commons and general welfare and giving total monopoly to the
inbred 1% rent-seeking parasites, monopoly of resources (food, water, air, shelter), monopoly
of control, monopoly of propaganda, monopoly of Policy, monopoly of money, monopoly of
war.
Most don't have a clue what Socialism actually is. Socialism is government by the
working-class. There is not the slightest hint of the working-class ruling over society
anywhere in the world. Obviously.
The New World Order is being brought to you through capitalism, private banking and
corporate monopoly over EVERYTHING. You think your imaginary boogie-man socialists and
communists are scary? Wait till Monsanto/Bayer have total monopoly over our food and water,
they're getting very close, better wake up. Jesus warned you.
Some miserably mediocre guy above said "Jesus didn't warn me that I'd better love "my"
government."
He warned you about the love of money AKA capitalism, and what it leads to. You like being
replaced with cheap labor, H1B visa slaves, alright that's fine, but I think most American
workers are a little tired of it.
Problem today mediocre dude, is that governments aren't "governments" but private
corporations, with shareholders, operating in the public sector. Again, government is the
PEOPLE. The citizens, the workers. Of the people, by the people, for the people, and to serve
the people, not the Corporation. Not the parasite. You got it backwards son.
Most people, including below average guy above don't wan't to accept this, usually because
of ignorance or "muh capitalism" and "muh free markets " brainwashing by Fox "News". They have
been programmed subconsciously into thinking that any other alternative method will not work
or it is "evil socialism". They are still interested in making rentier classes out of each
other and fucking over their children's future, while propping up their capitalist
overlords.
I get that you are too young, too stupid, or both, to imagine freedom
and give it a rest with the "freedumb" BS you goon. The US has the largest prison
population in the world. You go to jail for smoking a joint for goodness sake. At the same
time capitalist bankers make off with trillions in stolen wealth without a slap on the
wrist.
Not to mention the spying/surveillance, Patriot Act, assassinations and indefinite
detention of Americans with no due process, Anti-BDS laws, a totally rigged judicial system,
a healthcare system that is nothing short of a racket, a fake media totally controlled by the
capitalist war profiteers and corporate parasites. Everything that you accuse "communists" of
is what is actually happening under the Capitalists.
Ask Julian Assange or Snowden about this freedumb you speak of.
I agree with Tucker that the family unit is the most important reason why America is
degenerating, resulting in less people getting married, less children, less everything,
creating a vacuum that can only be filled by foreign invasion. The lack of strong families is also the reason for the rise in suicides, drug addiction,
crime, treason, etc., etc.
But Tucker can't tell us the reason for why this has been happening for decades now. He
can't point to the deliberate manipulation of America by strong Jewish forces. The family
unit has been the thrust of these attacks, and nobody realizes it.
... ... ...
3. Militant feminism has made it such that husbands and wives become economic competitors
rather than complementary partners. Families have become less important as compared to each
partner seeking financial success above all else.
There is a disincentive to have children
because it is an obstacle to climbing the corporate ladder. If you don't have children, there
is not a lot of benefit to being married, so divorces increase. After his divorce, one of the
managers in my company has been living together with his girlfriend for 11 years, and they
have no intention of getting married or having children. They are together because neither
can afford housing on their own and their joint income makes it possible. With only economic
necessity holding them together, there is every reason to expect cheating or unexpected
dissolution of the partnership when better financial opportunities present themselves. As
Tucker says, no woman wants to marry a man who makes less than she does. So, as more women
are forced into the workforce, less marriages happen.
... ... ...
5. Uncontrolled immigration helps the ruling class to reduce wages, also contributing to
declining families. Legal immigration decimates the middle class.
6. If that isn't enough, mass distribution of pornography, deviant sex, gender perversion, LGBTQXYZZY , all contribute to the breaking of traditional intimacy between one man and one
woman, that is the foundation of marriage and stable families.
7. And there are the fake wars. As sons, and now daughters, go off to fight in foreign
lands that have not attacked us, only one parent stays behind to raise the family,
inadequately. Moreover, when these traumatized soldiers return from battle, they are seldom
able to re-integrate into the family unit, and in a large number of cases, divorces and
criminal behavior result.
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!"
@Achmed E. Newman "We need nationalism without capitalism and socialism without
internationalism" ~ Gregor Strasser
In the American case, that would also in effect restrict all transfer payments to being
within kin-groups and at the local / state / civil society level. America could have had a
workable welfare state if the right leadership had governed it (i.e. if there had been no
Sexual Revolution amplified by feminism and Cultural Marxist subversion of critical
institutions) and if resources of middle class white families were not transferred to
non-white underclass dysfunctional degenerates.
Tucker's show is the only political opinion show I watch. The rest of Fox is pretty much
Neocon Central. CNN/MSNBC are jokes parading as news outlets. I love it when Trump
continually calls them Fake News, which is exactly what they are.
But it's ominous that so many corporations have stopped advertising on Tucker's show. Fox
now finds itself in a bind. Not knowing he would become such a threat to the established
order when they gave him a prime time gig, they may well prefer to get rid of him. And they
could use the convenient excuse that no one wants to advertise on the show anymore. But
Carlson has become such a popular pundit that, if they fired him, it could well spell the end
of Fox as viewers would leave in droves.
Free speech is dying in newsrooms everywhere and is endangered on the Internet also, with
all-powerful leftist corporations like Google deciding what (to them) is acceptable speech.
I'd just hate to see Tucker go the way of Phil Donohue, who lost his MSNBC show (at the time
the most popular on the network) because he was against the Iraq war.
It's kinda weird watching you two trade blows.. from the outside your differences seem
about 10% of your shared disgust of the MSM.
I'm guessing you'll thump each other to a draw and both fall over exhausted, having left the
genuine shared enemy untouched.
In what world is that a sensible outcome?! Stop being such macho douches and start playing a
smart political game, or just get used to being shat on by the incumbent powers. Your
choice..
@Achmed E. Newman yes, I agree with you Mr. Newman.. but there is something still missing
to explain how the good wholesome concept of Capitalism has captured the governed of nearly
every nation state and placed them into a prison farm where the monopoly powered corporate
private capitalist can extort as much as they please.
Keeping the economic environment fair, open, free, in a fully restrained completely fair
play condition is an absolute requirement of capitalism is the only legitimate function of
government; in fact, it is the essence of a government that is formed of the substance of the
right of self determination. When monopoly powers are generated by government and given to
private private enterprise, or or when government services are privatized, capitalism has
been turned into captivism and the market has be turned into a human farm yard, allowing
those with the monopoly powers to cull and harvest the herds as they wish.
Instead of government doing its job; the USA has actually become the center for biasing
capitalism. It continues to bestow monopoly powers (copyright, patents, and it continues to
give government grants to universities that use the grants to take the risk that industry
should be taking, to investigate new ideas and new products and it continues to allow its
obligations to the governed to be privatized ). Basically the University has become the
middle man between government and monopoly powered capitalism. The government gives the
University a grant, the grant is used to fund training programs called Phd studies, and after
a while the (the research encounters a promising discovery, and the corporate department is
created within the University but funded by the governed in the form of a government grant.
Next when a product of substance is sufficiently understood and most of the questions about
it fully explored at government expense (note the privately owned monopoly powered
corporation does not have to put any money at risk, until the University develops the product
so billions of research dollars are funded from the pockets of the governed, for the
practical benefit of one of the monopoly powered corporations), the entire university
department become employees of the patent acquiring monopoly powered privately owned
corporation. Then as if to add insult to injury, the government has been allowing the private
corporations to offer the services the government is suppose to offer (like the water
companies, the power companies, the garbage companies, the security companies, the production
of weapons, and the likes, all of these government monopolies have been sold off or licensed
to private enterprise.in a monopoly transfer concept called privatization or grant by
government contract)
so in fact there is no such thing as capitalism in the USA governed America, its privatized
monopoly ism.
What makes monopolies so bad is that they prevent competition (and competition is the name
of the game in capitalism ). Someone in his back yard invents something that puts Apple or
Microsoft, or IBM or the Federal Reserve out of business, just as the University of Australia
has invented a way to supply the whole world with nearly free energy, the solar and wind
power are used when functioning while the excess is stored so that the capacity of the wind,
solar and hydro storage are sufficient to generate, store and provide a flow of energy
sufficient to supply the needs of the world, yet few have heard about it, because the media
is another privatized thing, and it(the media) will remain silent about such innovation, at
least, until it can force the university to sell its patents to one of the mega buck monopoly
powered corporations. This solar, wind and hydro
combinationhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lk3elu3zf4 is not really a new science discovery
, its an application using proven methodology) would eliminate the need for gas and oil in
the world, and that would solve the C02 problem which is the essence of global warming
.
The problem with capitalism USA style is that government must function as an independent
third party, some the USA cannot seem to be, an honest broker.. the government must deny any
kind of favouritism to any and all that would in any way bias discovery, bias competition, or
bias the financing of investigations that might lead to discovery or financing needed to
build the infra structure that allows the new invention to replace the old. History shows the
problem with republics, is that the corrupt soon own the government, at least that seems to
fit the conditions in the UK, USA, Israel, France, and Saudi Arabia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lk3elu3zf4
@obwandiyag The same thing was in the Soviet Union. Any problem was dismissed on account
that they would go away once they had more communism. And it was always emphasized that it
must be so because it was scientifically proven by Marx. The libertarian idiots like our
Achmed here are no different than those communist idiots.
@Achmed E. Newman Indeed, the examples below are not free market capitalism, but these
are what too many erroneously think is the result of free market capitalism:
– Trade deals made by Big Gov are not free market capitalism.
– Special exemptions from competition for those connected to Big Gov is not free market
capitalism.
– Big Gov granting monopolies to unions is not free market capitalism.
– Big Gov granted monopolies to utility companies are not free market capitalism.
– No bid Big Gov contracts are not free market capitalism.
– Gov laws supporting rent controls are not free market capitalism.
– Big Gov price fixing is not free market capitalism.
– Big Gov income taxes are not free market capitalism.
– Big Gov property taxes are not free market capitalism
– The Big Gov authorized Federal Reserve is not free market capitalism.
– Big Gov massive taxes on every aspect of the economy are not free market capitalism,
and which often lead to companies setting up shop elsewhere.
– Big Gov fees for services from agencies we already pay for are not free market
capitalism.
– Big Gov subsidies of "alternative energy" which cannot otherwise compete is not free
market capitalism.
The list of Big Government intervention in the economy is endless.
Big Gov intervention is the problem, not free market capitalism
@Achmed E. Newman " a land full of people encouraged to be irresponsible by, yes, you
guessed it, Big Government." Sure. OK.
But watch an hour of TV & try to tell me it's ONLY big Gov encouraging people to be
irresponsible.
Our whole consumer culture makes a virtue out of irresponsibility & the plain stupid
& juvenile. (Incidentally, it is utter crock that the Right wants "virtuous" citizens.
Where would the Oligarchs be if masses of people started being virtuous ? Honesty, truth,
justice, impulse control & rational desires would wreck their whole grubby set-up.
Indeed, a virtuous public might actually start thinking & thinking might lead to
lamp posts & pitch forks .)
@redmudhooch You simply don't know the difference between authoritarian Big Government
intervention in the economy, which is sadly what we increasingly have and is what you
advocate more of, vs. a truly free market economy.
But then Communists have made ignorance and being wrong an art form.
Another undefined slogan in this era of muddle headed thinking, or of no thinking at
all.
The 'again' suggests there once upon a times there was this great America.
I cannot be too difficult to specify when this great America existed, and what was so great
about it.
But I wonder if it is as in one of Deighton's Cold War novels, German refugees from the east
meeting in West Berlin, 'talking about a society that never was'.
What's the difference between government controlling every aspect of business, or business
controlling every aspect of government?
Would there be two different outcomes?
I keep hearing about "free markets" but I've never actually encountered one. It seems we will
die slowly of taxation and regulation while blaming Ron Paul and his friends for our misery.
If there were free markets we would be able to sell coal and oil to China and buy weapons
from Russia, build nuclear power plants, desalination plants, and LNG ports. But our wise
overlords in D.C. won't permit this. Also, the pride of those Marxists who were converted in
the 70's and 80's won't let them admit they were cruelly deceived.
a. no member of an elected position should be permitted to own stock, sit on the boards
of stock or financial instititions which they are the creators of regulations and laws.
b. elected and appointed government employees are barred from consulting and working as
or with private sector companies.
c. senior military leaders are barred from working with or for private industry in any
manner related to government provides services and goods, (except as instructors, and
similar capacities)
You hit the jackpot, this is a good start but needs to go much further to drive the
powerful interest groups out of Government.
It doesn't matter if you believe in capitalism, socialism both or neither. Left or Right
politics, big or small government or none. Everyone should recognize that without this
process NOTHING will ever change, absent perhaps a bloody revolution.
It's a full time job for citizens of every country to guard their government from being
hijacked by special interest groups. In most cases they fail and almost always it's the same
group ending up with all the power. Crony capitalist elites.
In America and most of Europe the Crony Capitalistic elites running the country have
joined small part of the left wing – SJW types and allow them good access to their
media outlets and small share of the loot. This mercenary army of SJW then in turn barks and
gnaws at anyone threatening the status quo. It's a win win. In the meantime both the
traditional left (pro working class) and the right have no voices or influence.
Our own (Icelandic) banking crash enabled similar process as you describe, grants to
political parties are limited, MP's have to publish their ownership in corporations etc and
all kinds of limitations. We are currently enjoying the benefits. It will last few years more
– by then the elites will be back in full force.
a. no member of an elected position should be permitted to own stock, sit on the boards
of stock or financial instititions which they are the creators of regulations and laws.
b. elected and appointed government employees are barred from consulting and working as
or with private sector companies.
c. senior military leaders are barred from working with or for private industry in any
manner related to government provides services and goods, (except as instructors, and
similar capacities)
Where can we find a free market? The US markets are so skewed by regulation that there is not
one commodity that has a 'free' market. Add to that the fact that the government has
abandoned its policy of preventing market dominance through monopoly. Add to that the US tax
payers feeding money into the wealthiest government in the world, a quantity of money that
attracts the least beneficial leeches from around the world. The government attracts leeches,
otherwise known as individual or corporate government contractors, being overpaid money from
the tax payers to support their companies that can't make it in the 'free' market: these
companies need the handouts to help them survive.
So where's the free market? It exists only in the small companies that litter the USA and
who battle the big corporates, like Amazon, that survive on tax handouts, beating their
competitors by bribing politicians rather than fighting the good fight in the free
market.
"the free market"?
[MORE]
'This "equilibrium" graph (Figure 3) and the ideas behind it have been re-iterated so many
times in the past half-century that many observes assume they represent one of the few firmly
proven facts in economics. Not at all. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that demand
equals supply in any market and that, indeed, markets work in the way this story
narrates.
We know this by simply paying attention to the details of the narrative presented. The
innocuous assumptions briefly mentioned at the outset are in fact necessary joint conditions
in order for the result of equilibrium to be obtained. There are at least eight of these
result-critical necessary assumptions: Firstly, all market participants have to have "perfect
information", aware of all existing information (thus not needing lecture rooms, books,
television or the internet to gather information in a time-consuming manner; there are no
lawyers, consultants or estate agents in the economy). Secondly, there are markets trading
everything (and their grandmother). Thirdly, all markets are characterized by millions of
small firms that compete fiercely so that there are no profits at all in the corporate sector
(and certainly there are no oligopolies or monopolies; computer software is produced by so
many firms, one hardly knows what operating system to choose ). Fourthly, prices change all
the time, even during the course of each day, to reflect changed circumstances (no labels are
to be found on the wares offered in supermarkets as a result, except in LCD-form). Fifthly,
there are no transaction costs (it costs no petrol to drive to the supermarket, stock brokers
charge no commission, estate agents work for free – actually, don't exist, due to
perfect information!). Sixthly, everyone has an infinite amount of time and lives infinitely
long lives. Seventhly, market participants are solely interested in increasing their own
material benefit and do not care for others (so there are no babies, human reproduction has
stopped – since babies have all died of neglect; this is where the eternal life of the
grown-ups helps). Eighthly, nobody can be influenced by others in any way (so trillion-dollar
advertising industry does not exist, just like the legal services and estate agent
industries).
It is only in this theoretical dreamworld defined by this conflagration of wholly unrealistic
assumptions that markets can be expected to clear, delivering equilibrium and rendering
prices the important variable in the economy – including the price of money as the key
variable in the macroeconomy. This is the origin of the idea that interest rates are the key
variable driving the economy: it is the price of money that determines economic outcomes,
since quantities fall into place.
But how likely are these assumptions that are needed for equilibrium to pertain? We know that
none of them hold. Yet, if we generously assumed, for sake of argument (in good economists'
style), that the probability of each assumption holding true is 55% – i.e. the
assumptions are more likely to be true than not – even then we find the mainstream
result is elusive: Because all assumptions need to hold at the same time, the probability of
obtaining equilibrium in that case is 0.55 to the power of 8 – i.e. less than 1%! In
other words, neoclassical economics has demonstrated to us that the circumstances required
for equilibrium to occur in any market are so unlikely that we can be sure there is no
equilibrium anywhere. Thus we know that markets are rationed, and rationed markets are
determined by quantities, not prices.
On our planet earth – as opposed to the very different planet that economists seem to
be on – all markets are rationed. In rationed markets a simple rule applies: the short
side principle. It says that whichever quantity of demand or supply is smaller (the 'short
side') will be transacted (it is the only quantity that can be transacted). Meanwhile, the
rest will remain unserved, and thus the short side wields power: the power to pick and choose
with whom to do business. Examples abound. For instance, when applying for a job, there tend
to be more applicants than jobs, resulting in a selection procedure that may involve a number
of activities and demands that can only be described as being of a non-market nature (think
about how Hollywood actresses are selected), but does not usually include the question: what
is the lowest wage you are prepared to work for?
Thus the theoretical dream world of "market equilibrium" allows economists to avoid talking
about the reality of pervasive rationing, and with it, power being exerted by the short side
in every market. Thus the entire power hiring starlets for Hollywood films, can exploit his
power of being able to pick and choose with whom to do business, by extracting 'non-market
benefits' of all kinds. The pretense of 'equilibrium' not only keeps this real power
dimension hidden. It also helps to deflect the public discourse onto the politically more
convenient alleged role of 'prices', such as the price of money, the interest rate. The
emphasis on prices then also helps to justify the charging of usury (interest), which until
about 300 years ago was illegal in most countries, including throughout Europe.
However, this narrative has suffered an abductio ad absurdum by the long period of near zero
interest rates, so that it became obvious that the true monetary policy action takes place in
terms of quantities, not the interest rate.
Thus it can be plainly seen today that the most important macroeconomic variable cannot be
the price of money. Instead, it is its quantity. Is the quantity of money rationed by the
demand or supply side? Asked differently, what is larger – the demand for money or its
supply? Since money – and this includes bank money – is so useful, there is
always some demand for it by someone. As a result, the short side is always the supply of
money and credit. Banks ration credit even at the best of times in order to ensure that
borrowers with sensible investment projects stay among the loan applicants – if rates
are raised to equilibrate demand and supply, the resulting interest rate would be so high
that only speculative projects would remain and banks' loan portfolios would be too
risky.
The banks thus occupy a pivotal role in the economy as they undertake the task of creating
and allocating the new purchasing power that is added to the money supply and they decide
what projects will get this newly created funding, and what projects will have to be
abandoned due to a 'lack of money'.
It is for this reason that we need the right type of banks that take the right decisions
concerning the important question of how much money should be created, for what purpose and
given into whose hands. These decisions will reshape the economic landscape within a short
time period.
Moreover, it is for this reason that central banks have always monitored bank credit creation
and allocation closely and most have intervened directly – if often secretly or
'informally' – in order to manage or control bank credit creation. Guidance of bank
credit is in fact the only monetary policy tool with a strong track record of preventing
asset bubbles and thus avoiding the subsequent banking crises. But credit guidance has always
been undertaken in secrecy by central banks, since awareness of its existence and
effectiveness gives away the truth that the official central banking narrative is
smokescreen.'
https://professorwerner.org/shifting-from-central-planning-to-a-decentralised-economy-do-we-need-central-banks/
"Socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a group of responsible
people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that protects normal
people "
"Even in the US most of nine Labour policies we put to people received majority
backing
Tucker's point is that the "Free Market" system of America is run by an amoral predator class
looking out for only its own interests. What is missing is a sense of noblesse oblige
rank has its privileges, but also its own duties to others in the system. Shapiro is but
another amoral schmuck looking out only for himself.
@redmudhooch So true. All these libertarians think capitalism automatically implies
competition , but in the real world, that's just a temporary phase. Once the oligopoly
stage of capitalism is reached, businesses cease to compete with one another and simply
collude–to take over the government, among other things. Then you have business and
government working together to shaft the common man (they'll call it "public/private
partnership," or some such).
Competition is simply not a permanent part of capitalism, any more than the
maggot-phase is a permanent part of being a fly. In the end, the 'free' market is destined to
give way either to Jew-Bolshevism or to National Socialism. Personally, I opt for the
latter.
It looks like a pipe dream, and perhaps it is, do you have better alternative?
Of course: socialists, pure capitalists and libertarians can all continue to sit in their
little corner and continue to argue against each other like they have done for the past
decades, totally powerless and ignored. All waiting for.. what? At least here is an idea to
start with, a common ground.
Think about it, while commenters "Achmed E. Newman" and "redmudhooch" almost
totally disagree on ideological grounds It seems obvious they could march in a lockstep in a
political movement trying to separate the Government from crony capitalism – with all
the Unz crowd and majority of the public close behind them. It would be a beautiful
sight!
Washington filled with protesters with signs: "We want our Government back" or "The best
Government money can by doesn't work – lets try something else"
The MSM would be powerless, their heads would explode trying to dig up slander against
such movement.
@aspnaz aspnaz says: "Where can we find a free market? "
It's now called "the black market" don't you know.
Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro etc, like most here, wouldn't know a free market if it bit
them in the a$$.
Carlson and Shapiro et all are nothing more than shills for the state [again, like most
here].
aspnaz says: "So where's the free market? It exists only in the small companies that
litter the USA and who battle the big corporates"
Outside of "illegal" black markets, that's pretty much true.
Corporations are creatures of the state and are protected by the state. Hell, they
are the state!
As you obviously know, government/ the state is the problem- never the
solution.
The only real political "solution" [as I see it] would be to return the government to its
original size and functions, getting rid of the 1000's of regulatory agencies [EPA, FDA,
BATF, CIA FBI NSA etc etc etc ad nauseum], plus all welfare , government-run "healthcare",
social "security" etc. etc.
And of course, getting rid of the standing army and all associated, to boot.
And to a nation of government indoctrinated, [virtually] commie slaves whose only desire
is to live at the expense of everyone else, that "solution" is entirely out of the
question.
But even if it were possible to return to the original constitutional government
limitations, seeing as how, judging by the results to date, the constitution and bill of
rights obviously was not/is not a secure enough chain on federal government growth and its
ever increasing interference in all markets [and all areas of our lives], that "solution"
would only give us all, at most, about 10 years of relative freedom and prosperity, if even
that.
So unless we could figure out some new, better way to permanently chain down the
government to a constitution and bill of rights and keep it out of everything else , then a
dreamed of return to an allegedly "constitutionally limited" government would only provide a
temporary, short term reprieve, as I see it.
@niceland Unfortunately the prescriptions are naive.
c. with a bit of grammatical tidying up is already the rule I say with some confidence.
The problem is what they might do in the hope of employment when they retire from the armed
forces. Perhaps a four year embargo on receiving any direct or indirect benefit from the arms
industry might be worth thinking about.
a. is an invitation to legal ingenuity. Ever heard of a "blind trust"? How blind is the
politician to the reality of his interests even if his wife isn't the trustee. And if you
banned blind trusts you wouldn't stop the spouse, siblings or children standing in for the
politician as investor.
b. You could prevent them getting paid directly and immediately but they could often make
a case that the consulting was just part of a politician's and some bureaucrats' everyday job
and involved both giving and receiving information and advice. And, as to the money side of
it, nearly all Congressmen spend a great deal of their time raising money for their
reelection campaigns so they wouldn't be asking to be paid personally in most cases. And if
the worst came to the worst a PAC fund could receive the money.
Ironically I came to tuckers same conclusion about a decade ago while being redpilled by neo
reactionaries. They of course are technofuturist post humanists which is why its ironic, but
they did encourage me to more radically check my premises and i had to admit capitalism had
probably done more harm to west civ tham communism in fact without capitalism there is no
communism. I had to admit my reflex unequivocal defense of capitalism was more coldwar anti
socialism refelex mixed with theoretical capitalism. Oh im still a capitalist but like tucker
i think its a tool and we who love it have to remember why we love it or ought to, because it
serves us, iy might also be a beautiful machine but if it didnt serve us theres no reason to
support it. i also had to admit not only do we not actually have capitalism but corporatism
and corporatism is inevitable tendency of capitalism but that we dont really think capitalism
functions well without intervention as we pretend we just think it functions best when
conservatives invent the interventions .we know left un tended monopolies and cartels form,
we know that large corporations will use their size to crush smarter more innovative new
firms,price fixing will happen, we dont allow a free market in all sorts of things from child
porn to heroine, yet inexplicably other porn and alcohol are ok.I also had to admit it wasnt
true that capitalism needs democracy, capitalism finds ways of thriving in any government
from stalinist communist to monarchies to managed theocracies or anything in between.Finally
I had to admit apes are both capitalist and socialist creatures and white apes particularly
so, we are the most capitalistic yet have the lowest tolerance for watching suffering, now
that can be for the most part solved with market solutions to social safety if we are willing
to admit that despite our hatred of socialists we are never the less social apes. And this is
perhaps the crux of the matter, HBD some people are just genetically more capable than others
in a free market some will thrive others not so much over time some will really really thrive
others not so much at all. so yeah white nationalism is a must actually any nation must be an
ethno state because your only real chance of overcoming this natural difference is to start
with a group that at least fairly homogenous, but then you must intervene. NO NOT BECAUSE
THEY ARE HUMANS WITH RIGHTS FUCKEM NO NOT BECAUSE THEYRE MUH WHITE BROS
because theres more of them than us cog elites and as tucker points out eventually if we make
it worth their wiles they will just take our shit. Capitalism does require some form of
government even if its just my gang enforcing my rules. all civilization is built on violence
and the proles have it they just dont use it because frankly we are their slaves we make the
world better for them or they replace us.its in our interest to be their stewards. its also a
better way to live with bakers wives and steam fitters smiling and happy nd pumping out
children to ward off the other nations. As elites we must do for them what they can not
naturally do for themselves a nation is a family or ought to be, everyone has a place. Thats
not to say we ought not find ways to stretch our right tale and shorten our left tail which
will make us tighter knit and more efficient and less fractured.
besides its simply retarded to give away your best tech to your enemies and and then buy it
back from them while leaving your 90% unemployed. This idea that thats capitalism implies
that you intend to reduce americans to the status of the least paid third worlder and only
when hes willing to work for those wages will you hire him- well good luck with that all I
can say is where are you going to hide.Heres the thing all the smart people do not in fact
rise to the elite in fact more and more get locked out in a way that prevents them from even
breeding statistically the average proles are producing 50% of each year cognitive elite
children they are less stable cog elites in as much as their children more likely to revert
to mean but never the less they will meet and fuck your children at harvard and contribute
50% of elite generation and some hybrid vigor.you really dont want 50% of the gifted
struggling in tiny houses and gigs deciding they really ought to be figuring out how to build
a robot army to take you out because they can they have the numbers
Inside beltway crap.
Capitalism have been hijacked long time ago by the secret private bank.Central economic
control.
The average american citizen daily survival depends on the will to deliver the goods from
roughly 11 corporations and their subsidiary networks.And for those who are trying to control
morality "happy fishing day".
@follyofwar Phil Donohue had his issues but was a semi-honest liberal and was the only
popular talking head that I recall who was opposed to the Iraq war and asking the hard
questions and second guessing politicians.
Mr. "no spin zone" Bill O' Reilly and many others gave us nothing but spin and just
vomited out the neocon talking points.
@Wally Do you get your talking points from Ayn Rand's didactic, absurd novel "Atlas
Shrugged?" Paul Ryan did, and what did he ever do for the country besides give more tax cuts
to the rich?
Take power away from the elected politicians who can be bribed by the capitalists, and give
it to average people. Adopt the Athenian system of choosing officials by lot from all
citizens, and capitalism may have to reform.
"Dreams, you've been hanging on
To dreams when all your dreaming should be done
Dreams, about the way the world could be
You keep dreaming , despite reality
"Dreams, that Donald Trump is not a fraud,
Dreams, that Obama was not a fraud,
Dreams, that Reagan was not a fraud,
Dreams, that all the rest were not frauds,
Dreams, that the Constitution is not a scam,
[MORE] Dreams, that the Supreme Court is not a scam,
Dreams, that the Federal Reserve is not a scam,
Dreams, that the C.I.A. is not a scam,
Dreams, that the F.B.I. is not a scam,
Dreams, that the cops and the courts are not a scam,
Dreams, that the Pentagon is not a scam,
Dreams, that 9/11 was not a scam,
Dreams, that the war on terror is not a scam,
Dreams, that Social Security is not a scam,
Dreams, that public education is not a scam .." [and so on and so forth] .
@anon anon[393] • Disclaimer says: "..i had to admit capitalism had probably done
more harm to west civ tham communism in fact without capitalism there is no communism ."
If you [ or anyone else] wanted to live under an entirely voluntary communist/socialist [
or whatever] system, while others freely chose not to, then I personally would have no
problem with that.
But of course, that is not whats being implied in all of this back and forth. The
discussion here and elsewhere is ultimately always about who gets to enforce, at the point of
a gun, their own imagined "ideal" system on everyone else, via everybodys imagined best
friend/big brother, the government, regardless of individual preference.
Private socialism? Go for it.
Not a problem [except for those who try to live under it], but "go ahead, make my day" as
someone once said.
After all , the very first Plymouth colony in the "New World" was founded on full on
socialism, and therefor quickly failed, but , I remind myself: the one thing that we learn
from history is that we don't learn anything from history.
@EliteCommInc. I would take it a step further. As it stands now, Congress exempts itself
from just about every law and regulation that it imposes on the rest of us. Also, most people
are unaware that federal judges do not pay "income taxes".
What is needed it a Constitutional amendment to wit:
"Congress shall make NO LAW that does not apply equally to itself, the legislative branch,
the executive branch, the judicial branch, and its agencies, departments, and subdivisions,
thereof. All federal agencies, departments, and subdivisions thereof are prohibited from
enacting any rulemaking without express approval of Congress. Corporate charters shall not
confer the status of personhood on corporations"."
@Achmed E. Newman Great comment! I found Tucker's speech to be vague and largely off
point. We do not have capitalism, we have "currently existing capitalism"- like the left
called the USSR "currently existing socialism", libertarians know, as Rand said, capitalism
is an Unknown Ideal.
As a fellow traveller with Ron Paul, Tucker still has libertarian leanings. He seems confused
sometimes about his stand on the Drug War, too often settling for his trope that interdiction
at the border will actually stop the overdose deaths, rather than recognizing interdiction
has been a failure for a hundred years. And how can he recognize that our foreign wars
involve us in one futile crisis after another, without asking why after a century of the war
on drugs, we are still experiencing a drug crisis? He says he regrets his "long haired
libertarian youth", thereby marking himself as just another old fogey who can't remember the
fun he had When he was young.
Instead of pearl clutching, he could strike the biggest blow to international corporatism by
acknowledging the crucial role that de- dollariztion is playing. He could recognize the role
of the Fed in creating international power centers in NYC, London, Zurich now being
challenged by Moscow and Beijing.
Like all conservatives, and alas libertarians as well, he doesn'understand the US Individual
Income Tax, the original Populist response to big government enabled crony capitalism. He
doesn't understand the income tax is a tax on the exploitation of a federal privilege for
profit, not an UN-apportioned tax on "everything that comes in". See http://www.losthorizons.com
And please, bring a real libertarian on as his straw man, not that awful, slow thinking slow
talking Objectivist !
Libertarianism needs white nationalism, but at least libertarians consistently call out the
Federal Reserve. Tucker never has to my knowledge, maybe because he doesn't understand or
isn't interested in monetary policy. But monetary policy affects all aspects of the economy,
from wages to international trade. Tucker is libertarian on foreign policy, among other
things, and the last time I checked, he's no Bernie Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez when it comes to
domestic policy. Does he favor socialized medicine, public higher education, expansion of the
welfare state, and government housing for all? His main gripe is with many corporations' love
of cheap foreign labor, big tech censorship, and "free" trade. Oh, and he thinks the rich
need to be taxed a little more. Can't say I disagree with him there. However, I don't even
see any evidence that he is a race realist. I like him, but he seems like the quintessential
civic nationalist to me, though that could just be the mask he has to wear.
The foreign labor aspect does need to be reined in (hence why libertarianism needs
racial/ethnic nationalism). Google is hardly a private company as it was seed funded by the
CIA and NSA. Facebook regularly colludes with Israeli/U.S. Intelligence. It is not
unlibertarian to oppose "private" companies that become arms of the state to shut down
opposition. The whole free trade vs. protectionism debate is more complicated than either
side will admit. Both policies create winners and losers to varying degrees as Trump's
tariffs have shown, and the Federal Reserve mucks up things either way. There is no free
market in America.
@Anon Good rebuttal to Achmed E. Newman's comment and the Hallelujah Chorus replying to
him. Carlson's point about market capitalism being a religion to conservatives triggers them
mightily.
Voters around the world revolt against leaders who won't improve their lives.
Newly-elected Utah senator Mitt Romney kicked off 2019 with an op-ed in the Washington Post
that savaged Donald Trump's character and leadership. Romney's attack and Trump's response
Wednesday morning on Twitter are the latest salvos in a longstanding personal feud between the
two men. It's even possible that Romney is planning to challenge Trump for the Republican
nomination in 2020. We'll see.
But for now, Romney's piece is fascinating on its own terms. It's well-worth reading. It's a
window into how the people in charge, in both parties, see our country.
Romney's main complaint in the piece is that Donald Trump is a mercurial and divisive
leader. That's true, of course. But beneath the personal slights, Romney has a policy critique
of Trump. He seems genuinely angry that Trump might pull American troops out of the Syrian
civil war. Romney doesn't explain how staying in Syria would benefit America. He doesn't appear
to consider that a relevant question. More policing in the Middle East is always better. We
know that. Virtually everyone in Washington agrees.
Corporate tax cuts are also popular in Washington, and Romney is strongly on board with
those, too. His piece throws a rare compliment to Trump for cutting the corporate rate a year
ago.
That's not surprising. Romney spent the bulk of his business career at a firm called Bain
Capital. Bain Capital all but invented what is now a familiar business strategy: Take over an
existing company for a short period of time, cut costs by firing employees, run up the debt,
extract the wealth, and move on, sometimes leaving retirees without their earned pensions.
Romney became fantastically rich doing this.
Meanwhile, a remarkable number of the companies are now bankrupt or extinct. This is the
private equity model. Our ruling class sees nothing wrong with it. It's how they run the
country.
Mitt Romney refers to unwavering support for a finance-based economy and an internationalist
foreign policy as the "mainstream Republican" view. And he's right about that. For generations,
Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while
simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars. Modern Democrats generally support those
goals enthusiastically.
There are signs, however, that most people do not support this, and not just in America. In
countries around the world -- France, Brazil, Sweden, the Philippines, Germany, and many others
-- voters are suddenly backing candidates and ideas that would have been unimaginable just a
decade ago. These are not isolated events. What you're watching is entire populations revolting
against leaders who refuse to improve their lives.
Something like this has been in happening in our country for three years. Donald Trump rode
a surge of popular discontent all the way to the White House. Does he understand the political
revolution that he harnessed? Can he reverse the economic and cultural trends that are
destroying America? Those are open questions.
But they're less relevant than we think. At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest
of us will be gone, too. The country will remain. What kind of country will be it be then? How
do we want our grandchildren to live? These are the only questions that matter.
The answer used to be obvious. The overriding goal for America is more prosperity, meaning
cheaper consumer goods. But is that still true? Does anyone still believe that cheaper iPhones,
or more Amazon deliveries of plastic garbage from China are going to make us happy? They
haven't so far. A lot of Americans are drowning in stuff. And yet drug addiction and suicide
are depopulating large parts of the country. Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be
summed up in GDP is an idiot.
The goal for America is both simpler and more elusive than mere prosperity. It's happiness.
There are a lot of ingredients in being happy: Dignity. Purpose. Self-control. Independence.
Above all, deep relationships with other people. Those are the things that you want for your
children. They're what our leaders should want for us, and would want if they cared.
But our leaders don't care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to
the people they rule. They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through.
They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can't solve our problems. They don't even
bother to understand our problems.
One of the biggest lies our leaders tell us that you can separate economics from everything
else that matters. Economics is a topic for public debate. Family and faith and culture,
meanwhile, those are personal matters. Both parties believe this.
Members of our educated upper-middle-classes are now the backbone of the Democratic Party
who usually describe themselves as fiscally responsible and socially moderate. In other words,
functionally libertarian. They don't care how you live, as long as the bills are paid and the
markets function. Somehow, they don't see a connection between people's personal lives and the
health of our economy, or for that matter, the country's ability to pay its bills. As far as
they're concerned, these are two totally separate categories.
Social conservatives, meanwhile, come to the debate from the opposite perspective, and yet
reach a strikingly similar conclusion. The real problem, you'll hear them say, is that the
American family is collapsing. Nothing can be fixed before we fix that. Yet, like the
libertarians they claim to oppose, many social conservatives also consider markets sacrosanct.
The idea that families are being crushed by market forces seems never to occur to them. They
refuse to consider it. Questioning markets feels like apostasy.
Both sides miss the obvious point: Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined.
Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies
possible. You can't separate the two. It used to be possible to deny this. Not anymore. The
evidence is now overwhelming. How do we know? Consider the inner cities.
Thirty years ago, conservatives looked at Detroit or Newark and many other places and were
horrified by what they saw. Conventional families had all but disappeared in poor
neighborhoods. The majority of children were born out of wedlock. Single mothers were the rule.
Crime and drugs and disorder became universal.
What caused this nightmare? Liberals didn't even want to acknowledge the question. They were
benefiting from the disaster, in the form of reliable votes. Conservatives, though, had a ready
explanation for inner-city dysfunction and it made sense: big government. Decades of
badly-designed social programs had driven fathers from the home and created what conservatives
called a "culture of poverty" that trapped people in generational decline.
There was truth in this. But it wasn't the whole story. How do we know? Because virtually
the same thing has happened decades later to an entirely different population. In many ways,
rural America now looks a lot like Detroit.
This is striking because rural Americans wouldn't seem to have much in common with anyone
from the inner city. These groups have different cultures, different traditions and political
beliefs. Usually they have different skin colors. Rural people are white conservatives,
mostly.
Yet, the pathologies of modern rural America are familiar to anyone who visited downtown
Baltimore in the 1980s: Stunning out of wedlock birthrates. High male unemployment. A
terrifying drug epidemic. Two different worlds. Similar outcomes. How did this happen? You'd
think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they're not. They
don't have to be interested. It's easier to import foreign labor to take the place of
native-born Americans who are slipping behind.
But Republicans now represent rural voters. They ought to be interested. Here's a big part
of the answer: male wages declined. Manufacturing, a male-dominated industry, all but
disappeared over the course of a generation. All that remained in many places were the schools
and the hospitals, both traditional employers of women. In many places, women suddenly made
more than men.
Now, before you applaud this as a victory for feminism, consider the effects. Study after
study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don't want to marry them.
Maybe they should want to marry them, but they don't. Over big populations, this causes a drop
in marriage, a spike in out-of-wedlock births, and all the familiar disasters that inevitably
follow -- more drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, fewer families formed in the
next generation.
This isn't speculation. This is not propaganda from the evangelicals. It's social science.
We know it's true. Rich people know it best of all. That's why they get married before they
have kids. That model works. But increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in
America can afford.
And yet, and here's the bewildering and infuriating part, those very same affluent married
people, the ones making virtually all the decisions in our society, are doing pretty much
nothing to help the people below them get and stay married. Rich people are happy to fight
malaria in Congo. But working to raise men's wages in Dayton or Detroit? That's crazy.
This is negligence on a massive scale. Both parties ignore the crisis in marriage. Our
mindless cultural leaders act like it's still 1961, and the biggest problem American families
face is that sexism is preventing millions of housewives from becoming investment bankers or
Facebook executives.
For our ruling class, more investment banking is always the answer. They teach us it's more
virtuous to devote your life to some soulless corporation than it is to raise your own
kids.
Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook wrote an entire book about this. Sandberg explained that our
first duty is to shareholders, above our own children. No surprise there. Sandberg herself is
one of America's biggest shareholders. Propaganda like this has made her rich.
We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule.
They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through. They have no skin in
this game, and it shows.
What's remarkable is how the rest of us responded to it. We didn't question why Sandberg was
saying this. We didn't laugh in her face at the pure absurdity of it. Our corporate media
celebrated Sandberg as the leader of a liberation movement. Her book became a bestseller: "Lean
In." As if putting a corporation first is empowerment. It is not. It is bondage. Republicans
should say so.
They should also speak out against the ugliest parts of our financial system. Not all
commerce is good. Why is it defensible to loan people money they can't possibly repay? Or
charge them interest that impoverishes them? Payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods collect
400 percent annual interest.
We're OK with that? We shouldn't be. Libertarians tell us that's how markets work --
consenting adults making voluntary decisions about how to live their lives. OK. But it's also
disgusting. If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans,
whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street.
And by the way, if you really loved your fellow Americans, as our leaders should, if it
would break your heart to see them high all the time. Which they are. A huge number of our
kids, especially our boys, are smoking weed constantly. You may not realize that, because new
technology has made it odorless. But it's everywhere.
And that's not an accident. Once our leaders understood they could get rich from marijuana,
marijuana became ubiquitous. In many places, tax-hungry politicians have legalized or
decriminalized it. Former Speaker of the House John Boehner now lobbies for the marijuana
industry. His fellow Republicans seem fine with that. "Oh, but it's better for you than
alcohol," they tell us.
Maybe. Who cares? Talk about missing the point. Try having dinner with a 19-year-old who's
been smoking weed. The life is gone. Passive, flat, trapped in their own heads. Do you want
that for your kids? Of course not. Then why are our leaders pushing it on us? You know the
reason. Because they don't care about us.
When you care about people, you do your best to treat them fairly. Our leaders don't even
try. They hand out jobs and contracts and scholarships and slots at prestigious universities
based purely on how we look. There's nothing less fair than that, though our tax code comes
close.
Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate
as someone who's living off inherited money and doesn't work at all. We tax capital at half of
what we tax labor. It's a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do.
In 2010, for example, Mitt Romney made about $22 million dollars in investment income. He
paid an effective federal tax rate of 14 percent. For normal upper-middle-class wage earners,
the federal tax rate is nearly 40 percent. No wonder Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But
for everyone else, it's infuriating.
Our leaders rarely mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on
the principles of the free market. Please. It's based on laws that the Congress passed, laws
that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. It worked well for
those people. They did increase their economic advantage. But for everyone else, it came at a
big cost. Unfairness is profoundly divisive. When you favor one child over another, your kids
don't hate you. They hate each other.
That happens in countries, too. It's happening in ours, probably by design. Divided
countries are easier to rule. And nothing divides us like the perception that some people are
getting special treatment. In our country, some people definitely are getting special
treatment. Republicans should oppose that with everything they have.
What kind of country do you want to live in? A fair country. A decent country. A cohesive
country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own
profit and amusement. A country you might recognize when you're old.
A country that listens to young people who don't live in Brooklyn. A country where you can
make a solid living outside of the big cities. A country where Lewiston, Maine seems almost as
important as the west side of Los Angeles. A country where environmentalism means getting
outside and picking up the trash. A clean, orderly, stable country that respects itself. And
above all, a country where normal people with an average education who grew up in no place
special can get married, and have happy kids, and repeat unto the generations. A country that
actually cares about families, the building block of everything.
What will it take a get a country like that? Leaders who want it. For now, those leaders will
have to be Republicans. There's no option at this point.
But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a
religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool
to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do
not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys
families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.
Internalizing all this will not be easy for Republican leaders. They'll have to unlearn
decades of bumper sticker-talking points and corporate propaganda. They'll likely lose donors
in the process. They'll be criticized. Libertarians are sure to call any deviation from market
fundamentalism a form of socialism.
That's a lie. Socialism is a disaster. It doesn't work. It's what we should be working
desperately to avoid. But socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a
group of responsible people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that
protects normal people.
If you want to put America first, you've got to put its families first.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on January 2,
2019.
"... America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society." ..."
"... He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement." ..."
"... The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher wrote of Carlson's monologue, "A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president. ..."
"... The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke ..."
"... Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites -- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people." ..."
"... "What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?" ..."
"... Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald Trump, whose populist-lite presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it." ..."
"... Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative, thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment. ..."
"... Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax. ..."
"... "I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not." ..."
"... Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed." ..."
"... But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left. ..."
"... Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin. ..."
"... Hillbilly Elegy ..."
"... Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a function or raw nature." ..."
"All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God."
Last Wednesday, the conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson started a fire on the right after airing a prolonged
monologue on his show that was, in essence, an indictment of American capitalism.
America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking
marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families
is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society."
He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate
the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement."
The monologue was stunning in itself, an incredible moment in which a Fox News host stated that for generations, "Republicans
have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars." More
broadly, though, Carlson's position and the ensuing controversy reveals an ongoing and nearly unsolvable tension in conservative
politics about the meaning of populism, a political ideology that Trump campaigned on but Carlson argues he may not truly understand.
Moreover, in Carlson's words: "At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest of us will be gone too. The country will remain.
What kind of country will be it be then?"
The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher
wrote of Carlson's monologue,
"A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would
be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president." Other conservative commentators scoffed. Ben Shapiro wrote in
National Review that Carlson's monologue sounded far more like Sens. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren than, say, Ronald Reagan.
I spoke with Carlson by phone this week to discuss his monologue and its economic -- and cultural -- meaning. He agreed that his
monologue was reminiscent of Warren, referencing her 2003
bookThe Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke . "There were parts of the book that I disagree
with, of course," he told me. "But there are parts of it that are really important and true. And nobody wanted to have that conversation."
Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank
fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any
policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites
-- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people."
But whether or not he likes it, Carlson is an important voice in conservative politics. His show is among the
most-watched television programs in America. And his raising questions about market capitalism and the free market matters.
"What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put
these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?"
Populism on the right is gaining, again
Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald
Trump, whose populist-lite
presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless
you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it."
Populism is a rhetorical approach that separates "the people" from elites. In the
words of Cas
Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia, it divides the country into "two homogenous and antagonistic groups: the pure people
on the one end and the corrupt elite on the other." Populist rhetoric has a long history in American politics, serving as the focal
point of numerous presidential campaigns and powering William Jennings Bryan to the Democratic nomination for president in 1896.
Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative,
thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment.
When right-leaning pundit Ann Coulter
spoke with Breitbart Radio about Trump's Tuesday evening Oval Office address to the nation regarding border wall funding, she
said she wanted to hear him say something like, "You know, you say a lot of wild things on the campaign trail. I'm speaking to big
rallies. But I want to talk to America about a serious problem that is affecting the least among us, the working-class blue-collar
workers":
Coulter urged Trump to bring up overdose deaths from heroin in order to speak to the "working class" and to blame the fact
that working-class wages have stalled, if not fallen, in the last 20 years on immigration. She encouraged Trump to declare, "This
is a national emergency for the people who don't have lobbyists in Washington."
Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax.
These sentiments have even pitted popular Fox News hosts against each other.
Sean Hannity warned his audience that New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's economic policies would mean that "the rich people
won't be buying boats that they like recreationally, they're not going to be taking expensive vacations anymore." But Carlson agreed
when I said his monologue was somewhat reminiscent of Ocasio-Cortez's
past comments on the economy , and how even a strong economy was still leaving working-class Americans behind.
"I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home
an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not."
Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent
a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that
labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and
figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed."
"I think populism is potentially really disruptive. What I'm saying is that populism is a symptom of something being wrong," he
told me. "Again, populism is a smoke alarm; do not ignore it."
But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current
state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are
its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson
railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation
of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left.
Carlson's argument that "market capitalism is not a religion" is of course old hat on the left, but it's also been bubbling on
the right for years now. When National Review writer Kevin Williamson
wrote
a 2016 op-ed about how rural whites "failed themselves," he faced a massive backlash in the Trumpier quarters of the right. And
these sentiments are becoming increasingly potent at a time when Americans can see both a booming stock market and perhaps their
own family members struggling to get by.
Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense
of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin.
At the Federalist, writer Kirk Jing
wrote of Carlson's
monologue, and a
response
to it by National Review columnist David French:
Our society is less French's America, the idea, and more Frantz Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth" (involving a very different
French). The lowest are stripped of even social dignity and deemed
unworthy of life . In Real America, wages are stagnant, life expectancy is crashing, people are fleeing the workforce, families
are crumbling, and trust in the institutions on top are at all-time lows. To French, holding any leaders of those institutions
responsible for their errors is "victimhood populism" ... The Right must do better if it seeks to govern a real America that exists
outside of its fantasies.
J.D. Vance, author of
Hillbilly Elegy
, wrote that the [neoliberal] economy's victories -- and praise for those wins from conservatives -- were largely meaningless
to white working-class Americans living in Ohio and Kentucky: "Yes, they live in a country with a higher GDP than a generation ago,
and they're undoubtedly able to buy cheaper consumer goods, but to paraphrase Reagan: Are they better off than they were 20 years
ago? Many would say, unequivocally, 'no.'"
Carlson's populism holds, in his view, bipartisan possibilities. In a follow-up email, I asked him why his monologue was aimed
at Republicans when many Democrats had long espoused the same criticisms of free market economics. "Fair question," he responded.
"I hope it's not just Republicans. But any response to the country's systemic problems will have to give priority to the concerns
of American citizens over the concerns of everyone else, just as you'd protect your own kids before the neighbor's kids."
Who is "they"?
And that's the point where Carlson and a host of others on the right who have begun to challenge the conservative movement's orthodoxy
on free markets -- people ranging from occasionally mendacious bomb-throwers like Coulter to writers like
Michael Brendan Dougherty -- separate
themselves from many of those making those exact same arguments on the left.
When Carlson talks about the "normal people" he wants to save from nefarious elites, he is talking, usually, about a specific
group of "normal people" -- white working-class Americans who are the "real" victims of capitalism, or marijuana legalization, or
immigration policies.
In this telling, white working-class Americans who once relied on a manufacturing economy that doesn't look the way it did in
1955 are the unwilling pawns of elites. It's not their fault that, in Carlson's view, marriage is inaccessible to them, or that marijuana
legalization means more teens are smoking weed (
this probably isn't true ). Someone,
or something, did this to them. In Carlson's view, it's the responsibility of politicians: Our economic situation, and the plight
of the white working class, is "the product of a series of conscious decisions that the Congress made."
The criticism of Carlson's monologue has largely focused on how he deviates from the free market capitalism that conservatives
believe is the solution to poverty, not the creator of poverty. To orthodox conservatives, poverty is the result of poor decision
making or a
lack of virtue that can't be solved by government programs or an anti-elite political platform -- and they say Carlson's argument
that elites are in some way responsible for dwindling marriage rates
doesn't make sense .
But in French's response to Carlson, he goes deeper, writing that to embrace Carlson's brand of populism is to support "victimhood
populism," one that makes white working-class Americans into the victims of an undefined "they:
Carlson is advancing a form of victim-politics populism that takes a series of tectonic cultural changes -- civil rights, women's
rights, a technological revolution as significant as the industrial revolution, the mass-scale loss of religious faith, the sexual
revolution, etc. -- and turns the negative or challenging aspects of those changes into an angry tale of what they are
doing to you .
And that was my biggest question about Carlson's monologue, and the flurry of responses to it, and support for it: When other
groups (say, black Americans) have pointed to systemic inequities within the economic system that have resulted in poverty and family
dysfunction, the response from many on the right has been, shall we say,
less than
enthusiastic .
Really, it comes down to when black people have problems, it's personal responsibility, but when white people have the same
problems, the system is messed up. Funny how that works!!
Yet white working-class poverty receives, from Carlson and others, far more sympathy. And conservatives are far more likely to
identify with a criticism of "elites" when they believe those elites are responsible for the
expansion of trans
rights or creeping secularism
than the wealthy and powerful people who are investing in
private prisons or an expansion
of the
militarization of police . Carlson's network, Fox News, and Carlson himself have frequently blasted leftist critics of market
capitalism and efforts to
fight
inequality .
I asked Carlson about this, as his show is frequently centered on the turmoils caused by "
demographic change
." He said that for decades, "conservatives just wrote [black economic struggles] off as a culture of poverty," a line he
includes in his monologue .
He added that regarding black poverty, "it's pretty easy when you've got 12 percent of the population going through something
to feel like, 'Well, there must be ... there's something wrong with that culture.' Which is actually a tricky thing to say because
it's in part true, but what you're missing, what I missed, what I think a lot of people missed, was that the economic system you're
living under affects your culture."
Carlson said that growing up in Washington, DC, and spending time in rural Maine, he didn't realize until recently that the same
poverty and decay he observed in the Washington of the 1980s was also taking place in rural (and majority-white) Maine. "I was thinking,
'Wait a second ... maybe when the jobs go away the culture changes,'" he told me, "And the reason I didn't think of it before was
because I was so blinded by this libertarian economic propaganda that I couldn't get past my own assumptions about economics." (For
the record, libertarians have
critiqued Carlson's
monologue as well.)
Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an
economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a
function or raw nature."
And clearly, our market economy isn't driven by God or nature, as the stock market soars and unemployment dips and yet even those
on the right are noticing lengthy periods of wage stagnation and dying little towns across the country. But what to do about those
dying little towns, and which dying towns we care about and which we don't, and, most importantly, whose fault it is that those towns
are dying in the first place -- those are all questions Carlson leaves to the viewer to answer.
"... Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble, which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible without 2008 events. ..."
Barkley insists on a left-right split for his analysis of political parties and their attachment to vague policy tendencies
and that insistence makes a mess of the central issue: why the rise of right-wing populism in a "successful" economy?
Naomi Klein's book is about how and why centrist neoliberals got control of policy. The rise of right-wing populism is often
supposed (see Mark Blyth) to be about the dissatisfaction bred by the long-term shortcomings of or blowback from neoliberal policy.
Barkley Rosser treats neoliberal policy as implicitly successful and, therefore, the reaction from the populist right appears
mysterious, something to investigate. His thesis regarding neoliberal success in Poland is predicated on policy being less severe,
less "shocky".
In his left-right division of Polish politics, the centrist neoliberals -- in the 21st century, Civic Platform -- seem to disappear
into the background even though I think they are still the second largest Party in Parliament, though some seem to think they
will sink in elections this year.
Electoral participation is another factor that receives little attention in this analysis. Politics is shaped in part by the
people who do NOT show up. And, in Poland that has sometimes been a lot of people, indeed.
Finally, there's the matter of the neoliberal straitjacket -- the flip-side of the shock in the one-two punch of "there's no
alternative". What the policy options for a Party representing the interests of the angry and dissatisfied? If you make policy
impossible for a party of the left, of course that breeds parties of the right. duh.
Likbez,
Bruce,
Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming. I would consider the current situation in the USA as the starting point of this
"slow-motion collapse of the neoliberal garbage truck against the wall." Neoliberalism like Bolshevism in 1945 has no future,
only the past. That does not mean that it will not limp forward in zombie (and pretty bloodthirsty ) stage for another 50 years.
But it is doomed, notwithstanding recently staged revenge in countries like Ukraine, Argentina, and Brazil.
Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble,
which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible
without 2008 events.
At least half of Americans now hate soft neoliberals of Democratic Party (Clinton wing of Bought by Wall Street technocrats),
as well as hard neoliberal of Republican Party, which created the " crisis of confidence" toward governing neoliberal elite in
countries like the USA, GB, and France. And that probably why the intelligence agencies became the prominent political players
and staged the color revolution against Trump (aka Russiagate ) in the USA.
The situation with the support of neoliberalism now is very different than in 1994 when Bill Clinton came to power. Of course,
as Otto von Bismarck once quipped "God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America." and another
turn of the technological spiral might well save the USA. But the danger of never-ending secular stagnation is substantial and
growing. This fact was admitted even by such dyed- in-the-wool neoliberals as Summers.
This illusion that advances in statistics gave neoliberal access to such fine-grained and timely economic data, that now it
is possible to regulate economy indirectly, by strictly monetary means is pure religious hubris. Milton Friedman would now be
laughed out the room if he tried to repeat his monetarist junk science now. Actually he himself discarded his monetarist illusions
before he died.
We probably need to the return of strong direct investments in the economy by the state and nationalization of some assets,
if we want to survive and compete with China. Australian politicians are already openly discussing this, we still are lagging
because of "walking dead" neoliberals in Congress like Pelosi, Schumer, and company.
But we have another huge problem, which Australia and other countries (other than GB) do not have: neoliberalism in the USA
is the state religion which completely displaced Christianity (and is hostile to Christianity), so it might be that the lemming
will go off the cliff. I hope not.
The only thing that still keeps neoliberalism from being thrown out to the garbage bin of history is that it is unclear what
would the alternative. And that means that like in 1920th far-right nationalism and fascism have a fighting chance against decadent
neoliberal oligarchy.
Previously financial oligarchy was in many minds associated with Jewish bankers. Now people are more educated and probably
can hang from the lampposts Anglo-Saxon and bankers of other nationalities as well ;-)
I think that in some countries neoliberal oligarchs might soon feel very uncomfortable, much like Soros in Hungary.
As far as I understood the level of animosity and suppressed anger toward financial oligarchy and their stooges including some
professors in economics departments of the major universities might soon be approaching the level which existed in the Weimar
Republic. And as Lenin noted, " the ideas could become a material force if they got mass support." This is true about anger as
well.
"... Consolidation of mankind on the basis of the moral commandments of God is fully consistent with the Christian mission. This incarnation of globalization provides an opportunity for fraternal mutual assistance, free exchange of creative achievements and knowledge, respectful coexistence of different languages and cultures, the joint protection of nature - would be a reasonable and pious. ..."
"... If the essence of globalization is only to overcome the division between the people, the content of its economic processes had to be overcome inequalities, the prudent use of earthly riches, equitable international cooperation. ..."
"... In contrast to the immutability and universality of moral commandments, the economy cannot have a universal solution for all peoples and all times. A variety of people, God created in the world, reminds us that every nation has its task by the Creator, each valuable in the sight of the Lord, and everyone is able to contribute to the creation of our world. ..."
"... Although outwardly visible collapse of the world colonial system, the richest states of the world in pursuit of the ever-receding horizons of consumption continue to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. It is impossible to recognize to be just international division of labor in which some countries are suppliers of absolute values, especially human labor or raw materials irreversible, while others - suppliers of conditional values in the form of financial resources. ..."
"... Money payed for non-renewable natural resources are often taken in the literal sense "from the air", due to the work of the printing press - thanks to the monopoly position of issuers of world currency. As a result, the abyss in the socio-economic status between the nations and entire continents is becoming increasingly profound. This one-sided globalization, giving undue advantages to some of its participants at the expense of the others, entails a partial and, in some cases, virtually completes loss of sovereignty. ..."
"... If mankind needed freely traded currencies throughout the world to serve as a universal yardstick for economic calculations, the production of such units should be under fair international control, where all states of the world will proportionally participate. Possible benefits of such emissions could be channeled to the development of the poverty-stricken regions of the planet. ..."
"... National governments are increasingly losing their independence and becoming less dependent on the will of their own people, and more and more - the will of the transnational elite. Themselves, these elites are not constituted in the legal space, and is therefore not accountable to neither the people nor the national governments, becoming a shadow regulator of social and economic processes. Greed shadow rulers of the global economy leads to the fact that a thin layer of "elite" is getting richer and at the same time more and more relieved of the responsibility for the welfare of those whose labor created the wealth. ..."
"... Moral society should not increase the gap between rich and poor. Strong does not have the moral right to use their benefits at the expense of the weak, but on the contrary - are obliged to take care of those who are dispossessed. People who are employed should receive decent remuneration. ..."
"... Whole countries and nations are plunged into debt, and generations that are not yet born are doomed to pay the bills of their ancestors. ..."
"... Business expectations in lending, often ghostly becomes more profitable than the production of tangible goods. In this regard, it must be remembered about the moral ambiguity of the situation, when money is "make" new money without the application of human labor. Declaring credit sphere to be the main engine of the economy, its predominance over the real economic sector comes into conflict with the moral principles, reveled by God condemning usury. ..."
"... Attempts by indigenous people of the rich countries to stop the migration flow are futile, because come in conflict with greed of their own elites who are interested in the low-wage workforce. But even more inexorable factor driving migration was the spread of hedonic quasi -religion capturing not only elite, but also the broad masses of people in countries with high living standards. Renunciation of procreation for the most careless, smug and personal existence becomes signs of the times. The popularization of the ideology of child-free, the cult of childless and without family life for themselves lead to a reduction in the population in the most seemingly prosperous societies. ..."
"... We must not forget that the commandment to all the descendants of Adam and Eve, said: "Fill the earth and subdue it." Anyone who does not want to continue his race will inevitably have to give way to the ground for those who prefer having children over material well-being. ..."
"... Globalization has accelerated the consumer race disproportionate to earth resources granted to mankind. Volumes of consumption of goods in those countries, which are recognized worldwide for the samples and which are equal to billions of people, have long gone beyond the resource capabilities of these "model" countries. There is no doubt that, if the whole of humanity will absorb the natural wealth of the intensity of the countries that are leaders in terms of the consumption, there will be an environmental disaster on the planet. ..."
The Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate
has published a draft of the document "Economy in the context of globalization. Orthodox
ethical view. " This document demonstrates the key positions of the Russian Church on a number
of issues relating to the economy and international relations.
1. The Russian Orthodox Church demonstrates that it supports only the trends in modern
international processes that aim to build a multi-polar world, and the dialogue of
civilizations and cultures on the basis of traditional, non-liberal values:
Consolidation of mankind on the basis of the moral commandments of God is fully
consistent with the Christian mission. This incarnation of globalization provides an
opportunity for fraternal mutual assistance, free exchange of creative achievements and
knowledge, respectful coexistence of different languages and cultures, the joint protection of
nature - would be a reasonable and pious.
If the essence of globalization is only to overcome the division between the people, the
content of its economic processes had to be overcome inequalities, the prudent use of earthly
riches, equitable international cooperation.
2. At the same time a large part of the document critically examines the process of
globalization. Church officials say that globalization "remove barriers to the spread of sin
and vice." The Russian Church condemns Westernization and dissemination of the Western cult of
consumption, noting that "the Western way of development" is a road to nowhere, to hell, and
the abyss:
Catch-up model of modernization", having before people's eyes uncritically perceived
external sample, not only destroys the social structure and spiritual life of the "catch-up"
societies, but often does not allow to approach the idol in the material sphere, imposing
unacceptable and ruinous economic decisions.
In contrast to the immutability and universality of moral commandments, the economy
cannot have a universal solution for all peoples and all times. A variety of people, God
created in the world, reminds us that every nation has its task by the Creator, each valuable
in the sight of the Lord, and everyone is able to contribute to the creation of our
world.
3. The Church denounced neocolonialism and the exploitation of the Third World by Western
multinationals. The Russian Orthodox Church considers such a policy to be deeply unjust and
sinful. Control over the financial sector as the main weapon of the new colonialism is
specially marked:
Although outwardly visible collapse of the world colonial system, the richest states of
the world in pursuit of the ever-receding horizons of consumption continue to enrich themselves
at the expense of everyone else. It is impossible to recognize to be just international
division of labor in which some countries are suppliers of absolute values, especially human
labor or raw materials irreversible, while others - suppliers of conditional values in the form
of financial resources.
4. The Christian approach to the economy that the Russian Orthodox Church insists on is
primarily ontological. The only alternative to the global fictitious liberal economy can only
be a real Christian economy. The hegemony of global plutocracy, which is based on financial
capital and the dollar as the universal currency, can be countered only by a global policy of
sovereignty:
Money payed for non-renewable natural resources are often taken in the literal sense
"from the air", due to the work of the printing press - thanks to the monopoly position of
issuers of world currency. As a result, the abyss in the socio-economic status between the
nations and entire continents is becoming increasingly profound. This one-sided globalization,
giving undue advantages to some of its participants at the expense of the others, entails a
partial and, in some cases, virtually completes loss of sovereignty.
5. As one of the ways to solve this problem (dollar hegemony), the Church proposes to
establish international control over global currencies:
If mankind needed freely traded currencies throughout the world to serve as a universal
yardstick for economic calculations, the production of such units should be under fair
international control, where all states of the world will proportionally participate. Possible
benefits of such emissions could be channeled to the development of the poverty-stricken
regions of the planet.
6. However, the strengthening of international institutions, according to representatives of
the Russian Orthodox Church, should not lead to the strengthening of the transnational elite.
The unconditional support of state sovereignty against the transnational elite is a distinctive
feature of the position of the Orthodox Church. This differs the Orthodox from Catholics, who
are members of the globalist transnational centralized structure, in contrast to the Orthodox
Churches, which are united in faith, but not administratively.
National governments are increasingly losing their independence and becoming less
dependent on the will of their own people, and more and more - the will of the transnational
elite. Themselves, these elites are not constituted in the legal space, and is therefore not
accountable to neither the people nor the national governments, becoming a shadow regulator of
social and economic processes. Greed shadow rulers of the global economy leads to the fact that
a thin layer of "elite" is getting richer and at the same time more and more relieved of the
responsibility for the welfare of those whose labor created the wealth.
7. The gap between rich and poor, predatory morality of "free capitalism" in the version of
Hayek, and neoliberal thoughts, according to the representatives of the Russian Orthodox
Church, is incompatible with Christian teaching:
Moral society should not increase the gap between rich and poor. Strong does not have
the moral right to use their benefits at the expense of the weak, but on the contrary - are
obliged to take care of those who are dispossessed. People who are employed should receive
decent remuneration.
8. The Russian Church openly declares his attitude to usury as a sinful phenomenon, and
notes the destructiveness of the global debt economy:
Whole countries and nations are plunged into debt, and generations that are not yet born
are doomed to pay the bills of their ancestors.
Business expectations in lending, often ghostly becomes more profitable than the
production of tangible goods. In this regard, it must be remembered about the moral ambiguity
of the situation, when money is "make" new money without the application of human labor.
Declaring credit sphere to be the main engine of the economy, its predominance over the real
economic sector comes into conflict with the moral principles, reveled by God condemning
usury.
9. Such an important aspect of modern life like mass migration is not left unattended.
Unlike the Catholic approach that unduly favors migrants, particularly in Europe, the Orthodox
notices the negative nature of the process, as well as the fact that it leads to confrontation
of different identities and value systems. In addition, the Orthodox Church propose to look at
the roots of this phenomenon. The reason for the migration is the liberal, hedonistic ideology
bleeding the peoples of Europe and the interests of the capitalist elite, who need a cheap and
disenfranchised workforce:
Attempts by indigenous people of the rich countries to stop the migration flow are
futile, because come in conflict with greed of their own elites who are interested in the
low-wage workforce. But even more inexorable factor driving migration was the spread of hedonic
quasi -religion capturing not only elite, but also the broad masses of people in countries with
high living standards. Renunciation of procreation for the most careless, smug and personal
existence becomes signs of the times. The popularization of the ideology of child-free, the
cult of childless and without family life for themselves lead to a reduction in the population
in the most seemingly prosperous societies.
We must not forget that the commandment to all the descendants of Adam and Eve, said:
"Fill the earth and subdue it." Anyone who does not want to continue his race will inevitably
have to give way to the ground for those who prefer having children over material
well-being.
10. The Russian Church noted that the current level of consumption and the ideology of
infinite progress are incompatible with the limited resources of the planet:
Globalization has accelerated the consumer race disproportionate to earth resources
granted to mankind. Volumes of consumption of goods in those countries, which are recognized
worldwide for the samples and which are equal to billions of people, have long gone beyond the
resource capabilities of these "model" countries. There is no doubt that, if the whole of
humanity will absorb the natural wealth of the intensity of the countries that are leaders in
terms of the consumption, there will be an environmental disaster on the planet.
This document is very important because it shows that the Russian Orthodox Church not only
occupies a critical position in relation to the liberal globalization, but also offers a
Christian alternative to globalization processes. While Catholics and most Protestant
denominations have passionate humanist ideas, and in the best case, criticize globalization
from the left or left-liberal positions, the Russian Orthodox Church advocate sovereignty and
national identity. The most important aspect of the Orthodox critique of globalization is the
idea of multipolarity and the destructiveness of modern Western civilization's path.
It in known that the problem of human rights is thoroughly Orthodox: "The power and means for
promoting worldwide equality and brotherhood lie not in waging crusades but in freely accepting
the cross." He urges a radically personal solution, one that takes as its model the saint, the
martyr, and the ascetic. Here Anastasios draws on the traditional Orthodox understanding of
freedom, which is ordered and tempered by ascetical practice, self-control, and placing limits on
material desires. Churches are to become "laboratories of selfless love," places where the
Kingdom of God is manifest on earth. "Our most important right is our right to realize our
deepest nature and become 'children of God' through grace," he says.
Lest this approach be interpreted as a justification of passiveness and quietism, Anastasios
also urges Christians to exercise their ethical conscience in the world. "Christians must be
vigilant, striving to make the legal and political structure of their society ever more
comprehensive through constant reform and reassessment," he says.
"... What is neoliberalism? A programme for destroying collective structures which may impede the pure market logic. ..."
"... The movement toward the neoliberal utopia of a pure and perfect market is made possible by the politics of financial deregulation. And it is achieved through the transformative and, it must be said, destructive action of all of the political measures (of which the most recent is the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), designed to protect foreign corporations and their investments from national states) that aim to call into question any and all collective structures that could serve as an obstacle to the logic of the pure market: the nation, whose space to manoeuvre continually decreases; work groups, for example through the individualisation of salaries and of careers as a function of individual competences, with the consequent atomisation of workers; collectives for the defence of the rights of workers, unions, associations, cooperatives; even the family, which loses part of its control over consumption through the constitution of markets by age groups. ..."
"... The neoliberal programme draws its social power from the political and economic power of those whose interests it expresses: stockholders, financial operators, industrialists, conservative or social-democratic politicians who have been converted to the reassuring layoffs of laisser-faire, high-level financial officials eager to impose policies advocating their own extinction because, unlike the managers of firms, they run no risk of having eventually to pay the consequences. Neoliberalism tends on the whole to favour severing the economy from social realities and thereby constructing, in reality, an economic system conforming to its description in pure theory, that is a sort of logical machine that presents itself as a chain of constraints regulating economic agents. ..."
"... This structural violence also weighs on what is called the labour contract (wisely rationalised and rendered unreal by the "theory of contracts"). Organisational discourse has never talked as much of trust, co-operation, loyalty, and organisational culture as in an era when adherence to the organisation is obtained at each moment by eliminating all temporal guarantees of employment (three-quarters of hires are for fixed duration, the proportion of temporary employees keeps rising, employment "at will" and the right to fire an individual tend to be freed from any restriction). ..."
"... How could we not make a special place among these collectives, associations, unions, and parties for the state: the nation-state, or better yet the supranational state - a European state on the way toward a world state - capable of effectively controlling and taxing the profits earned in the financial markets and, above of all, of counteracting the destructive impact that the latter have on the labour market. This could be done with the aid of labour unions by organising the elaboration and defence of the public interest . Like it or not, the public interest will never emerge, even at the cost of a few mathematical errors, from the vision of accountants (in an earlier period one would have said of "shopkeepers") that the new belief system presents as the supreme form of human accomplishment. ..."
What is neoliberalism? A programme for destroying collective structures which may impede the pure market logic.
As the dominant discourse would have it, the economic world is a pure and perfect order, implacably unrolling the logic of its
predictable consequences, and prompt to repress all violations by the sanctions that it inflicts, either automatically or -- more
unusually -- through the intermediary of its armed extensions, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the policies they impose: reducing labour costs, reducing public expenditures and making work
more flexible. Is the dominant discourse right? What if, in reality, this economic order were no more than the implementation of
a utopia - the utopia of neoliberalism - thus converted into a political problem ? One that, with the aid of the economic
theory that it proclaims, succeeds in conceiving of itself as the scientific description of reality?
This tutelary theory is a pure mathematical fiction. From the start it has been founded on a formidable abstraction. For, in the
name of a narrow and strict conception of rationality as individual rationality, it brackets the economic and social conditions of
rational orientations and the economic and social structures that are the condition of their application.
To give the measure of this omission, it is enough to think just of the educational system. Education is never taken account of
as such at a time when it plays a determining role in the production of goods and services as in the production of the producers
themselves. From this sort of original sin, inscribed in the Walrasian myth (
1 ) of "pure theory", flow all of the deficiencies and
faults of the discipline of economics and the fatal obstinacy with which it attaches itself to the arbitrary opposition which it
induces, through its mere existence, between a properly economic logic, based on competition and efficiency, and social logic, which
is subject to the rule of fairness.
That said, this "theory" that is desocialised and dehistoricised at its roots has, today more than ever, the means of making
itself true and empirically verifiable. In effect, neoliberal discourse is not just one discourse among many. Rather, it is a
"strong discourse" - the way psychiatric discourse is in an asylum, in Erving Goffman's analysis (
2 ) . It is so strong and so hard to combat only because
it has on its side all of the forces of a world of relations of forces, a world that it contributes to making what it is. It does
this most notably by orienting the economic choices of those who dominate economic relationships. It thus adds its own symbolic force
to these relations of forces. In the name of this scientific programme, converted into a plan of political action, an immense
political project is underway, although its status as such is denied because it appears to be purely negative. This project aims
to create the conditions under which the "theory" can be realised and can function: a programme of the methodical destruction
of collectives .
The movement toward the neoliberal utopia of a pure and perfect market is made possible by the politics of financial deregulation.
And it is achieved through the transformative and, it must be said, destructive action of all of the political measures (of
which the most recent is the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), designed to protect foreign corporations and their investments
from national states) that aim to call into question any and all collective structures that could serve as an obstacle to
the logic of the pure market: the nation, whose space to manoeuvre continually decreases; work groups, for example through the individualisation
of salaries and of careers as a function of individual competences, with the consequent atomisation of workers; collectives for the
defence of the rights of workers, unions, associations, cooperatives; even the family, which loses part of its control over consumption
through the constitution of markets by age groups.
The neoliberal programme draws its social power from the political and economic power of those whose interests it expresses:
stockholders, financial operators, industrialists, conservative or social-democratic politicians who have been converted to the reassuring
layoffs of laisser-faire, high-level financial officials eager to impose policies advocating their own extinction because, unlike
the managers of firms, they run no risk of having eventually to pay the consequences. Neoliberalism tends on the whole to favour
severing the economy from social realities and thereby constructing, in reality, an economic system conforming to its description
in pure theory, that is a sort of logical machine that presents itself as a chain of constraints regulating economic agents.
The globalisation of financial markets, when joined with the progress of information technology, ensures an unprecedented mobility
of capital. It gives investors concerned with the short-term profitability of their investments the possibility of permanently comparing
the profitability of the largest corporations and, in consequence, penalising these firms' relative setbacks. Subjected to this permanent
threat, the corporations themselves have to adjust more and more rapidly to the exigencies of the markets, under penalty of "losing
the market's confidence", as they say, as well as the support of their stockholders. The latter, anxious to obtain short-term profits,
are more and more able to impose their will on managers, using financial directorates to establish the rules under which managers
operate and to shape their policies regarding hiring, employment, and wages.
Thus the absolute reign of flexibility is established, with employees being hiring on fixed-term contracts or on a temporary basis
and repeated corporate restructurings and, within the firm itself, competition among autonomous divisions as well as among teams
forced to perform multiple functions. Finally, this competition is extended to individuals themselves, through the individualisation
of the wage relationship: establishment of individual performance objectives, individual performance evaluations, permanent evaluation,
individual salary increases or granting of bonuses as a function of competence and of individual merit; individualised career paths;
strategies of "delegating responsibility" tending to ensure the self-exploitation of staff who, simple wage labourers in relations
of strong hierarchical dependence, are at the same time held responsible for their sales, their products, their branch, their store,
etc. as though they were independent contractors. This pressure toward "self-control" extends workers' "involvement" according to
the techniques of "participative management" considerably beyond management level. All of these are techniques of rational domination
that impose over-involvement in work (and not only among management) and work under emergency or high-stress conditions. And they
converge to weaken or abolish collective standards or solidarities (
3 ) .
In this way, a Darwinian world emerges - it is the struggle of all against all at all levels of the hierarchy, which finds support
through everyone clinging to their job and organisation under conditions of insecurity, suffering, and stress. Without a doubt, the
practical establishment of this world of struggle would not succeed so completely without the complicity of all of the precarious
arrangements that produce insecurity and of the existence of a reserve army of employees rendered docile by these social processes
that make their situations precarious, as well as by the permanent threat of unemployment. This reserve army exists at all levels
of the hierarchy, even at the higher levels, especially among managers. The ultimate foundation of this entire economic order placed
under the sign of freedom is in effect the structural violence of unemployment, of the insecurity of job tenure and the menace
of layoff that it implies. The condition of the "harmonious" functioning of the individualist micro-economic model is a mass phenomenon,
the existence of a reserve army of the unemployed.
This structural violence also weighs on what is called the labour contract (wisely rationalised and rendered unreal by the
"theory of contracts"). Organisational discourse has never talked as much of trust, co-operation, loyalty, and organisational culture
as in an era when adherence to the organisation is obtained at each moment by eliminating all temporal guarantees of employment (three-quarters
of hires are for fixed duration, the proportion of temporary employees keeps rising, employment "at will" and the right to fire an
individual tend to be freed from any restriction).
Thus we see how the neoliberal utopia tends to embody itself in the reality of a kind of infernal machine, whose necessity imposes
itself even upon the rulers. Like the Marxism of an earlier time, with which, in this regard, it has much in common, this utopia
evokes powerful belief - the free trade faith - not only among those who live off it, such as financiers, the owners and managers
of large corporations, etc., but also among those, such as high-level government officials and politicians, who derive their justification
for existing from it. For they sanctify the power of markets in the name of economic efficiency, which requires the elimination of
administrative or political barriers capable of inconveniencing the owners of capital in their individual quest for the maximisation
of individual profit, which has been turned into a model of rationality. They want independent central banks. And they preach the
subordination of nation-states to the requirements of economic freedom for the masters of the economy, with the suppression of any
regulation of any market, beginning with the labour market, the prohibition of deficits and inflation, the general privatisation
of public services, and the reduction of public and social expenses.
Economists may not necessarily share the economic and social interests of the true believers and may have a variety of individual
psychic states regarding the economic and social effects of the utopia which they cloak with mathematical reason. Nevertheless, they
have enough specific interests in the field of economic science to contribute decisively to the production and reproduction of belief
in the neoliberal utopia. Separated from the realities of the economic and social world by their existence and above all by their
intellectual formation, which is most frequently purely abstract, bookish, and theoretical, they are particularly inclined to confuse
the things of logic with the logic of things.
These economists trust models that they almost never have occasion to submit to the test of experimental verification and are
led to look down upon the results of the other historical sciences, in which they do not recognise the purity and crystalline transparency
of their mathematical games, whose true necessity and profound complexity they are often incapable of understanding. They participate
and collaborate in a formidable economic and social change. Even if some of its consequences horrify them (they can join the socialist
party and give learned counsel to its representatives in the power structure), it cannot displease them because, at the risk of a
few failures, imputable to what they sometimes call "speculative bubbles", it tends to give reality to the ultra-logical utopia (ultra-logical
like certain forms of insanity) to which they consecrate their lives.
And yet the world is there, with the immediately visible effects of the implementation of the great neoliberal utopia: not only
the poverty of an increasingly large segment of the most economically advanced societies, the extraordinary growth in income differences,
the progressive disappearance of autonomous universes of cultural production, such as film, publishing, etc. through the intrusive
imposition of commercial values, but also and above all two major trends. First is the destruction of all the collective institutions
capable of counteracting the effects of the infernal machine, primarily those of the state, repository of all of the universal values
associated with the idea of the public realm . Second is the imposition everywhere, in the upper spheres of the economy and
the state as at the heart of corporations, of that sort of moral Darwinism that, with the cult of the winner, schooled in higher
mathematics and bungee jumping, institutes the struggle of all against all and cynicism as the norm of all action and behaviour.
Can it be expected that the extraordinary mass of suffering produced by this sort of political-economic regime will one day serve
as the starting point of a movement capable of stopping the race to the abyss? Indeed, we are faced here with an extraordinary paradox.
The obstacles encountered on the way to realising the new order of the lone, but free individual are held today to be imputable to
rigidities and vestiges. All direct and conscious intervention of whatever kind, at least when it comes from the state, is discredited
in advance and thus condemned to efface itself for the benefit of a pure and anonymous mechanism, the market, whose nature as a site
where interests are exercised is forgotten. But in reality, what keeps the social order from dissolving into chaos, despite the growing
volume of the endangered population, is the continuity or survival of those very institutions and representatives of the old order
that is in the process of being dismantled, and all the work of all of the categories of social workers, as well as all the forms
of social solidarity, familial or otherwise.
The transition to "liberalism" takes place in an imperceptible manner, like continental drift, thus hiding its effects from view.
Its most terrible consequences are those of the long term. These effects themselves are concealed, paradoxically, by the resistance
to which this transition is currently giving rise among those who defend the old order by drawing on the resources it contained,
on old solidarities, on reserves of social capital that protect an entire portion of the present social order from falling into anomie.
This social capital is fated to wither away - although not in the short run - if it is not renewed and reproduced.
But these same forces of "conservation", which it is too easy to treat as conservative, are also, from another point of view,
forces of resistance to the establishment of the new order and can become subversive forces. If there is still cause for some
hope, it is that forces still exist, both in state institutions and in the orientations of social actors (notably individuals and
groups most attached to these institutions, those with a tradition of civil and public service) that, under the appearance of simply
defending an order that has disappeared and its corresponding "privileges" (which is what they will immediately be accused of), will
be able to resist the challenge only by working to invent and construct a new social order. One that will not have as its only law
the pursuit of egoistic interests and the individual passion for profit and that will make room for collectives oriented toward the
rational pursuit of ends collectively arrived at and collectively ratified .
How could we not make a special place among these collectives, associations, unions, and parties for the state: the nation-state,
or better yet the supranational state - a European state on the way toward a world state - capable of effectively controlling and
taxing the profits earned in the financial markets and, above of all, of counteracting the destructive impact that the latter have
on the labour market. This could be done with the aid of labour unions by organising the elaboration and defence of the public
interest . Like it or not, the public interest will never emerge, even at the cost of a few mathematical errors, from the vision
of accountants (in an earlier period one would have said of "shopkeepers") that the new belief system presents as the supreme form
of human accomplishment.
Pierre Bourdieu. Professor at the Collège de France Translated by Jeremy J. Shapiro
( 1 ) Auguste Walras (1800-66), French economist,
author of De la nature de la richesse et de l'origine de la valeur ("On the Nature of Wealth and on the Origin of Value")(1848).
He was one of the first to attempt to apply mathematics to economic inquiry.
( 2 ) Erving Goffman. 1961. Asylums: Essays on
the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates . New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
( 3 ) See the two journal issues devoted to "Nouvelles
formes de domination dans le travail" ("New forms of domination in work"), Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales , nos.
114, September 1996, and 115, December 1996, especially the introduction by Gabrielle Balazs and Michel Pialoux, "Crise du travail
et crise du politique" & Work crisis and political crisis, no. 114: p.3-4.
Craig Murray is right that "As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier."
Collapse of neoliberal ideology and rise of tentions in neoliberal sociarties resulted in unprecedented increase of covert and false
flag operations by British intelligence services, especially against Russia, which had been chosen as a convenient scapegoat.
With Steele dossier and Skripal affair as two most well known.
New Lady Macbeth (Theresa May) Russophobia is so extreme that her cabinet derailed the election of a Russian to head
Interpol.
Looks like neoliberalism cannot be defeated by and faction of the existing elite. Only when shepp oil end mant people will
have a chance. The US , GB and EU are part of the wider hegemonic neoliberal system. In fact rejection of neoliberal
globalization probably will lead to "national neoliberals" regime which would be a flavor of neo-fascism, no more no less.
Notable quotes:
"... The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. ..."
"... I learnt how highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane just happened to be on holiday in the United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign. ..."
"... It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely unbalanced panel of British military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia. ..."
"... the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it. ..."
"... By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building . It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London. ..."
"... Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence. ..."
"... I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills. ..."
"... I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information. ..."
"... one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day ..."
"... As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier. ..."
"... You can bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy". ..."
The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. Look up Eldred Pottinger, who for 180 years appears
in scores of British history books – right up to and including William Dalrymple's Return of the King – as a British officer who
chanced to be passing Herat on holiday when it came under siege from a partly Russian-officered Persian army, and helped to organise
the defences. In researching
Sikunder Burnes, I discovered and published from the British Library incontrovertible and detailed documentary evidence that
Pottinger's entire journey was under the direct instructions of, and reporting to, British spymaster Alexander Burnes. The first
historian to publish the untrue "holiday" cover story, Sir John Kaye, knew both Burnes and Pottinger and undoubtedly knew he was
publishing lying propaganda. Every other British historian of the First Afghan War (except me and latterly
Farrukh Husain) has just followed Kaye's official propaganda.
Some things don't change. I was irresistibly reminded of Eldred Pottinger just passing Herat on holiday, when I learnt how
highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane
just happened to be on holiday in the
United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Recent university graduate Simon Bracey-Lane took it even further. Originally from Wimbledon in London, he was inspired to
rejoin the Labour party in September when Corbyn was elected leader. But by that point, he was already in the US on holiday. So
he joined the Sanders campaign, and never left.
"I had two weeks left and some money left, so I thought, Fuck it, I'll make some calls for Bernie Sanders," he explains. "I just
sort of knew Des Moines was the place, so I just turned up at their HQ, started making phone calls, and then became a fully fledged
field organiser."
It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane
is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely
unbalanced panel of British
military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia.
Nor would it seem likely that Bracey-Lane would be involved with the Integrity Initiative. Even the mainstream media has been
forced to give a few paragraphs to the outrageous Integrity Initiative, under which the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft
has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against
Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of
influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus
exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and
others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it.
The mainstream media have
tracked down
the HQ of the "Institute for Statecraft" to a derelict mill near Auchtermuchty. It is owned by one of the company directors, Daniel
Lafayeedney, formerly of D Squadron 23rd SAS Regiment and later of Military Intelligence (and incidentally born the rather more prosaic
Daniel Edney).
By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location
of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of
the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building.
It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London.
Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing
for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence.
Having been told where the Institute for Statecraft skulk, I tipped off journalist Kit Klarenberg of Sputnik Radio to go and physically
check it out. Kit did so and was
aggressively
ejected by that well-known Corbyn and Sanders supporter, Simon Bracey-Lane. It does seem somewhat strange that our left wing
hero is deeply embedded in an organisation that
launches troll attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation
war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I
am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills.
I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the
Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter
for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information.
But one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the
British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that
we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity
Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media,
it would be the biggest story of the day.
As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier.
You can
bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy".
As both Scottish Independence and Jeremy Corbyn are viewed as
real threats by the British Establishment, you can anticipate every possible kind of dirty trick in the next couple of years, with
increasing frequency and audacity
It is very interesting and educational to read this pre-election article two years later and see where the author is
right and where he is wrong. The death of neoliberalism was greatly exaggerated. It simply mutated in the USA into "national
neoliberalism" under Trump. As no clear alternative exists it remain the dominant ideology and universities still
brainwash students with neoclassical economics. And in way catchy slogan "Make America great again" under Trump
means "Make American working and lower middle class great again"
It is also clear that Trump betrayed or was forced to betray most of his election promises. Standrd of living of common
americans did not improve under his watch. most of hi benefits of his tax cuts went to large corporations and financial
oligarch. He continued the policy of financial deregulation, which is tantamount of playing with open fire trying to
warm up the house
What we see under Trump is tremendous growth of political role of intelligence agencies which now are real kingmakers and can
sink any candidate which does not support their agenda. And USA intelligence agencies operated in 2016 in close cooperation
with the UK intelligence agencies to the extent that it is not clear who has the lead in creating Steele dossier. They are
definitely out of control of executive branch and play their own game. We also see a rise of CIA democrats as a desperate
attempt to preserve the power of Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ('soft neoliberals" turned under Hillary into into warmongers
and neocons) . Hillary and Bill themselves clearly belong to CIA democrats too, not only to Wall Street democrats, despite the fact
that they sold Democratic Party to Wall Street in the past. New Labor in UK did the same.
But if it is more or less clear now what happened in the USa in 2016-2018, it is completely unclear what will happen next.
I think in no way neoliberalism will start to be dismantled. there is no social forces powerful enough to start this job, We
probably need another financial crisi of the scale of 2008 for this work to be reluctantly started by ruling
elite. And we better not to have this repetition of 2008 as it will be really devastating for common people.
Notable quotes:
"... the causes of this political crisis, glaringly evident on both sides of the Atlantic, are much deeper than simply the financial crisis and the virtually stillborn recovery of the last decade. They go to the heart of the neoliberal project that dates from the late 70s and the political rise of Reagan and Thatcher, and embraced at its core the idea of a global free market in goods, services and capital. The depression-era system of bank regulation was dismantled, in the US in the 1990s and in Britain in 1986, thereby creating the conditions for the 2008 crisis. Equality was scorned, the idea of trickle-down economics lauded, government condemned as a fetter on the market and duly downsized, immigration encouraged, regulation cut to a minimum, taxes reduced and a blind eye turned to corporate evasion. ..."
"... It should be noted that, by historical standards, the neoliberal era has not had a particularly good track record. The most dynamic period of postwar western growth was that between the end of the war and the early 70s, the era of welfare capitalism and Keynesianism, when the growth rate was double that of the neoliberal period from 1980 to the present. ..."
"... In the period 1948-1972, every section of the American population experienced very similar and sizable increases in their standard of living; between 1972-2013, the bottom 10% experienced falling real income while the top 10% did far better than everyone else. In the US, the median real income for full-time male workers is now lower than it was four decades ago: the income of the bottom 90% of the population has stagnated for over 30 years . ..."
"... On average, between 65-70% of households in 25 high-income economies experienced stagnant or falling real incomes between 2005 and 2014. ..."
"... As Thomas Piketty has shown, in the absence of countervailing pressures, capitalism naturally gravitates towards increasing inequality. In the period between 1945 and the late 70s, Cold War competition was arguably the biggest such constraint. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been none. As the popular backlash grows increasingly irresistible, however, such a winner-takes-all regime becomes politically unsustainable. ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... "'Populism' is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens that they don't like." Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually both. ..."
"... According to a Gallup poll, in 2000 only 33% of Americans called themselves working class; by 2015 the figure was 48%, almost half the population. ..."
"... The re-emergence of the working class as a political voice in Britain, most notably in the Brexit vote, can best be described as an inchoate expression of resentment and protest, with only a very weak sense of belonging to the labour movement. ..."
"... Economists such as Larry Summers believe that the prospect for the future is most likely one of secular stagnation . ..."
"... those who have lost out in the neoliberal era are no longer prepared to acquiesce in their fate – they are increasingly in open revolt. We are witnessing the end of the neoliberal era. It is not dead, but it is in its early death throes, just as the social-democratic era was during the 1970s. ..."
In the early 1980s the author was one of the first to herald the emerging dominance of neoliberalism in the west. Here he argues
that this doctrine is now faltering. But what happens next?
The western financial crisis of 2007-8 was the worst since 1931, yet its immediate repercussions were surprisingly modest. The
crisis challenged the foundation stones of the long-dominant neoliberal ideology but it seemed to emerge largely unscathed. The banks
were bailed out; hardly any bankers on either side of the Atlantic were prosecuted for their crimes; and the price of their behaviour
was duly paid by the taxpayer. Subsequent economic policy, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world, has relied overwhelmingly on monetary
policy, especially quantitative easing. It has failed. The western economy has stagnated and is now approaching its lost decade,
with no end in sight.
After almost nine years, we are finally beginning to reap the political whirlwind of the financial crisis. But how did neoliberalism
manage to survive virtually unscathed for so long? Although it failed the test of the real world, bequeathing the worst economic
disaster for seven decades, politically and intellectually it remained the only show in town. Parties of the right, centre and left
had all bought into its philosophy, New Labour a classic
in point. They knew no other way of thinking or doing: it had become the common sense. It was, as Antonio Gramsci put it, hegemonic.
But that hegemony cannot and will not survive the test of the real world.
The first inkling of the wider political consequences was evident in the turn in public opinion against the banks, bankers and
business leaders. For decades, they could do no wrong: they were feted as the role models of our age, the default troubleshooters
of choice in education, health and seemingly everything else. Now, though, their star was in steep descent, along with that of the
political class. The effect of the financial crisis was to undermine faith and trust in the competence of the governing elites. It
marked the beginnings of a wider political crisis.
But the causes of this political crisis, glaringly evident on both sides of the Atlantic, are much deeper than simply the financial
crisis and the virtually stillborn recovery of the last decade. They go to the heart of the neoliberal project that dates from the
late 70s and the political rise of Reagan and Thatcher, and embraced at its core the idea of a global free market in goods, services
and capital. The depression-era system of bank regulation was dismantled, in the US in the 1990s and in Britain in 1986, thereby
creating the conditions for the 2008 crisis. Equality was scorned, the idea of trickle-down economics lauded, government condemned
as a fetter on the market and duly downsized, immigration encouraged, regulation cut to a minimum, taxes reduced and a blind eye
turned to corporate evasion.
It should be noted that, by historical standards, the neoliberal era has not had a particularly good track record. The most dynamic
period of postwar western growth was that between the end of the war and the early 70s, the era of welfare capitalism and Keynesianism,
when the growth rate was double that of the neoliberal period from 1980 to the present.
But by far the most disastrous feature of the neoliberal period has been the huge growth in inequality. Until very recently, this
had been virtually ignored. With extraordinary speed, however, it has emerged as one of, if not the most important political issue
on both sides of the Atlantic, most dramatically in the US. It is, bar none, the issue that is driving the political discontent that
is now engulfing the west. Given the statistical evidence, it is puzzling, shocking even, that it has been disregarded for so long;
the explanation can only lie in the sheer extent of the hegemony of neoliberalism and its values.
But now reality has upset the doctrinal apple cart. In the period 1948-1972, every section of the American population experienced
very similar and sizable increases in their standard of living; between 1972-2013, the bottom 10% experienced falling real income
while the top 10% did far better than everyone else. In the US, the median real income for full-time male workers is now lower than
it was four decades ago: the income of the bottom 90% of the population has
stagnated for over 30 years .
A not so dissimilar picture is true of the UK. And the problem has grown more serious since the financial crisis. On average,
between 65-70% of households in 25 high-income economies experienced stagnant or falling real
incomes between 2005 and 2014.
Large sections of the population in both the US and the UK are now in revolt against their lot
The reasons are not difficult to explain. The hyper-globalisation era has been systematically stacked in favour of capital against
labour: international trading agreements, drawn up in great secrecy, with business on the inside and the unions and citizens excluded,
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the
Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) being but the latest examples; the politico-legal attack on the unions;
the encouragement of large-scale immigration in both the US and Europe that helped to undermine
the bargaining power of the domestic workforce; and the failure to retrain displaced workers in any meaningful way.
As Thomas Piketty has shown, in the absence of
countervailing pressures, capitalism naturally gravitates towards increasing inequality. In the period between 1945 and the late
70s, Cold War competition was arguably the biggest such constraint. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been none.
As the popular backlash grows increasingly irresistible, however, such a winner-takes-all regime becomes politically unsustainable.
Large sections of the population in both the US and the UK are now in revolt against their lot, as graphically illustrated by
the support for Trump and Sanders in the US and the Brexit vote in the UK. This popular revolt is often described, in a somewhat
denigratory and dismissive fashion, as populism. Or, as Francis Fukuyama writes in a recent excellent
essay
in Foreign Affairs : "'Populism' is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens
that they don't like." Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is
generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually both.
Brexit is a classic example of such populism. It has overturned a fundamental cornerstone of UK policy since the early 1970s.
Though ostensibly about Europe, it was in fact about much more: a cri de coeur from those who feel they have lost out and been left
behind, whose living standards have stagnated or worse since the 1980s, who feel dislocated by large-scale immigration over which
they have no control and who face an increasingly insecure and casualised labour market. Their revolt has paralysed the governing
elite, already claimed one prime minister, and left the latest one fumbling around in the dark looking for divine inspiration.
The wave of populism marks the return of class as a central agency in politics, both in the UK and the US. This is particularly
remarkable in the US. For many decades, the idea of the "working class" was marginal to American political discourse. Most Americans
described themselves as middle class, a reflection of the aspirational pulse at the heart of American society. According to a Gallup
poll, in 2000 only 33% of Americans called themselves working class; by 2015 the figure was 48%, almost half the population.
Brexit, too, was primarily a working-class revolt. Hitherto, on both sides of the Atlantic, the agency of class has been in retreat
in the face of the emergence of a new range of identities and issues from gender and race to sexual orientation and the environment.
The return of class, because of its sheer reach, has the potential, like no other issue, to redefine the political landscape.
The working class belongs to no one: its orientation, far from predetermined, is a function of politics
The re-emergence of class should not be confused with the labor movement. They are not synonymous: this is obvious in the US
and increasingly the case in the UK. Indeed, over the last half-century, there has been a growing separation between the two in Britain.
The re-emergence of the working class as a political voice in Britain, most notably in the Brexit vote, can best be described as
an inchoate expression of resentment and protest, with only a very weak sense of belonging to the labour movement.
Indeed, Ukip has been as important – in the form of immigration and Europe – in shaping its current attitudes as the Labour party.
In the United States, both Trump and Sanders have given expression to the working-class revolt, the latter almost as much as the
former. The working class belongs to no one: its orientation, far from predetermined, as the left liked to think, is a function of
politics.
The neoliberal era is being undermined from two directions. First, if its record of economic growth has never been particularly
strong, it is now dismal. Europe is barely larger than it was on the eve of the financial crisis in 2007; the United States has done
better but even its growth has been anaemic. Economists such as Larry Summers believe that the prospect for the future is most likely
one of secular stagnation .
Worse, because the recovery has been so weak and fragile, there is a widespread belief that another financial crisis may well
beckon. In other words, the neoliberal era has delivered the west back into the kind of crisis-ridden world that we last experienced
in the 1930s. With this background, it is hardly surprising that a majority in the west now believe their children will be worse
off than they were. Second, those who have lost out in the neoliberal era are no longer prepared to acquiesce in their fate – they
are increasingly in open revolt. We are witnessing the end of the neoliberal era. It is not dead, but it is in its early death throes,
just as the social-democratic era was during the 1970s.
A sure sign of the declining influence of neoliberalism is the rising chorus of intellectual voices raised against it. From the
mid-70s through the 80s, the economic debate was increasingly dominated by monetarists and free marketeers. But since the western
financial crisis, the centre of gravity of the intellectual debate has shifted profoundly. This is most obvious in the United States,
with economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Dani Rodrik and Jeffrey Sachs becoming increasingly influential. Thomas Piketty's
Capital in the Twenty-First Century has been a massive seller. His work and that of
Tony Atkinson
and Angus Deaton have pushed the question of the inequality to the top of the political agenda. In the UK,
Ha-Joon Chang , for long isolated within the economics
profession, has gained a following far greater than those who think economics is a branch of mathematics.
Meanwhile, some of those who were previously strong advocates of a neoliberal approach, such as Larry Summers and the Financial
Times 's Martin Wolf, have become extremely critical. The wind is in the sails of the critics of neoliberalism; the neoliberals
and monetarists are in retreat. In the UK, the media and political worlds are well behind the curve. Few recognize that we are at
the end of an era. Old attitudes and assumptions still predominate, whether on the BBC's Today programme, in the rightwing
press or the parliamentary Labor party.
Following Ed Miliband's resignation as Labour leader, virtually no one foresaw the triumph of
Jeremy Corbyn in the subsequent leadership election.
The assumption had been more of the same, a Blairite or a halfway house like Miliband, certainly not anyone like Corbyn. But the
zeitgeist had changed. The membership, especially the young who had joined the party on an unprecedented scale, wanted a complete
break with New Labour. One of the reasons why the left has failed to emerge as the leader of the new mood of working-class disillusionment
is that most social democratic parties became, in varying degrees, disciples of neoliberalism and uber-globalisation. The most extreme
forms of this phenomenon were New Labour and the Democrats, who in the late 90s and 00s became its advance guard, personified by
Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, triangulation and the third way.
But as David Marquand observed in a review for the New Statesman , what is the point of a social democratic party if
it doesn't represent the less fortunate, the underprivileged and the losers? New Labour deserted those who needed them, who historically
they were supposed to represent. Is it surprising that large sections have now deserted the party who deserted them? Blair, in his
reincarnation as a money-obsessed consultant to a shady bunch of presidents and dictators, is a fitting testament to the demise of
New Labour.
The rival contenders – Burnham, Cooper and Kendall – represented continuity. They were swept away by Corbyn, who won nearly 60%
of the votes. New Labour was over, as dead as Monty Python's parrot. Few grasped the meaning of what had happened. A Guardian
leader welcomed the surge in membership and then, lo and behold, urged support for Yvette Cooper, the very antithesis of the
reason for the enthusiasm. The PLP refused to accept the result and ever since has tried with might and main to remove Corbyn.
Just as the Labour party took far too long to come to terms with the rise of Thatcherism and the birth of a new era at the end
of the 70s, now it could not grasp that the Thatcherite paradigm, which they eventually came to embrace in the form of New Labour,
had finally run its course. Labour, like everyone else, is obliged to think anew. The membership in their antipathy to New Labour
turned to someone who had never accepted the latter, who was the polar opposite in almost every respect of Blair, and embodying an
authenticity and decency which Blair patently did not.
Labour may be in intensive care, but the condition of the Conservatives is not a great deal better
Corbyn is not a product of the new times, he is a throwback to the late 70s and early 80s. That is both his strength and also
his weakness. He is uncontaminated by the New Labour legacy because he has never accepted it. But nor, it would seem, does he understand
the nature of the new era. The danger is that he is possessed of feet of clay in what is a highly fluid and unpredictable political
environment, devoid of any certainties of almost any kind, in which Labour finds itself dangerously divided and weakened.
Labour may be in intensive care, but the condition of the Conservatives is not a great deal better. David Cameron was guilty of
a huge and irresponsible miscalculation over Brexit. He was forced to resign in the most ignominious of circumstances. The party
is hopelessly divided. It has no idea in which direction to move after Brexit. The Brexiters painted an optimistic picture of turning
away from the declining European market and embracing the expanding markets of the world, albeit barely mentioning by name which
countries it had in mind. It looks as if the new prime minister may have an anachronistic hostility towards China and a willingness
to undo the good work of George Osborne. If the government turns its back on China, by far the fastest growing market in the world,
where are they going to turn?
Brexit has left the country fragmented and deeply divided, with the very real prospect that Scotland might choose independence.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives seem to have little understanding that the neoliberal era is in its death throes.
Dramatic as events have been in the UK, they cannot compare with those in the United States. Almost from nowhere,
Donald Trump rose to capture the Republican nomination
and confound virtually all the pundits and not least his own party. His message was straightforwardly anti-globalisation. He believes
that the interests of the working class have been sacrificed in favour of the big corporations that have been encouraged to invest
around the world and thereby deprive American workers of their jobs. Further, he argues that large-scale immigration has weakened
the bargaining power of American workers and served to lower their wages.
He proposes that US corporations should be required to invest their cash reserves in the US. He believes that the North American
Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) has had the effect of exporting American jobs to Mexico. On similar grounds, he is opposed to the TPP
and the TTIP. And he also accuses China of stealing American jobs, threatening to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese imports.
To globalisation Trump counterposes economic nationalism: "Put America first". His appeal, above all, is to the white working
class who, until Trump's (and Bernie Sander's) arrival on the political scene, had been ignored and largely unrepresented since the
1980s. Given that their wages have been falling for most of the last 40 years, it is extraordinary how their interests have been
neglected by the political class. Increasingly, they have voted Republican, but the Republicans have long been captured by the super-rich
and Wall Street, whose interests, as hyper-globalisers, have run directly counter to those of the white working class. With the arrival
of Trump they finally found a representative: they won Trump the Republican nomination.
Trump believes that America's pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation's resources
The economic nationalist argument has also been vigorously pursued by
Bernie Sanders , who ran Hillary Clinton extremely
close for the Democratic nomination and would probably have won but for more than 700 so-called super-delegates, who were effectively
chosen by the Democratic machine and overwhelmingly supported Clinton. As in the case of the Republicans, the Democrats have long
supported a neoliberal, pro-globalisation strategy, notwithstanding the concerns of its trade union base. Both the Republicans and
the Democrats now find themselves deeply polarised between the pro- and anti-globalisers, an entirely new development not witnessed
since the shift towards neoliberalism under Reagan almost 40 years ago.
Another plank of Trump's nationalist appeal – "Make America great again" – is his position on foreign policy. He believes that
America's pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation's resources. He argues that the country's alliance system is unfair,
with America bearing most of the cost and its allies contributing far too little. He points to Japan and South Korea, and NATO's
European members as prime examples. He seeks to rebalance these relationships and, failing that, to exit from them.
As a country in decline, he argues that America can no longer afford to carry this kind of financial burden. Rather than putting
the world to rights, he believes the money should be invested at home, pointing to the dilapidated state of America's infrastructure.
Trump's position
represents a major critique of America as the world's hegemon. His arguments mark a radical break with the neoliberal, hyper-globalisation
ideology that has reigned since the early 1980s and with the foreign policy orthodoxy of most of the postwar period. These arguments
must be taken seriously. They should not be lightly dismissed just because of their authorship. But Trump is no man of the left.
He is a populist of the right. He has launched a racist and xenophobic attack on Muslims and on Mexicans. Trump's appeal is to a
white working class that feels it has been cheated by the big corporations, undermined by Hispanic immigration, and often resentful
towards African-Americans who for long too many have viewed as their inferior.
A Trump America would mark a descent into authoritarianism characterised by abuse, scapegoating, discrimination, racism, arbitrariness
and violence; America would become a deeply polarised and divided society. His threat to impose
45%
tariffs on China , if implemented, would certainly provoke retaliation by the Chinese and herald the beginnings of a new era
of protectionism.
Trump may well lose the presidential election just as Sanders failed in his bid for the Democrat nomination. But this does not
mean that the forces opposed to hyper-globalisation – unrestricted immigration, TPP and TTIP, the free movement of capital and much
else – will have lost the argument and are set to decline. In little more than 12 months, Trump and Sanders have transformed the
nature and terms of the argument. Far from being on the wane, the arguments of the critics of hyper-globalisation are steadily gaining
ground. Roughly two-thirds of Americans agree that "we should not think so much in international terms but concentrate more on our
own national problems". And, above all else, what will continue to drive opposition to the hyper-globalisers is inequality.
No-deal Brexit: Disruption at Dover 'could
last six months' BBC. I have trouble understanding why six months. The UK's customs IT
system won't be ready and there's no reason to think it will be ready even then. I could
see things getting less bad due to adaptations but "less bad" is not normal
The
Great Brexit Breakdown Wall Street Journal. Some parts I quibble with, but generally
good and includes useful historical detail.
"... I don't like using the term "neo-liberalism" that much because there is nothing "new" or "liberal" about it, the term itself just helps hide the fact that it's a political project more about power than profit and the end result is more like modern feudalism - an authoritarian system where the lords (bankers, energy companies and their large and inefficient attendant bureaucracies), keep us peasants in thrall through life long debt-slavery simply to buy a house or exploit us as a captured market in the case of the energy sector. ..."
"... Since the word "privatisation" is clearly no longer popular, the latest buzzword from this project is "outsourcing". ..."
"... As far as I can see "neo-liberalism", or what I prefer to call managerial and financialised feudalism is not dead, it's still out and about looking around for the next rent-seeking opportunity. ..."
"... In the political arena, is enabling porkies facilitate each other in every lunatic pronouncement about "Budget repair" and "on track for a surplus". And its spotty, textbook-spouting clones ("all debt is debt! Shriek, gasp, hyperventilate!") fall off the conveyor belts of tertiary education Australia-wide, then turn up on The Drum as IPA 'Research Fellows' to spout their evidence-free assertions. ..."
"... And don't forget the handmaiden of neoliberalism is their macroeconomic mythology about government "debt and borrowing" which will condemn our grandchildren to poverty - inter-generational theft! It also allows them to continue dismantling government social programs by giving tax-cuts to reduce "revenue" and then claiming there is no money to fund those programs. ..."
"... "Competition" as the cornerstone of neoliberal economics was always a lie. Corporations do their best to get rid of competitors by unfair pricing tactics or by takeovers. And even where some competitors hang in there by some means (banks, petrol companies) the competition that occurs is not for price but for profit. ..."
"... We find a shift away from democratic processes and the rise of the "all new adulation of the so-called tough leader" factor, aka Nazism/Fascism. From Trump to Turkey, Netanyahu to Putin, Brazil to China, the rise of the "right" in Europe, the South Americas, where the leader is "our great and "good" Teacher", knows best, and thus infantalises the knowledge and awareness of the rest of the population. Who needs scientists, when the "leader" knows everything? ..."
"... There are indeed alternatives to neoliberalism, most of which have been shown to lead back to neoliberalism. Appeals for fiscal and monetary relief/stimulus can only ever paper over the worst aspects of it's relentless 'progress', between wars, it seems. ..."
"... Neoliberalism seems vastly, catastrophically misunderstood. Widely perceived as the latest abomination to spring from the eternal battle 'twixt Labour and Capital, it's actual origins are somewhat more recent. Neoliberalism really, really is not just "Capitalism gone wrong". It goes much deeper, to a fundamental flaw buried( more accurately 'planted') deep in the heart of economics. ..."
"... In 1879 an obscure journalist from then-remote San Francisco, Henry George, took the world by storm with his extraordinary bestseller Progress and Poverty . Still the only published work to outsell the Bible in a single year, it did so for over twenty years, yet few social justice advocates have heard of it. ..."
"... George gravely threatened privileged global power-elites , so they erased him from academic history. A mind compared, in his time with Plato, Copernicus and Adam Smith wiped from living memory, by the modern aristocracy. ..."
"... In the process of doing so, they emasculated the discipline of economics, stripped dignity from labour, and set in motion a world-destroying doctrine. Neo-Classical Economics(aka neoliberalism) was born , to the detriment of the working-citizen and the living world on which s/he depends. ..."
I don't like using the term "neo-liberalism" that much because there is nothing "new" or
"liberal" about it, the term itself just helps hide the fact that it's a political project
more about power than profit and the end result is more like modern feudalism - an
authoritarian system where the lords (bankers, energy companies and their large and
inefficient attendant bureaucracies), keep us peasants in thrall through life long
debt-slavery simply to buy a house or exploit us as a captured market in the case of the
energy sector.
Since the word "privatisation" is clearly no longer popular, the latest buzzword from this
project is "outsourcing". If you've had a look at The Canberra Times over the last couple of
weeks there have been quite a few articles about outsourcing parts of Medicare and Centrelink, using labour hire companies and so on – is this part of a current LNP plan
to "sell off" parts of the government before Labour takes the reins in May?
As far as I can see "neo-liberalism", or what I prefer to call managerial and
financialised feudalism is not dead, it's still out and about looking around for the next
rent-seeking opportunity.
Neoliberalism "dead"?
I think not.
It is riveted on the country like a straitjacket.
Which is exactly what it was always intended to be, a system gamed and rigged to ensure the
wage-earning scum obtain progressively less and less of the country's productive wealth,
however much they contributed to it.
The wage theft and exploitation Neoliberalism fosters has become the new norm.
Neoliberal idealogues thickly infest Federal and State Treasuries.
In the political arena, is enabling porkies facilitate each other in every lunatic
pronouncement about "Budget repair" and "on track for a surplus".
And its spotty, textbook-spouting clones ("all debt is debt! Shriek, gasp, hyperventilate!")
fall off the conveyor belts of tertiary education Australia-wide, then turn up on The Drum as
IPA 'Research Fellows' to spout their evidence-free assertions.
The IPA itself has moles in govt at every level--even in your local Council.
Certainly in ours.
Neoliberalism is "dead"?
Correction.
Neoliberalism is alive, thriving---and quick to ensure its glaring deficiencies and
inequities are solely attributable to its opponents. Now THERE'S a surprise.....
Agree! And don't forget the handmaiden of neoliberalism is their macroeconomic mythology
about government "debt and borrowing" which will condemn our grandchildren to poverty -
inter-generational theft! It also allows them to continue dismantling government social programs by giving tax-cuts
to reduce "revenue" and then claiming there is no money to fund those programs.
Neoliberalism will not be dead until the underpinning of neoliberalism is abandoned by ALP
and Greens. That underpinning is their mindless attachment to "budget repair" and "return to
surplus". The federal government's "budget" is nothing like a currency user's budget.
Currency users collect in order to spend whereas every dollar spent by the federal government
is a new dollar and every dollar taxed by the federal government is an ex-dollar. A currency
cannot sensibly have "debt" in the currency that it issues and no amount of surplus or
deficit now will enhance or impair its capacity to spend in future. A currency issuer does
not need an electronic piggybank, or a Future Fund, or a Drought Relief Fund. It can't max
out an imaginary credit card. It's "borrowing" is just an exchange of its termless no-coupon
liabilities (currency) for term-limited coupon-bearing liabilities (bonds). The federal
budget balance is no rational indicator of any need for austerity or for stimulus. The
rational indicators are unemployment (too small a "deficit"/too large a surplus) and
inflation (too large a "deficit"/too small a "surplus"). Federal taxation is where dollars go
to die. It doesn't "fund" a currency issuer's spending - it is there to stop the dollars it
issues from piling up and causing inflation and to make room for spending by democratically
elected federal parliament. The name of the game is to balance the economy, not the entirely
notional and fundamentally irrelevant "budget".
"Competition" as the cornerstone of neoliberal economics was always a lie. Corporations do
their best to get rid of competitors by unfair pricing tactics or by takeovers. And even
where some competitors hang in there by some means (banks, petrol companies) the competition
that occurs is not for price but for profit.
And changing the electoral system? Yes indeed. After years of observation it seems to me
that the problem with our politics is not individual politicians (although there are notable
exceptions) but political parties. Rigid control of policies and voting on party instruction
(even by the Greens) makes the proceedings of parliament a complete waste of time. If every
policy had to run the gauntlet of 150 people all voting by their conscience we would have
better policy. The executive functions could be carried out by a cabinet also elected from
those members. But not going to happen - too many vested interests in the parties and their
corporate sponsors.
With the election of Bolsonaro in Brazil (even though nearly 30% of electors refused to vote)
it may be a little presumptuous to dissect the dead corpse of neoliberalism, as Richard
Denniss' hopes that we can.
What is absolutely gob-smacking is that Brazilians voted for him; a man that Glenn Greenwald
describes as "far more dangerous than Trump" , that Bolsonaro envisages military
dictatorships as "being a far more superior form of government" advocating a civil war
in order to dispose of the left.
Furthermore, the election of this far-right neoliberal extremist also threatens the Amazon
forest and its indigenous people; with a global impact that will render combatting climate
change even more difficult.
Locally, recent Liberal Party battles over leadership have included the neolib factor, as the
lunatic right in that party - who I suspect would all love to be a Bolsonaro themselves -
aggressively activate their grumblings and dissension.
Oh, Richard how I wish you were right; but in the Victorian election campaign - currently
underway - I have seen Socialist candidates behaving in a manner that doesn't garner hope in
a different way of doing politics.
The fact that 'our' democracy is based on an adversarial, partisan system leaves me with
little hope.
Alain Badiou wrote that "ours is not a world of democracy but a world of imperial
conservatism using democratic phraseology" ; and until that imposition is discarded 'our'
democracy will remain whatever we are told it is, and neolibs will continue to shove their
bullshit down our throats as much as they can.
We find a shift away from democratic processes and the rise of the "all new
adulation of the so-called tough leader" factor, aka Nazism/Fascism. From Trump to
Turkey, Netanyahu to Putin, Brazil to China, the rise of the "right" in Europe, the South
Americas, where the leader is "our great and "good" Teacher", knows best, and thus
infantalises the knowledge and awareness of the rest of the population. Who needs scientists,
when the "leader" knows everything?
Have the people of the world abrogated their democratic responsibility?
Or is it the gerrymandering chicanery of US Republican backers/politicians( so long as you
control the voting machines ) that have sent the ugly message to the world, Power is yours
for the making and taking by any means that ignores the public's rights in the decision
making process. Has the "neo-liberal" world delivered a corrupted system of democracy that
has deliberately alienated the world's population from actively participating fully in the
full awareness that their vote counts and will be counted?
Do we need to take back the controls of democracy to ensure that it is the will of the
people and not a manipulation by vested interest groups/individuals? You're darn
tootin'!!!
A thoughtful piece. Thanks. There are indeed alternatives to neoliberalism, most of which
have been shown to lead back to neoliberalism. Appeals for fiscal and monetary
relief/stimulus can only ever paper over the worst aspects of it's relentless 'progress',
between wars, it seems.
Neoliberalism seems vastly, catastrophically misunderstood. Widely perceived as the
latest abomination to spring from the eternal battle 'twixt Labour and Capital, it's actual
origins are somewhat more recent. Neoliberalism really, really is not just "Capitalism gone
wrong". It goes much deeper, to a fundamental flaw buried( more accurately 'planted')
deep in the heart of economics.
Instead of trying to understand Neo-Classical Economics it is perhaps more instructive to
understand what it was built, layer by layer, to obscure. First the Land system, then the
Wealth system, and finally the Money system (hived off into a compartment - 'macroeconomics').
Importantly, three entirely different categories of "thing" .
In 1879 an obscure journalist from then-remote San Francisco, Henry George, took the world
by storm with his extraordinary bestseller Progress and Poverty . Still the only
published work to outsell the Bible in a single year, it did so for over twenty years, yet
few social justice advocates have heard of it.
George set out to discover why the worst poverty always seemed to accompany the most
progress. By chasing down the production process to its ends, and tracing where the proceeds
were going, he succeeded spectacularly. From Progress and Poverty , Chapter 17 - "The Problem Explained"
:
Three things unite in production: land, labor, and capital. Three parties divide the
output: landowner, laborer, and capitalist. If the laborer and capitalist get no more as
production increases, it is a necessary inference that the landowner takes the gain.
George
gravely threatened privileged global power-elites , so they erased him from academic
history. A mind compared, in his time with Plato, Copernicus and Adam Smith wiped from living
memory, by the modern aristocracy.
In the process of doing so, they emasculated the discipline of economics, stripped dignity
from labour, and set in motion a world-destroying doctrine. Neo-Classical
Economics(aka neoliberalism) was born , to the detriment of the working-citizen and the
living world on which s/he depends.
Einstein was a fan of George, and used his methods of thought-experiment and powerful
inductive reasoning to discover Relativity, twenty years later. Henry Georges brilliant
insights into Land (aka nature), Wealth (what you want, need), and Money
(sharing mechanism) are as relevant as ever, and until they are rediscovered, we are likely
to re-run the 1900's over and over, with fewer and fewer resources.
After Democratic party was co-opted by neoliberals there is no way back. And since Obama the trend of Democratic Party is
toward strengthening the wing of CIA-democratic notthe wing of the party friendly to workers. Bought by Wall Street leadership is
uncable of intruting any change that undermine thier current neoliberal platform. that's why they criminally derailed Sanders.
Notable quotes:
"... When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism, would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism. ..."
"... To quote Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!" ..."
"... "Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad." ..."
"... "It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent upon the Democratic Party." ..."
"... "And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting the Democrats ..."
"... It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of their class. ..."
"... First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious! ..."
"... from Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game https://www.salon.com/2010/... ..."
they literally ripped this out of the 2016 Green Party platform. Jill Stein spoke repeatedly
about the same exact kind of Green New Deal, a full-employment, transition-to-100%-renewables
program that would supposedly solve all the world's problems.
When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address
the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism,
would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non
threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism.
In 2016, when the Greens made
this their central economic policy proposal, the Democrats responded by calling that platform
irresponsible and dangerous ("even if it's a good idea, you can't actually vote for a
non-two-party candidate!"). Why would they suddenly find a green new deal appealing now
except for its true purpose: left cover for the very system destroying the planet.
To quote
Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!"
"Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to
everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions
currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad."
Their political position not only lacks seriousness, unserious is their political
position.
"It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent
upon the Democratic Party."
For subjective-idealists, what you want to believe, think and feel is just so much more
convincing than objective reality. Especially when it covers over single-minded class
interests at play.
"And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical
policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and
exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth
face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of
world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting
the Democrats
It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically
fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient
facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of
establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with
delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of
their class.
First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the
Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back
into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious!
Only an International Socialist program led by Workers can truly lead a "green revolution" by
expropriating the billionaire oil barons of their capital and redirecting that wealth into
the socialist reconstruction of the entire economy.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" is a nice laugh. Really, it sure is funny hearing
these lies given any credence at all. This showmanship belongs in a fantasy book, not in real
life. The Democratic Party as a force for good social change Now that's a laugh!
Lies, empty promises, meaningless tautologies and morality plays, qualified and conditional
declarations to be backpedalled pending appropriate political expediencies, devoid any
practical content that is what AOC, card carrying member of DSA, and in fact young energetic
political apparatchik of calcified political body of Dems establishment, duty engulfs. And
working for socialist revolution is no one of them.
What kind of socialist would reject socialist revolution, class struggle and class
emancipation and choose, as a suppose socialist path, accommodation with oligarchic ruling
elite via political, not revolutionary process that would have necessarily overthrown ruling
elite.
What socialist would acquiesce to legalized exploitation of people for profit, legalized
greed and inequality and would negotiate away fundamental principle of egalitarianism and
working people self rule?
Only National Socialist would; and that is exactly what AOC campaign turned out to be all
about.
National Socialism with imperial flavor is her affiliation and what her praises for
Pelosi, wife of a billionaire and dead warmonger McCain proved.
Now she is peddling magical thinking about global change and plunge herself into falacy of
entrepreneurship, Market solution to the very problem that the market solutions were designed
to create and aggravate namely horrific inequality that is robbing people from their own
opportunities to mitigate devastating effects of global change.
The insidiousness of phony socialists expresses itself in the fact that they lie that any
social problem can be fixed by current of future technical means, namely via so called
technological revolution instead by socialist revolution they deem unnecessary or
detrimental.
The technical means for achieving socialism has existed since the late 19th century, with the
telegraph, the coal-powered factory, and modern fertilizer. The improvements since then have
only made socialism even more streamlined and efficient, if such technologies could only be
liberated from capital! The idea that "we need a new technological revolution just to achieve
socialism" reflects the indoctrination in capitalism by many "socialist" theorists because it
is only in capitalism where "technological growth" is essential simply to maintain the
system. It is only in capitalism (especially America, the most advanced capitalist nation,
and thus, the one where capitalism is actually closest towards total crisis) where the dogma
of a technological savior is most entrenched because America cannot offer any other kind of
palliative to the more literate and productive sections of its population. Religion will not
convince most and any attempt at a sociological or economic understanding would inevitably
prove the truth of socialism.
"... The original "New Deal," which included massive public works infrastructure projects, was introduced by Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s amid the Great Depression. Its purpose was to stave off a socialist revolution in America. It was a response to a militant upsurge of strikes and violent class battles, led by socialists who were inspired by the 1917 Russian Revolution ..."
"... Since the 2008 crash, first under Bush and Obama, and now Trump, the ruling elites have pursued a single-minded policy of enriching the wealthy, through free credit, corporate bailouts and tax cuts, while slashing spending on social services. ..."
"... To claim as does Ocasio-Cortez that American capitalism can provide a new "New Deal," of a green or any other variety, is to pfile:///F:/Private_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/Historyromote an obvious political fiction." ..."
"The original "New Deal," which included massive public works infrastructure projects,
was introduced by Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s amid the Great
Depression. Its purpose was to stave off a socialist revolution in America. It was a response
to a militant upsurge of strikes and violent class battles, led by socialists who were
inspired by the 1917 Russian Revolution that had occurred less than two decades before.
American capitalism could afford to make such concessions because of its economic
dominance. The past forty years have been characterized by the continued decline of American
capitalism on a world stage relative to its major rivals. The ruling class has responded to
this crisis with a social counterrevolution to claw back all gains won by workers. This has
been carried out under both Democratic and Republican administrations and with the assistance
of the trade unions.
Since the 2008 crash, first under Bush and Obama, and now Trump, the ruling elites have
pursued a single-minded policy of enriching the wealthy, through free credit, corporate
bailouts and tax cuts, while slashing spending on social services.
To claim as does Ocasio-Cortez that American capitalism can provide a new "New Deal," of a
green or any other variety, is to pfile:///F:/Private_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/Historyromote an obvious political fiction."
In my own words then. According to Cook the power elites goal is to change its
appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are
increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their
expense.
Since they do not actually want change they find actors who pretend to represent change
, which is in essence fake change. These then are their insurgent candidates
Trump serves the power elite , because while he appears as an insurgent against the
power elite he does little to change anything
Trump promotes his fake insurgency on Twitter stage knowing the power elite will counter
any of his promises that might threaten them
As an insurgent candidate Trump was indifferent to Israel and wanted the US out of
Syria. He wanted good relations with Russia. He wanted to fix the health care system,
rebuild infrastructure, scrap NAFTA and TTIPS, bring back good paying jobs, fight the
establishment and Wall Street executives and drain the swamp. America First he said.
Trump the insurgent president , has become Israel's biggest cheerleader and has launched
US missiles at Syria, relations with Russia are at Cold War lows, infrastructure is still
failing, the percentage of people working is now at an all time low in the post housewife
era, he has passed tax cuts for the rich that will endanger medicare, medicaid and social
security and prohibit infrastructure spending, relaxed regulations on Wall Street, enhanced
NAFTA to include TTIPS provisions and make US automobiles more expensive, and the swamp has
been refilled with the rich, neocons , Koch associates, and Goldman Sachs that make up the
power elites and Deep State Americas rich and Israel First
@34 pft... regarding the 2 cook articles.. i found they overly wordy myself...
however, for anyone paying attention - corbyn seems like the person to vote for given how
relentless he is being attacked in the media... i am not so sure about trump, but felt cook
summed it up well with these 2 lines.. "Trump the candidate was indifferent to Israel and
wanted the US out of Syria. Trump the president has become Israel's biggest cheerleader and
has launched US missiles at Syria." i get the impression corbyn is legit which is why the
anti-semitism keeps on being mentioned... craig murrary is a good source for staying on top
of uk dynamics..
(a) talk coherently
(b) have some kind of movement consisting of people that agree with what is says -- that
necessitates (a)
Then he could staff his Administration with his supporters rather than a gamut of
conventional plutocrats, neocons, and hacks from the Deep State (intelligence, FBI and
crazies culled from Pentagon). As it is easy to see, I am describing an alternate reality.
Who is a Trumpian member of the Administration? His son-in-law?
The swamps been filled with all kinds of vile creatures since the Carter administration.
This is when the US/UK went full steam ahead with neoliberal globalism with Israel directing
the war on terror for the Trilateral Empire (following Bibis Jerusalem conference so as to
fulfill the Yinon plan). 40 years of terror and financial mayhem following the coup that took
place from 1963-1974. After Nixons ouster they were ready to go once TLC Carter/Zbig kicked
off the Trilateral era. Reagan then ran promising to oust the TLC swamp but broke his
promise, as every President has done since .
"... We Americans are totally subject to ziocon propaganda when it comes to Middle East affairs. Anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint is immediately labeled anti-semitic and now banned from social media and of course from the TV talk shows. ..."
"... Jack posed an interesting question, how does someone like Putin respond to an irrational US who in their delusions can easily escalate military conflict if their ego gets bruised when it is shown that they don't have the unilateral power of a hegemon? ..."
"... Always thought that Nikki Haley was the price Donald Trump had to pay to get Sheldon Adelson's large campaign contributions in 2016. Adelson was Trump's second biggest contributor. So was recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Sheldon got his money's worth. https://www.investopedia.co... ..."
"... Nikki Haley's Sikh origins may have something to do with her anti-Muslim feelings. ..."
"... it is hypocritical in the extreme for the U.S. to be criticising anyone for killing people anywhere after what they have been doing in the Middle East. According to Professor Gideon Polya the total avoidable deaths in Afghanstan alone since 2001 under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around three million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under the age of five (see Professor Gideon Polya at La Trobe University in Melbourne book, 'Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950' and Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility study: http://www.psr.org/assets/p... . ..."
"... Is it in our DNA that we can't learn lessons from our interventionist experience in the Middle East? Looks like Iraq is spinning out of control once again. I'm sure many including the Shia may reminisce favorably to the Sadam years despite his tyranny. https://ejmagnier.com/2018/... ..."
"... We are indoctrinated with the idea that all people are basically the same. In fact this is only true at the level of basics like shelter, food, sex, etc. We refuse to really believe in the reality of widely varying cultures. It makes us incapable, as a group, of understanding people who do not share our outlook. i have been dealing with this all my life as a delegated "ambassador" to the "others." ..."
"... In this context, if you were Vladimir Putin and knowing that President Trump is completely ignorant when it comes to history and policy details and has surrounded himself with neocons as far as foreign policy is concerned and Bibi has him eating out of his hands, how would you deal with him if he starts to get belligerent in Syria and Ukraine? ..."
"... Did the Syrians get upset by General Sherman's destructive march through South Carolina? No. It was a mistake for the US ever getting involved in Syria, with forming, equipping and training foreign armies and shadow governments including replacement prime ministers, all in violation of the UN Charter. ..."
"... Trump is more savagely and ignorantly aggressive. ..."
"... Trump, Nikki and Bolton have been tweeting warnings about the Idlib offensive and already accusing Assad if there are any chemical attacks. Wonder why? Lavrov has also made comments that he expects a chemical use false flag. Not sure about this post on Zerohedge, but if it has any credibility then it would appear that the US military is getting ready for some kind of provocation. ..."
"In her statement during the UN Security Council briefing, Haley said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and its "enablers,"
Russia and Iran have a playbook for the war in Syria. First, they surround a civilian area. Next, they make the "preposterous claim
that everyone in the area is a terrorist," thus making all civilians targets. That is followed by a "starve and surrender" campaign,
during which Syrian security forces keep attacking until the people no longer have food, clean water, or shelter. "It's a playbook
of death. The Assad regime has spent the last seven years refining it with Russia and Iran's help."
According to her it has happened many times before, in July 2018 it happened in Dara'a and the southwest of Syria, where Syrian
forces "trapped and besieged civilians." In February 2018, it was Ghouta. In 2017 it was Aleppo, and prior to that places like Madaya
and Hama.
According to her, Assad's government has left the country in ruins. "The atrocities committed by Assad will be a permanent stain
on history and a black mark for this Council -- which was blocked over and over by Russia from taking action to help," Nikki Haley
said." SF
------------
Well, strictly speaking, her parents were immigrants, not she. She was born in Bamberg, South Carolina, a little town in the Piedmont
that is majority Black. Her parents were professional people at Amritsar in the Punjab. Haley is the surname of her husband. Nikki
is a nickname by which she has long been known. As governor, she was in favor of flying the Confederate flag on the Statehouse grounds
before the Charleston massacre of Black Christians at a Bible study session. They were killed by an unstable white teen aged misfit
whom they had invited to join their worship. After that Nikki discovered that the Confederate flag was a bad and disruptive symbol.
It was a popular position across the country and Nikki became an instant "hit," the flavor of the month so to speak.
I suppose that she was supposed to be an interesting and decorative figure as UN ambassador. She is quite pretty and the South
Carolina accent adds to the effect.
The positions she has taken at the UN with regard to the ME are similar to those expressed by her boss, President Trump. They
are largely reflections of images projected by the popular and mass media operating as Zionist propaganda machines. I don't believe
that the State Department's INR analytic bureau believes the crapola that she spouts with such hysteric fervor. I don't believe that
my former friend David Satterfield believes the crapola. So, where does she get ideas like the ones quoted above? IMO she is trying
to out-Trump Trump. DJT is a remarkably ignorant man concerning the geo-politics of just about everything in the ME. He appears to
have once seen the film, "Exodus" and to have decided on the basis of Paul Newman's performance as Begin that the situation was and
is quite simple - Israel good! Everyone else bad! Nikki's depth of knowledge appears to be just about the same.
She also appears to me to be in receipt of a stream of opinion from various Zionist and anti-Muslim groups probably related to
the anti-Muslim ravings of Maronite and other Christian ME extremists.
These groups cannot seem to understand that alliances shift as does policy. They don't seem to understand that Israel's policy
in Syria is no longer regime change. They never seem to have understood that the Syrian government is the protector of the religious
minorities against Sunni jihadi fanatics.
They don't seem to understand that the Syrian government has no choice but to recover Idlib Province, a piece of Syria's heartland.
pl
Haley's "playbook" is used by the US but not by Russia & Iran as she claims, with all civilians being targeted. Instead, Russia
& Iran have taken warfare to a higher and better level, allowing the armed factions to surrender their arms and get on a bus or
be killed, and many of them took the bus to preserve their lives until the final offensive. A third option, which many of them
took, was to join the SAA and fight against their former comrades. All of this statecraft was revolutionary, and was not at all
as Haley described, including the crocodile tears over Syrian lives which has never been honest especially considering the level
of support Assad has within Syria.
I agree it is revolutionary, at least in modern times in the western world. I wonder if it will set a "trend": a more humane way
to wage war. I am sure it will be studied in war colleges.
One observation I had while thinking about the Ambassador Haley quote you provided (which I think supports the point you
were making in your post):
When the US was in a somewhat similar situation during the occupation of Iraq, where Sunni militants were in open rebellion
and controlling towns like Fallujah, our response wasn't wildly different to the Syrian government's response. The US gov't at
the time typically labeled any armed resistance "terrorists", and while they might acknowledge that there were civilians in those
territories in addition to terrorists, they were just "human shields" and "regrettable collateral damage". Did the US try a little
harder, and have a bit better of technology, training, etc, and do a little bit better of trying to limit damage to civilians
when crushing those uprisings? Yes. But we're mostly talking modest quantitative differences in response, not fundamentally morally
superior qualitative differences. I bet you if you took pictures of towns like Fallujah, Sadr City, etc, after US counter-insurgency
operations, and mixed them in with pictures of trashed Syrian towns that had just been liberated from rebel groups, and showed
them to Nikki Haley, or frankly any neocon, they'd have a hard time telling the difference.
As I was reading this topic Raqqa and Fallujah came to mind. In the case of Fallujah I don't recall if the civilians were given
an opportunity to evacuate. They were not in ISIS controlled Raqqa. In any event Haley's blather at the UN is for the consumption
of the rubes.
as far as i recall in the battle for fallujah, only women and children were permitted to leave during the siege.and during the
siege of Mosul they were dropping leaflets telling people not to try and leave.
And giving civilians a chance to evacuate doesn't help as much as one would think if the insurgents/rebels really do want to use
them as human shields.
Speaking to young marines in the aftermath of the second assault on Fallujah I learned that although women and children were allowed
to pass the checkpoints but men of fighting age (also known as the father, brother or husband who was driving the families out
of the city) were sent back into the city.
In talking with people here in the U.S. about Syria there is the total lack of understanding of Assad's Alawite government. There
are a couple million Christians in Syria and it is Assad's government that protects them from the Saudi sponsored Sunni headchoppers
who would like to eliminate Christians, Jews, and Shia from the Middle East. Perhaps, the Alawites being an offshoot of Shia makes
them sensitive to minority religions. However, mentioning Assad evokes strong negative reaction among U.S. Christians, similar
to Trumps "lets kill them all". On my one visit to Damascus, traveling on my U.S. Passport rather than my Israeli one, The Christians
I met were uniformly positive about Assad and the need for Assad to control the ENTIRE country.
Thank you for providing your direct experience of the views of Christian Syrians you met there.
Unfortunately none of those views ever make it to either to our print or broadcast media. We Americans are totally subject
to ziocon propaganda when it comes to Middle East affairs. Anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint is immediately labeled anti-semitic
and now banned from social media and of course from the TV talk shows.
Jack posed an interesting question, how does someone like Putin respond to an irrational US who in their delusions can
easily escalate military conflict if their ego gets bruised when it is shown that they don't have the unilateral power of a hegemon?
Always thought that Nikki Haley was the price Donald Trump had to pay to get Sheldon Adelson's large campaign contributions
in 2016. Adelson was Trump's second biggest contributor. So was recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Sheldon got his
money's worth.
https://www.investopedia.co...
There's a disturbing piece up today at WaPo by Karen De Young asserting the USA is doubling down in Syria. From the piece, emphasis
by ex-PFC Chuck:
"We've started using new language," [James] Jeffrey said, referring to previous warnings against the use of chemical weapons.
Now, he said, the United States will not tolerate "an attack. Period." "Any offensive is to us objectionable as a reckless
escalation" he said. "You add to that, if you use chemical weapons, or create refugee flows or attack innocent civilians,"
and "the consequences of that are that we will shift our positions and use all of our tools to make it clear that we'll have
to find ways to achieve our goals that are less reliant on the goodwill of the Russians."
Jeffrey is said to be Pompeo's point person on Syria. Do any of you with ears closer to the ground than those of us in flyover
land know anything about this change of tune?
.Iraq PM urged to quit as key ally deserts him over unrest.
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi faced calls to resign yesterday as his alliance with a populist cleric who won May elections
crumbled over deadly unrest shaking the country's south. The two leading groups in parliament called on Abadi to step down, after
lawmakers held an emergency meeting on the public anger boiling over in the southern city of Basra.,...
The Conquest Alliance of pro-Iranian former paramilitary fighters was "on the same wavelength" as Sadr's Marching Towards Reform
list and they would work together to form a new government, Assadi said. Abadi, whose grouping came third in the May polls, defended
his record in parliament, describig the unrest as "political sabotage" and saying the crisis over public services was being exploited
for political ends.
http://news.kuwaittimes.net...
Nikki Haley's Sikh origins may have something to do with her anti-Muslim feelings. According to J. D Cunningham, author
of 'History of the Sikhs (Appendix XX)' included among the injunctions ordained by Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth guru, 'a Khalsa
(true Sikh) proves himself if he mounts a warhorse; is always waging war; kills a Khan (Muslim) and slays the Turks (Muslims).'
Aside from this, it is hypocritical in the extreme for the U.S. to be criticising anyone for killing people anywhere after
what they have been doing in the Middle East. According to Professor Gideon Polya the total avoidable deaths in Afghanstan alone
since 2001
under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around three million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants
under the age of five (see Professor Gideon Polya at La Trobe University in Melbourne book, 'Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality
Since 1950' and Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility study:
http://www.psr.org/assets/p... .
Your good professor sounds like a great piece of work. "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950" Perhaps we should have
stopped all that foreign aid in the '50s.
The under five mortality figures from Afghanistan (1 in 5) are a problem that preceded our involvement by many years. However,
the failure of the international community to make any significant progress over the last 17 years would be a legitimate criticism.
Is it in our DNA that we can't learn lessons from our interventionist experience in the Middle East? Looks like Iraq is
spinning out of control once again. I'm sure many including the Shia may reminisce favorably to the Sadam years despite his tyranny.
https://ejmagnier.com/2018/...
We are indoctrinated with the idea that all people are basically the same. In fact this is only true at the level of basics
like shelter, food, sex, etc. We refuse to really believe in the reality of widely varying cultures. It makes us incapable, as
a group, of understanding people who do not share our outlook. i have been dealing with this all my life as a delegated "ambassador"
to the "others."
Thank you, Sir. It makes perfect sense with the End if History and all those beliefs.
In this context, if you were Vladimir Putin and knowing that President Trump is completely ignorant when it comes to history
and policy details and has surrounded himself with neocons as far as foreign policy is concerned and Bibi has him eating out of
his hands, how would you deal with him if he starts to get belligerent in Syria and Ukraine?
You may be interested in a recent article in Unz by SST's own 'smoothieX12' in response to Paul Craig Roberts asking how long
Russia should continue to turn the other cheek:
http://www.unz.com/article/...
Did the Syrians get upset by General Sherman's destructive march through South Carolina? No. It was a mistake for the US ever
getting involved in Syria, with forming, equipping and training foreign armies and shadow governments including replacement prime
ministers, all in violation of the UN Charter.
A new PM was at the top of H.Clinton's to-do list as Secretary of State. My favorite Assad replacement candidate was Ghassan
Hitto from Murphy Texas, but he only lasted a couple months.
here
I don't trust converts except for the adjustment from Protestant to Catholic or vice versa. I suppose shifts from one madhab to
another, or between Buddhist schools are also ok.
Sad that in a moment of crisis,so many of the rising political stars of both parties are so hollow to the point of dangerousness.
Has anything really changed much with our policies in the ME in the past 50+ years? Haven't we been deeply influenced/controlled
by Israeli interests in this period, maybe even beyond if the attacks on USS Liberty are taken into account? Is the Trump administration
just following in the traditions of Reagan, Bush Père et fils, Clinton and Obama, or is there a qualitative difference?
Trump, Nikki and Bolton have been tweeting warnings about the Idlib offensive and already accusing Assad if there are any
chemical attacks. Wonder why? Lavrov has also made comments that he expects a chemical use false flag. Not sure about this
post on Zerohedge, but if it has any credibility then it would appear that the US military is getting ready for some kind of provocation.
Maybe this is all just "positioning" and "messaging" but maybe not. With Bibi, Nikki, Bolton and Pompeo as THE advisors, does
anyone have a clue what Trump decides, when, not if, the jihadi White Helmets stage their chemical event in Idlib?
"... But to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare. This global trade war is spearheaded by the Trump White House, which sees trade sanctions and tariffs, such as the onslaught it launched against Turkey, as an integral component of its drive to secure the United States' geopolitical and economic interests at the expense of friend and foe alike. ..."
"... But while they are deeply divided as to their economic and geo-political objectives, the capitalist ruling classes are united on one essential question. However the next stage of the ongoing breakdown of world capitalism proceeds, they will all strive by whatever means considered necessary to make the working class the world over pay for it. ..."
"... In 2008, capitalist governments around the world, above all in the US, derived enormous benefit from the decades-long suppression of the class struggle by the trade unions and the parties of the political establishment. The rescue operation they carried out on behalf of parasitic and criminal finance capital would not have been possible without it ..."
"But to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked
in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare. This global trade war is spearheaded
by the Trump White House, which sees trade sanctions and tariffs, such as the onslaught it
launched against Turkey, as an integral component of its drive to secure the United States'
geopolitical and economic interests at the expense of friend and foe alike.
The character of world economy has undergone a major transformation in the past decade in
which economic growth, to the extent it that it occurs, is not driven by the development of
production and new investments but by the flow of money from one source of speculative and
parasitic activity to the next."
"But while they are deeply divided as to their economic and geo-political objectives, the
capitalist ruling classes are united on one essential question. However the next stage of the
ongoing breakdown of world capitalism proceeds, they will all strive by whatever means
considered necessary to make the working class the world over pay for it.
This is the lesson from the past decade which, in every country, has seen a deepening
attack on wages, social conditions and living standards as wealth is redistributed up the
income scale, raising social inequality to unprecedented heights.
In 2008, capitalist governments around the world, above all in the US, derived enormous
benefit from the decades-long suppression of the class struggle by the trade unions and the
parties of the political establishment. The rescue operation they carried out on behalf of
parasitic and criminal finance capital would not have been possible without it."
There is still no countervailing force to oppose neoliberalism. Instead we observe internal development of neoliberalism toward
national neoliberalism and the rejection of neoliberal globalization.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism is the intensification of the influence and dominance of capital; it is the elevation of capitalism, as a mode
of production, into an ethic, a set of political imperatives, and a cultural logic. It is also a project: a project to strengthen, restore,
or, in some cases, constitute anew the power of economic elites. ..."
"... It should be recalled that, in his Grundrisse , Marx explicitly argued that capital is a process that puts into motion all
of the other dimensions of modern economic, political, social, and cultural life. It creates the wage system, influences values, goals,
and the ethics of individuals, transforms our relation to nature, to ourselves, and to our community, and constantly seeks to mold state
imperatives until they are in harmony with its own. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is therefore not a new turn in the history of capitalism. It is more simply, and more perniciously, its intensification,
and its resurgence after decades of opposition from the Keynesian welfare state and from experiments with social democratic and welfare
state politics. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, as Harvey tells us, quoting Paul Treanor in the process, 'valuesmarket exchange as "an ethic in itself, capable
of acting as a guide to all human action, and substituting for all previously held ethical beliefs," it emphasises the significance
of contractual relations in the marketplace. It holds that the social goodwill be maximised by maximising the reach and frequency of
market transactions, and it seeks to bring all human action into the domain of the market.' (p. 3) ..."
"... Neoliberalism is not simply an ethic in abstract, however. Rather, the locus for its influence has become the 'neoliberal state',
which collapses the notion of freedom into freedom for economic elites. ..."
"... 'neoliberalisation was from the very beginning a project to achieve the restoration of class power,' ..."
"... 'a political project to re-establish the conditions for capital accumulation and to restore the power of economic elites ..."
"... another crucial dimension of his argument, namely that neoliberalism is a liberalism for economic elites only; that liberal
aspects of the polity are decreased ..."
"... that neoliberal regimes will slowly erode institutions of political democracy since 'the freedom of the masses would be restricted
in favour of the freedoms of the few ..."
"... The focus on individual rights, the centrality of property rights, a culture of individualism, consumption, and a market-based
populism, all served as means by which the policies of neoliberalism – and the massive inequalities that have emerged over the past
two decades – were able to gain widespread support. Political liberalism becomes eroded by the much more powerful forces of economic
liberalism. ..."
"... The story of capitalism, for Harvey, always seems to play the same dire tune. But the global expansion of capital is premised
on what he terms 'accumulation by dispossession.' ..."
"... accumulation under globalisation continues to expand by dispossessing people of their economic rights and of various forms
of ownership and economic power. ..."
"... Neoliberalism's rhetoric of individual freedom, and equality, and its promise of prosperity and growth, are slowly being revealed
as falsities. ..."
"... Soon, Harvey believes, it will become evident that all of economic life and institutions are solely for the benefit of a single,
small social class. Therefore, theoretical insight – such as Harvey has proffered here – needs to constantly nourish the various opposition
movements that currently exist. ..."
"... While we can use Harvey's brilliant and deeply insightful analysis of the structural mechanisms of neoliberalism, it has to
be admitted that there are only rumblings of discontent in the United States or China, and no hint of a mass movement against the realities
of capitalism. ..."
...Marx, after all, according to Harvey, had shown that – unlike the liberal paradigm that was, and still is, predominant in the
social sciences – the split between fact and value had been overcome. No longerwas it sufficient to talk about social phenomena without
invoking political even practical evaluations of them.
Harvey's most recent book, A Brief History of Neoliberalism , dissects the inner workings of what has come to be one of
the most salient features of late 20thand early 21st century economic and social life: the gradual shift, throughout the nations
of the global economy, toward economic and social policies that have given an increased liberality and centrality to markets, market
processes, and to the interests of capital. If Harvey's enduring perspective – and one which admittedly| echoes orthodox Marxism
– has been to put the mechanics of the capitalist mode of production at the center of every aspect of modernity (and of postmodernity
as well), then his most recent contribution deviates little from that course.
<p>Harvey's contention is that we are witnessing, through this process of neoliberalisation, the deepening penetration of capitalism
into political and social institutions as well as cultural consciousness itself. Neoliberalism is the intensification of the
influence and dominance of capital; it is the elevation of capitalism, as a mode of production, into an ethic, a set of political
imperatives, and a cultural logic. It is also a project: a project to strengthen, restore, or, in some cases, constitute anew the
power of economic elites. The essence of neoliberalism, for Harvey, can be characterised as a rightward shift in Marxian class
struggle.
This analysis stems from Marx's insight about the nature of capital itself. Capitalis not simply money, property, or one economic
variable among others. Rather,capital is the organising principle of modern society. It should be recalled that, in his Grundrisse
, Marx explicitly argued that capital is a process that puts into motion all of the other dimensions of modern economic, political,
social, and cultural life. It creates the wage system, influences values, goals, and the ethics of individuals, transforms our relation
to nature, to ourselves, and to our community, and constantly seeks to mold state imperatives until they are in harmony with its
own.
Neoliberalism is therefore not a new turn in the history of capitalism. It is more simply, and more perniciously, its intensification,
and its resurgence after decades of opposition from the Keynesian welfare state and from experiments with social democratic and welfare
state politics.
Neoliberalism, as Harvey tells us, quoting Paul Treanor in the process, 'valuesmarket exchange as "an ethic in itself, capable
of acting as a guide to all human action, and substituting for all previously held ethical beliefs," it emphasises the significance
of contractual relations in the marketplace. It holds that the social goodwill be maximised by maximising the reach and frequency
of market transactions, and it seeks to bring all human action into the domain of the market.' (p. 3)
Neoliberalism is not simply an ethic in abstract, however. Rather, the locus for its influence has become the 'neoliberal
state', which collapses the notion of freedom into freedom for economic elites. 'The freedoms it embodies reflect the interests
of private property owners, businesses, multinational corporations and financial capital.' (p. 7) The neoliberal state defends the
new reach and depth ofcapital's interests and is defined against the 'embedded liberalism' of the several decades following World
War II when 'market processes and entrepreneurial andcorporate activities were surrounded by a web of social and political constraints
and a regulatory environment that sometimes restrained but in other instances led the way in economic and industrial strategy.' (p.
11)
Neoliberalism and the neoliberal state have been able to reverse the various political and economic gains made under welfare state
policies and institutions. This transformation of the state is an effect of the interests of capital and its reaction to the embedded
liberalism of the post war decades. Taking the empirical analysis – and the hypothesis – from the French economists Gérard Duménil
and Dominique Lévy, and their important book Capital Resurgent, Harvey argues that 'neoliberalisation was from the very beginning
a project to achieve the restoration of class power,' (p. 16) 'a political project to re-establish the conditions for capital
accumulation and to restore the power of economic elites .' (p. 19)
This notion of a revolution from above to restore class power is the basso ostinato of Harvey'sa nalysis, the bass line continuously
repeated throughout the book that grounds the argument.
He sees the first historical instance of this revolution from above in Pinochet's Chile. The violent coup against Salvador Allende,
which installed Pinochet to power, was followed by a massive neoliberalisation of the state. The move toward privatisation and the
stripping away of all forms of regulation on capital was one of the key aspects of the Pinochet regime. While the real grounding
of a neoliberal theory began much earlier with thinkers such as Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, among others, its first
real empirical manifestation was Pinochet's Chile.
Of course, this also allows Harvey to illustrate another crucial dimension of his argument, namely that neoliberalism is a
liberalism for economic elites only; that liberal aspects of the polity are decreased . It is Harvey's fear – along with Karl
Polanyi– that neoliberal regimes will slowly erode institutions of political democracy since 'the freedom of the masses would
be restricted in favour of the freedoms of the few .'(p. 70)
Insulating economic institutions such as central banks from majority rule is central, especially since neoliberalism – particularly
in developed economies –revolves around financial institutions. 'A strong preference,' Harvey argues, 'exists for government by executive
order and by judicial decision rather than democraticand parliamentary decision-making.' (p. 66)
America and England constitute Harvey's next two cases for his thesis. Thatcher in Britain and Reagan in the United States were
both pivotal figures, not so much because of their economic policies, but, more importantly, because of their success in the 'construction
of consent.' The political culture of both countries began to accept neoliberal policies. The focus on individual rights, the
centrality of property rights, a culture of individualism, consumption, and a market-based populism, all served as means by which
the policies of neoliberalism – and the massive inequalities that have emerged over the past two decades – were able to gain widespread
support. Political liberalism becomes eroded by the much more powerful forces of economic liberalism.
Another theme that Harvey explores – understandably, given his background inhuman geography – is the phenomenon of uneven spatial
development. In China, Harvey's fourth case, we see the rapid expansion of a neoliberal ethos. Markets were significantly liberalised
and an economic elite was reconstituted virtually overnight, in early 1980s, amid Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms. The result has
been extreme inequality between regions.
Coastal urban areas, where industry and finance are concentrated, have become massive epicenters of economic power and activity,
sucking in surplus labor from agrarian hinterlands which, as a result of the economic growth of these metro regions, have begun sinking
into poverty. Harvey sees this reality in China being mirrored throughout the globe, and the results are common: a pattern of rising
economic and social inequality which increases the marginalisation of large sectors of national populations and concentrates ever
more sectors of capital within certain regions and among certain groups.
Neoliberalisation, therefore, effects a return to some of the most entrenched forms of social inequality and injustice that characterised
the industrial expansion during the late 19th century in the West. The story of capitalism, for Harvey, always seems to play
the same dire tune. But the global expansion of capital is premised on what he terms 'accumulation by dispossession.'
This concept – developed more fully in Harvey's previous book, The New Imperialism (2003) – argues that accumulation
under globalisation continues to expand by dispossessing people of their economic rights and of various forms of ownership and economic
power.
Harvey defines it best:
By [accumulation by dispossession] I mean the continuation and proliferation of accumulation practices which Marx had treated
of as 'primitive' or 'original' during the rise of capitalism. These include the commodification and privatization of land and
the forceful expulsion of peasant populations ; conversion of various forms of property rights (common, collective, state, |etc.)
into exclusive private property rights (most spectacularly represented by China); suppression of rights to the commons; commodification
of labor power and the suppression of alternative (indigenous) forms of production and consumption; colonial, neocolonial, and
imperial processes of appropriation of assets (including natural resources); monetization of exchange and taxation, particularly
of land; the slave trade (which continues particularly in the sex industry); and usury, the national debt and, most devastating
of all the use of the credit system as a radical means of accumulation by dispossession. (p. 159)But it also includes – for working
people in developed nations – the 'extraction of rents from patents and intellectual property rights and the diminution or erasure
of various forms of common property rights (such as state pensions, paid vacations, and access to education and health care).'
(p. 160)
Neoliberalism, therefore, can only continue its process of accumulation by dispossessing people of what they own, or to what they
have always had rights. In the end, Harvey tells us, the way out of this situation – not surprisingly – is are connection of theory
and practice. But his analysis is, once again, subtle and takes stock of present political realities.
The plethora of social movements need to forma 'broad-based oppositional programme', which sees the activities of the economic
elites as fundamentally impinging on traditionally held beliefs about egalitarianism and fairness. Crisis, for Harvey as with any
orthodox Marxist, is always looming.
Neoliberalism's rhetoric of individual freedom, and equality, and its promise of prosperity and growth, are slowly being revealed
as falsities.
Soon, Harvey believes, it will become evident that all of economic life and institutions are solely for the benefit of a single,
small social class. Therefore, theoretical insight – such as Harvey has proffered here – needs to constantly nourish the various
opposition movements that currently exist. The dialogue between theory and practice is the only sure wayt o take advantage of
the moment when a new crisis – financial or otherwise –bursts forth onto the scene. The deepest hope is that such a moment will foster
a basis 'for a resurgence of mass movements voicing egalitarian political demandsand seeking economic justice, fair trade, and greater
economic security.' (p. 204)
Harvey's position is explicitly anti-capitalist, and his hope is that the rhetoric of neoliberalism will be unmasked by the various
realities – most specifically, massive economic inequalities – that it spawns. Only then will social movements be able to gain political
traction, and move society toward some form of social, economic and political transformation.
Harvey's logic is seductive, and his ruminations on 'freedom's prospect' are compelling. But political and cultural realities
cannot be simply reduced to the mechanisms of capital and accumulation. While we can use Harvey's brilliant and deeply insightful
analysis of the structural mechanisms of neoliberalism, it has to be admitted that there are only rumblings of discontent in the
United States or China, and no hint of a mass movement against the realities of capitalism.
There is too little attention paid – and here the deficits of the orthodox Marxist approach can be sensed – to the way that the
culture of consent has found a deep affinity with American liberalism. Louis Hartz, in his classic, The Liberal Tradition in America
, was perhaps most correct when he predicted that the contours of American liberalism would lead to the acceptance of quasi-authoritarian
political and social norms.
China – lacking any democratic tradition – has not seen a mass movement arise to combat the inequality that has swollen over the
last two decades, either.
But the question of social movements remains open. There is no guarantee what you get with a mass movement of the disaffected
– one can think of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, in this regard. Harvey does not look into such issues, but they need to be considered
since history – even the history of capitalism – cannot be viewed as cyclical and politics does not spring mechanistically from economic
conditions.
But despite this, Harvey's book is deeply insightful, rewarding and stimulating. His ability to thematise the imperatives of the
most recent manifestation of capitalist accumulation – most specifically the recent trends in economic inequality, the shifts in
urban cultural and political life, and the economic logic that currently drives the process of globalization – is nothing short of
virtuosic and his ideas should become a central part of the current discourse on globalisation, economic inequality, and the erosion
of democratic politics throughout the globe. His history of neoliberalism may indeed be brief, but the richness and profundity of
this volume is without question.
Michael J. Thompson is an advisory editor of Democratiya and is also the founder and editor of Logos: A Journal of Modern
Society & Culture (www.logosjournal. com). He is Assistant Professor of Political Science at William Paterson University. His next
book, Confronting Neoconservatism: The Rise of the New Right in America, is forthcoming from NYU Press. a journal of politics and
ideas
Decimation of anti-war forces and flourishing of Russophobia are two immanent features of the US neoliberalism. As long as
the maintinace fo the US global neoliberal empire depends of weakening and, possibly, dismembering Russia it is naive to expect any
change. Russian version of soft "national neoliberalism" is not that different, in principle form Trump version of hard
"netional neoliberalism" so those leaders might have something to talk about. In other words as soon as the USA denounce
neoliberal globalization that might be some openings.
Ten ways the new US-Russian Cold War is increasingly becoming more dangerous than the one we survived.
The political epicenter of the new Cold War is not in far-away Berlin, as it was from the late 1940s on, but directly on
Russia's borders, from the Baltic states and Ukraine to the former Soviet republic of Georgia. Each of these new Cold War fronts
is, or has recently been, fraught with the possibly of hot war. US-Russian military relations are especially tense today in the Baltic
region, where a large-scale NATO buildup is under way, and in Ukraine, where a US-Russian proxy war is intensifying. The "Soviet
Bloc" that once served as a buffer between NATO and Russia no longer exists. And many imaginable incidents on the West's new Eastern
Front, intentional or unintentional, could easily trigger actual war between the United States and Russia. What brought about this
unprecedented situation on Russia's borders -- at least since the Nazi German invasion in 1941 -- was, of course, the exceedingly
unwise decision, in the late 1990s, to expand NATO eastward. Done in the name of "security," it has made all the states involved
only more insecure.
Proxy wars were a feature of the old Cold War, but usually small ones in what was called the "Third World" -- in Africa,
for example -- and they rarely involved many, if any, Soviet or American personnel, mostly only money and weapons. Today's US-Russian
proxy wars are different, located in the center of geopolitics and accompanied by too many American and Russian trainers, minders,
and possibly fighters. Two have already erupted: in Georgia in 2008, where Russian forces fought a Georgian army financed, trained,
and minded by American funds and personnel; and in Syria, where in February
scores
of Russians were killed by US-backed anti-Assad forces . Moscow did not retaliate, but it has pledged to do so if there is "a
next time," as there very well may be. If so, this would in effect be war directly between Russia and America. Meanwhile, the risk
of such a direct conflict continues to grow in Ukraine, where the country's US-backed but politically failing President Petro Poroshenko
seems increasingly tempted to launch another all-out military assault on rebel-controlled Donbass, backed by Moscow. If he does so,
and the assault does not quickly fail as previous ones have, Russia will certainly intervene in eastern Ukraine with a truly tangible
"invasion." Washington will then have to make a fateful war-or-peace decision. Having already reneged on its commitments to the Minsk
Accords, which are the best hope for ending the four-year Ukrainian crisis peacefully, Kiev seems to have an unrelenting impulse
to be a tail wagging the dog of war. Certainly, its capacity for provocations and disinformation are second to none, as evidenced
again last week by the faked "assassination and resurrection" of the journalist Arkady Babchenko.
The Western, but especially American, years-long demonization of the Kremlin leader, Putin, is also unprecedented. Too
obvious to reiterate here, no Soviet leader, at least since Stalin, was ever subjected to such prolonged, baseless, crudely derogatory
personal vilification. Whereas Soviet leaders were generally regarded as acceptable negotiating partners for American presidents,
including at major summits, Putin has been made to seem to be an illegitimate national leader -- at best "a KGB thug," at worst a
murderous "mafia boss."
Still more, demonizing Putin has generated a
widespread Russophobic vilification
of Russia itself , or what The New York Times and other mainstream-media outlets have taken to calling "
Vladimir Putin's Russia ." Yesterday's enemy was Soviet Communism. Today it is increasingly Russia, thereby also delegitimizing
Russia as a great power with legitimate national interests. "The Parity Principle," as Cohen termed it during the preceding Cold
War -- the principle that both sides had legitimate interests at home and abroad, which was the basis for diplomacy and negotiations,
and symbolized by leadership summits -- no longer exists, at least on the American side. Nor does the acknowledgment that both sides
were to blame, at least to some extent, for that Cold War. Among influential American observers
who at least
recognize the reality of the new Cold War , "Putin's Russia" alone is to blame. When there is no recognized parity and shared
responsibility, there is little space for diplomacy -- only for increasingly militarized relations, as we are witnessing today.
Meanwhile, most of the Cold War safeguards -- cooperative mechanisms and mutually observed rules of conduct that evolved
over decades in order to prevent superpower hot war -- have been vaporized or badly frayed since the Ukrainian crisis in 2014,
as the
UN General Secretary António Guterres, almost alone, has recognized : "The Cold War is back -- with a vengeance but with a difference.
The mechanisms and the safeguards to manage the risks of escalation that existed in the past no longer seem to be present." Trump's
recent missile strike on Syria carefully avoided killing any Russians there, but here too Moscow has vowed to retaliate against US
launchers or other forces involved if there is a "next time," as, again, there may be. Even the decades-long process of arms control
may, we are told by an
expert , be coming to an "end." If so, it will mean an unfettered new nuclear-arms race but also the termination of an ongoing
diplomatic process that buffered US-Soviet relations during very bad political times. In short, if there are any new Cold War rules
of conduct, they are yet to be formulated and mutually accepted. Nor does this semi-anarchy take into account the new warfare technology
of cyber-attacks. What are its implications for the secure functioning of existential Russian and American nuclear command-and-control
and early-warning systems that guard against an accidental launching of missiles still on high alert?
Russiagate allegations that the American president has been compromised by -- or is even an agent of -- the Kremlin are
also without precedent. These allegations have had profoundly dangerous consequences, among them the nonsensical but mantra-like
warfare declaration that "Russia attacked America" during the 2016 presidential election; crippling assaults on President Trump every
time he speaks with Putin in person or by phone; and making both Trump and Putin so toxic that even most politicians, journalists,
and professors who understand the present-day dangers are reluctant to speak out against US contributions to the new Cold War.
Mainstream-media outlets have, of course, played a woeful role in all of this. Unlike in the past, when pro-détente
advocates had roughly equal access to mainstream media, today's new Cold War media enforce their orthodox narrative that Russia is
solely to blame. They practice not diversity of opinion and reporting but "confirmation bias." Alternative voices (with, yes, alternative
or opposing facts) rarely appear any longer in the most influential mainstream newspapers or on television or radio broadcasts. One
alarming result is that "disinformation" generated by or pleasing to Washington and its allies has consequences before it can be
corrected. The fake Babchenko assassination (allegedly ordered by Putin, of course) was quickly exposed, but not the alleged Skripal
assassination attempt in the UK, which led to the largest US expulsion of Russian diplomats in history before London's official version
of the story began to fall apart. This too is unprecedented: Cold War without debate, which in turn precludes the frequent rethinking
and revising of US policy that characterized the preceding 40-year Cold War -- in effect, an enforced dogmatization of US policy
that is both exceedingly dangerous and undemocratic.
Equally unsurprising, and also very much unlike during the 40-year Cold War, there is virtually no significant opposition
in the American mainstream to the US role in the new Cold War -- not in the media, not in Congress, not in the two major political
parties, not in the universities, not at grassroots levels. This too is unprecedented, dangerous, and contrary to real democracy.
Consider only the thunderous silence of scores of large US corporations that have been doing profitable business in post-Soviet Russia
for years, from fast-food chains and automobile manufacturers to pharmaceutical and energy giants. And contrast their behavior to
that of CEOs of PepsiCo, Control Data, IBM, and other major American corporations seeking entry to the Soviet market in the 1970s
and 1980s, when they publicly supported and even funded pro-détente organizations and politicians. How to explain the silence of
their counterparts today, who are usually so profit-motivated? Are they too fearful of being labeled "pro-Putin" or possibly "pro-Trump"?
If so, will this Cold War continue to unfold with only very rare profiles of courage in any high places? 9. And then there is the
widespread escalatory myth that today's Russia, unlike the Soviet Union, is too weak -- its economy too small and fragile, its leader
too "isolated in international affairs" -- to wage a sustained Cold War, and that eventually Putin, who is "punching above his weight,"
as the cliché has it, will capitulate. This too is a dangerous delusion.
As Cohen has shown previously ,
"Putin's Russia" is hardly isolated in world affairs, and is becoming even less so, even in Europe, where at least five governments
are tilting away from Washington and Brussels and perhaps from their economic sanctions on Russia. Indeed, despite the sanctions,
Russia's energy industry and agricultural exports are flourishing. Geopolitically, Moscow has many military and related advantages
in regions where the new Cold War has unfolded. And no state with Russia's modern nuclear and other weapons is "punching above its
weight." Above all, the great majority of Russian people have rallied behind Putin because t
hey believe
their country is under attack by the US-led West . Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Russia's history understands it is
highly unlikely to capitulate under any circumstances.
Finally (at least as of now), there is the growing war-like "hysteria" often commented on in both Washington and Moscow. It
is driven by various factors, but television talk/"news" broadcasts, which are as common in Russia as in the United States, play
a major role. Perhaps only an extensive quantitative study could discern which plays a more lamentable role in promoting this frenzy
-- MSNBC and CNN or their Russian counterparts. For Cohen, the Russian dark witticism seems apt: "Both are worst" ( Oba khuzhe
). Again, some of this American broadcast extremism existed during the preceding Cold War, but almost always balanced, even
offset, by truly informed, wiser opinions, which are now largely excluded.
Is this analysis of the dangers inherent in the new Cold War itself extremist or alarmist? Even SOME usually reticent specialists
would seem to agree with Cohen's general assessment. Experts gathered by a centrist Washington think tank
thought that on a scale of 1 to 10,
there is a 5 to 7 chance of actual war with Russia. A former head of British M16 is
reported as saying
that "for the first time in living memory, there's a realistic chance of a superpower conflict." And a respected retired Russian
general tells
the same think tank that any military confrontation "will end up with the use of nuclear weapons between the United States and
Russia."
In today's dire circumstances, one Trump-Putin summit cannot eliminate the new Cold War dangers. But US-Soviet summits traditionally
served three corollary purposes. They created a kind of security partnership -- not a conspiracy -- that involved each leader's limited
political capital at home, which the other should recognize and not heedlessly jeopardize. They sent a clear message to the two leaders'
respective national-security bureaucracies, which often did not favor détente-like cooperation, that the "boss" was determined and
that they must end their foot-dragging, even sabotage. And summits, with their exalted rituals and intense coverage, usually improved
the media-political environment needed to enhance cooperation amid Cold War conflicts. If a Trump-Putin summit achieves even some
of those purposes, it might result in a turning away from the precipice that now looms
The term "national neoliberalism" should probably be adopted as the most succinct term for Trump economic policy
Notable quotes:
"... To paraphrase Ralph Nader, the U.S. corporate state is a two-headed beast. Sure, President Trump and the Republican Party are currently handing over public lands to oil and gas companies, eliminating net neutrality, introducing pro-corporate tax legislation, kowtowing to the military industrial complex, defunding the welfare state, and attempting to privatize education and deregulate finance. ..."
"... But let's not forget our recent Democratic presidents, for example, who are also guilty of empowering and enriching big business and disempowering and impoverishing ordinary Americans. ..."
"... In war the moral is to the material as 3 is to one, said Bonaparte. The neoliberal world order according the Bretton Woods and Washington cannot raise and apply enough material [bombings, drones, aircraft carrier intimidation THAAD in Korea are the ante] without destroying itself and in its throes the world. ..."
"... The U.S. trade deficit in goods, without services, was $810 billion. The United States exported $1.551 trillion in goods. It imported $2.361 trillion. The USA imports more than they export to: China, Japan, Canada, Germany and Mexico. USA top 5 Trade deficits: China $375 billion, Mexico $71, Japan $69, Germany $65, and Canada 18 billion. ..."
Trump behavior at Canadian G7 meeting was boorish, but it is logical and is consistent which his previous stance on globalization:
he rejects neoliberal globalization.
Sasha Breger Bush proposed the term "national neoliberalism" to depict the transition from "classic neoliberalism" which has
been started with the election of Trump.
I think the term really catches the essence of the election of Trump. and should probably be adopted as a succinct description
of Trump economic policy.
The nationalism, xenophobia, isolationism, and paranoia of Donald Trump are about to replace the significantly more cosmopolitan
outlook of his post-WWII predecessors. While Trump is decidedly pro-business and pro-market, he most certainly does not see
himself as a global citizen.
Nor does he intend to maintain the United States' extensive global footprint or its relatively open trading network. In
other words, while neoliberalism is not dead, it is being transformed into a geographically more fragmented and localized system
(this is not only about the US election, but also about rising levels of global protectionism and Brexit, among other anti-globalization
trends around the world).
I expect that the geographic extent of the US economy in the coming years will coincide with the new landscape of U.S. allies
and enemies, as defined by Donald Trump and his administration.
But if we take seriously the idea that Trump is a consequence of the disintegration of American democracy rather than the
cause of it, this "blame game" becomes especially problematic.
Partisan bickering, with one party constantly pointing to the other as responsible for the country's ills, covers up the
fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have presided over the consolidation of corporate power in the United States.
To paraphrase Ralph Nader, the U.S. corporate state is a two-headed beast. Sure, President Trump and the Republican
Party are currently handing over public lands to oil and gas companies, eliminating net neutrality, introducing pro-corporate
tax legislation, kowtowing to the military industrial complex, defunding the welfare state, and attempting to privatize education
and deregulate finance.
But let's not forget our recent Democratic presidents, for example, who are also guilty of empowering and enriching
big business and disempowering and impoverishing ordinary Americans.
JackD, June 10, 2018 9:58 am
@Likbez: "Sure, President Trump, etc" is your important sentence. It is the immediate need. First things, first.
ilsm, June 10, 2018 3:12 pm
In war the moral is to the material as 3 is to one, said Bonaparte. The neoliberal world order according the Bretton Woods
and Washington cannot raise and apply enough material [bombings, drones, aircraft carrier intimidation THAAD in Korea are the
ante] without destroying itself and in its throes the world.
Trump is not tearing apart NATO anyone not earning money is a PNAC think tanks knows NATO has become an aggression against
Russia with similar intent as Hitler.
Grabbing Sevastopol and aiding Russians in territory occupied by Kyiv are [bold] defensive moves. The threat of Chinese islands
in the South China Sea is the US Navy super carriers intimidations has no career raiding Hainan.
rps, June 10, 2018 7:42 pm
I was curious if Yglesias is a Canadian since his editorial sided with the G7 leaders stance against Trump's fair-trade often
labelled as 'protectionism' of USA industries. He's a New Yorker as I pondered what's his stake in this political tirade against
Trump's pro-America versus anti-globalist policies?
It appears that the media has glided over the fact Trump had suggested to the other G7 leaders that all trade barriers, including
tariffs and subsidies, be eliminated, ""You go tariff-free, you go barrier-free, you go subsidy free." Protectionist Canadian
PM Trudeau howled at a press conference after Trump had left on his way to Singapore. Why? Is it because Trudeau is committed
to the welfare of Canadians and their industries? How dare the president of the USA- in turn, advocate for citizenry and country
as does his G7 counterparts for their countries.
The U.S. trade deficit in goods, without services, was $810 billion. The United States exported $1.551 trillion in goods.
It imported $2.361 trillion. The USA imports more than they export to: China, Japan, Canada, Germany and Mexico. USA top 5 Trade
deficits: China $375 billion, Mexico $71, Japan $69, Germany $65, and Canada 18 billion.
US citizens and their jobs were swindled with cheaper foreign goods flooding American businesses and stores as good manufacturing
jobs headed overseas. Jobs that created the middle class and all their earned benefits and standard of living decreased/disappeared
quickly with NAFTA and the WTO.
Concisely, trade deficits destroyed the middle class, the working class, blue collar, and in turn, increased poverty and homelessness.
Destroyed small town anywhere in the USA with manufacturing and jobs fleeing overseas in search of cheap labor. Go travel across
the USA and see the boarded up towns, walk the streets of Flint Michigan, Detroit, Martinsville Virginia, Gary Indiana, Freeport
Il, etc. Throw a dart at a USA map and you'll hit a town devastated by 'free' to lose your job trade. In 2014, 2.3 million job
losses due to trade with China. Job losses in the millions have been slowly replaced with 'service' jobs and/or $8.00 an hour
part-time no benefits workers as the new norm.
Remember when Walmart's original slogan was "Buy American"? Sam Walton before he died, was big on "Buy American," and it appeared
in signs in the stores and on TV ads. His heirs quickly changed it to "Buy Chinese" destroying the american dream and small town
USA.
Yet Yglesias' preference is all for the unbalanced trade with our G7 frenemies and punishing a president who chooses fair trade
practices to ensure US jobs for American citizens. Makes me wonder who or what Yglesias truly advocates for, the NWO or the country
of origin on his passport?
"What we must do is this: revise our tariff on the basis of a reciprocal exchange of goods, allowing other Nations to buy and
to pay for our goods by sending us such of their goods as will not seriously throw any of our industries out of balance Such objectives
as these three, restoring farmers' buying power, relief to the small banks and home-owners and a reconstructed tariff policy,
are only a part of ten or a dozen vital factors. But they seem to be beyond the concern of a national administration which can
think in terms only of the top of the social and economic structure. It has sought temporary relief from the top down rather than
permanent relief from the bottom up. It has totally failed to plan ahead in a comprehensive way. It has waited until something
has cracked and then at the last moment has sought to prevent total collapse.
It is high time to get back to fundamentals. It is high time to admit with courage that we are in the midst of an emergency
at least equal to that of war. Let us mobilize to meet it." "The Forgotten Man" speech, 1937. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Since Clinton signed NAFTA in 1994 and the WTO, American jobs and industry left our shores seeking the lowest common denominator-
cheap slave labor. To paraphrase FDR into the late 20th and early 21st century, "Clinton and his successors concern of their national
administrations thought in terms only of the top of the social and economic structure. It has sought temporary relief from the
top down rather than permanent relief from the bottom up.It has totally failed to plan ahead in a comprehensive way."
Bruce Webb, June 10, 2018 9:16 pm
Nothing personally Rps, but you do not get Triffin Dilemma and global reserve currency. Please no more NAFTA obsession when
no jobs left with that deal and exports excelerated. The global reserve currency and booming financial markets create a surplus
in services over goods. It also creates the need for a goods deficit to stabilize the financial system. You cannot wave a wand
and cure something that cannot be cured. You need a major depression to rebalance and drive capital from america.
Bruce Webb, June 10, 2018 9:19 pm
Likbez, Neoliberalism IS American. Trump is pro-East Asia
"... But if we take seriously the idea that Trump is a consequence of the disintegration of American democracy rather than the cause of it, this "blame game" becomes especially problematic. Partisan bickering, with one party constantly pointing to the other as responsible for the country's ills, covers up the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have presided over the consolidation of corporate power in the United States. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, the U.S. corporate state is a two-headed beast. Sure, President Trump and the Republican Party are currently handing over public lands to oil and gas companies, eliminating net neutrality, introducing pro-corporate tax legislation, kowtowing to the military industrial complex, defunding the welfare state, and attempting to privatize education and deregulate finance. But let's not forget our recent Democratic presidents, for example, who are also guilty of empowering and enriching big business and disempowering and impoverishing ordinary Americans. ..."
"... All of this is to say that I'm considerably less excited about 2018 and 2020 than many others -- on what counts as the U.S. left -- appear to be. Democratic Party victories at the ballot box would certainly reduce some of the pressures on a variety of marginalized groups who are suffering mightily under President Trump. This is, of course, a good thing. But, Democratic victories will not "fix" the structural problems that underpin our current political crisis nor will they ensure a freer and more just future. ..."
This article is from Dollars & Sense : Real World Economics, available at
http://www.dollarsandsense.org
Last winter, in the wake of the 2016 Presidential election, I wrote an article for
Dollars & Sense in which I argued that Trump's election represented a transition
toward "national neoliberalism" in the United States ("Trump and National Neoliberalism:
Trump's ascendance means the end of globalism -- but not of neoliberalism," January/February
2017).
I argued that this emergent state of affairs would be marked by a completion of the takeover
of the U.S. government by corporate interests. I saw the election of Trump -- a top
one-percenter and real estate tycoon firmly rooted in the culture and logic of big business,
who has somehow convinced many Americans that he is an anti-establishment "outsider" -- as an
"unmasking" of the corporate state, a revelation of the ongoing merger between state and market
that has arguably been ongoing since the 1970s. In short, I envisioned a movement away from
"global neoliberalism," a state of affairs characterized by the increasing preeminence of
transnational corporate capital in a relatively open global political-economic system, and
towards "national neoliberalism," a state of affairs in which transnational corporate dominance
is cemented in the context of an ever more fragmented and dangerous global system.
About ten years ago, political theorist Sheldon Wolin published Democracy
Incorporated , diagnosing American democracy with a potentially fatal corporate disease.
Referring to the specter of "inverted totalitarianism," Wolin writes in his preface:
Primarily it represents the political coming of age of corporate power and the political
demobilization of the citizenry. Unlike the classic forms of totalitarianism [e.g. Germany,
Italy], which openly boasted of their intentions to force their societies into preconceived
totality, inverted totalitarianism is not expressly conceptualized as an ideology or
objectified in public policy. Typically it is furthered by power-holders and citizens who often
seem unaware of the deeper consequences of their actions or inactions. There is a certain
heedlessness, an inability to take seriously the extent to which a pattern of consequences may
take shape without having been preconceived. Wolin paints a picture of a gradual process of
change in which many different actors, some wealthy and powerful and others not, unwittingly
push the country's politics, bit by bit in piecemeal fashion, towards an undemocratic,
corporate-controlled end. Many of these actors may have good intentions. Many of them may see
themselves as champions of the people. Many of them may actually speak out against the very
interests that they in other ways empower.
This framework for thinking about the plight of the United States, which has for me been
legitimated over and over again during Trump's first year in office, conditions how I think
about President Trump and the Republican Party, and how I think about our opportunities for
nonviolent social transformation, freedom, and social justice. It's hard not to point to
President Trump and blame him for our problems. He is a bigot who has struck out at immigrants,
Muslims, Arabs, African-Americans, Mexicans, women, LGBT people, and disabled people. He lacks
the basic knowledge of politics and foreign policy that are a necessary condition for competent
leadership. He picked up a congratulatory call from the President of Taiwan in December 2016,
disrupting relations with China, and called North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un "short" and
"fat." He is a paranoid and narcissistic demagogue who has scorned and marginalized
journalists, and made the terms "fake news" and "alternative facts" household words. He is a
corrupt businessman who is using the levers of power that he controls to enrich Big Business,
as well as his cronies, his friends, and himself. I could go on.
It's also hard not to point to Republicans in Congress. After the election, there was hope
that the "never Trump" Republicans would win out and that Trump's agenda would be blocked. This
has not happened. While some in Congress, like Senators McCain (R-Ariz.), Corker (R-Tenn.),
Collins (R-Maine), Flake (R-Ariz.) and Murkowski (R-Alaska) have defied Trump in certain
contexts (e.g. on foreign policy), on many issues congressional Republicans have simply fallen
in line (e.g. with tax reform). Today, the Republican Party is often discussed by liberals in
the same breath as Trump, with everyone hoping for good news in 2018 and 2020.
But if we take seriously the idea that Trump is a consequence of the disintegration of
American democracy rather than the cause of it, this "blame game" becomes especially
problematic. Partisan bickering, with one party constantly pointing to the other as responsible
for the country's ills, covers up the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have presided
over the consolidation of corporate power in the United States. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, the
U.S. corporate state is a two-headed beast. Sure, President Trump and the Republican Party are
currently handing over public lands to oil and gas companies, eliminating net neutrality,
introducing pro-corporate tax legislation, kowtowing to the military industrial complex,
defunding the welfare state, and attempting to privatize education and deregulate finance. But
let's not forget our recent Democratic presidents, for example, who are also guilty of
empowering and enriching big business and disempowering and impoverishing ordinary
Americans.
President Obama presided over the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, a process that
President Trump is continuing. As William Hartung recently reported in Mother Jones ,
"There is, in fact, a dirty little secret behind the massive U.S. arsenal: It has more to do
with the power and profits of weapons makers than it does with any imaginable strategic
considerations." President Obama also helped corporations get richer and more powerful in other
ways. He negotiated the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multilateral trade deal that, if Trump had
not withdrawn us, would have expanded U.S. corporate access to overseas markets and given
multinational corporates new policy leverage over governments (via investor-state dispute
settlement mechanisms). (See Robin Brand, "Remembering the 'Tokyo No'," Dollars &
Sense , January/February 2015.) In 2012, as he was running for his second term, Obama
proposed a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 28%, not much different from the bill just
passed by Congress. He also lobbied Congress for the $700 billion Wall Street bailouts after
the Great Recession, continuing on the policy path set by his Republican predecessor, President
Bush. (Obama received huge campaign contributions from finance, insurance, and real estate.) In
terms of income inequality, CNBC had to reluctantly conclude that the gap widened under Obama,
in spite of all his powerful rhetoric about equity and equality.
President Clinton negotiated and signed NAFTA into law, a trade agreement that created
hardship for millions of American manufacturing workers and farmers, and generated large
profits for multinational industrial and agricultural corporations. Clinton also pushed for
welfare reform, signing into law a "workfare" system that required recipients to meet strict
job and employment related conditions. Millions of people became ineligible for payments under
the new system, and poverty increased especially among households in which members were
long-term unemployed. Clinton's 1997 tax proposal advocated cutting estate taxes and capital
gains taxes, and did not favor lower-income Americans. The Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities noted, "Analyses by the Treasury Department indicate that when fully in effect, the
Clinton plan would give the 20 percent of Americans with the highest incomes about the same
amount in tax cuts as the bottom 60 percent combined. This is an unusual characteristic for a
tax plan proposed by a Democratic President."
All of this is to say that I'm considerably less excited about 2018 and 2020 than many
others -- on what counts as the U.S. left -- appear to be. Democratic Party victories at the
ballot box would certainly reduce some of the pressures on a variety of marginalized groups who
are suffering mightily under President Trump. This is, of course, a good thing. But, Democratic
victories will not "fix" the structural problems that underpin our current political crisis nor
will they ensure a freer and more just future.
I plan to support third-party candidates at the ballot box in coming years, in the hopes of
contributing to the creation of a new kind of political infrastructure that can help us to
unmake the corporate state.
SASHA BREGER-BUSH is an assistant professor of political science at the University of
Colorado–Denver.
"... By Christine Berry. Originally published at openDemocracy ..."
"... The really fascinating battles in intellectual history tend to occur when some group or movement goes on the offensive and asserts that Something Big really doesn't actually exist." ..."
"... "a new ideology must give high priority to real and efficient limitation of the state's ability to, in detail, intervene in the activities of the individual. At the same time, it is absolutely clear that there are positive functions allotted to the state. The doctrine that, one and off, has been called neoliberalism and that has developed, more or less simultaneously in many parts of the world is precisely such a doctrine But instead of the 19 th century understanding that laissez-faire is the means to achieve this goal, neoliberalism proposes that competition will lead the way". ..."
"... Wealth of Nations ..."
"... Neoliberalism is like a Caddis Fly larvae, that sticks random objects outside its cocoon to blend in. ..."
"... Neoliberalism did not just adopt neoclassical economics, nor did it simply infest political parties of the right. Neoliberalism re-invented neoclassical economics in ways that defined not just the "right" of academic economics, but also defined the "left". Keynesian economics was absorbed and transmogrified by first one neoclassical synthesis and then a second, leaving a New Keynesian macroeconomics to occupy the position of a nominal left within mainstream economics. If you are waiting for a Krugman or even a Stiglitz to oppose neoliberalism, you will be waiting a very long time, because they are effectively locked into the neoliberal dialectic. ..."
"... If neoliberalism can be broken down to "Because markets" perhaps it could also be referred to as "Market Darwinism". ..."
"... A fundamental difference between neoliberalism and classic economists like Ricardo & Smith is the latter's adamant opposition to rent seeking and insistence on fighting it by taxation. Neoliberalism on the other hand not only accepts rent-seeking, but actively encourages it. Thus we see not only the ascendancy of of the FIRE sector, but the effective destruction of markets as mechanisms of price discovery. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is just another damn thing that externalizes and socializes costs. It is a very costly thing. ..."
"... Much as I regard your past comments, I must disagree with your assertion "Neoliberalism is just another damn thing that externalizes and socializes costs". Neoliberalism does indeed externalize and socialize costs but it is more than just another damn thing. Just the scale and scope of the think tank network assembled and well funded to promote the concepts of the Neoliberal thought collective should be adequate to convince you that it is much more than "just another damn thing". ..."
"... Consider just the visible portion of the think tanks which are part of the Neoliberal thought collective. "Today, Atlas Network connects more than 450 think tanks in nearly 100 countries. Each is writing its own story of how principled work to affect public opinion, on behalf of the ideas of a free society, can better individuals' lives." ..."
"... Next consider the state of the economics profession. Neoliberalism has taken over many major schools of economics and a large number of the economics journals. In a publish or perish world there are few alternatives to an adherence to some flavor of Neoliberal ideology. This is not "just another damn thing." Consider how many national politicians are spouting things like there is 'no such thing as society'. This is not "just another damn thing" -- it is something much much more scary. ..."
"... "I am not well qualified to criticize those theories, because as a market participant, I considered them so unrealistic that I never bothered to study them" ..."
"... "Those, like Ed Conway, who persist in claiming neoliberalism doesn't even exist, may soon find themselves left behind by history." ..."
"... "One of the great achievements of neoliberalism has been to induce such a level of collective amnesia that it's now once again possible to claim that these tenets are simply "fundamental economic rules" handed down directly from Adam Smith on tablets of stone, unchallenged and unchallengeable in the history of economic thought." ..."
"... "The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers." ..."
"... "The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens." ..."
"... "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." ..."
"... "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." ..."
"... "But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin." ..."
"... A reading of Smith's 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments' written before, but revised after, WoN is also worthwhile. As is, as ever, Karl Polyani's opening salvo against Smith's take on 'human market nature' (my term). Everyone should read 'The Great Transformation' at least once. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is the refinement of this basic human tendency for domination. It is a camouflaged form of oppression that is revealed through its ultimate effect, not what it does at the moment. A neoliberal is a disguised raider or conquerer. ..."
"... Neoliberals prefer a strong state that promotes their ends, not one that opposes them, or has the ability to oppose the means and methods of private capital . That leaves the playing field with a single team. ..."
"... Homo economicus ..."
"... Neoliberals argue that since members of H. economicus ..."
"... "Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." ..."
"... "Doing the same thing again and again and expecting to get a different result" ..."
"... "[ ] Well, this one at least is half-true. Like literally every concept that has ever mattered, the concept of 'neoliberalism' is messy, it's deeply contested [ ]" ..."
"... Although it serves the purposes of the rich-and-powerful rather well, I think "neoliberalism" as a rhetorical engine and set of ideas is the ideology of the 9.9%, the chattering classes of professionals and bureaucrats who need a cover story for their own participation in running the world for the benefit of the 0.1% These are the people who need to rationalize what they do and cooperate and coordinate among themselves and that's a challenge because of their sheer numbers. ..."
"... Neoliberalism says it aims at freedom and social welfare and innovation and other good things. If neoliberalism said it aimed to make the richest 0.1% richer at the expense of everyone else, it would provoke political opposition from the 99% for obvious reasons. Including opposition from the 9.9% whom they need to run things, to run the state, run the corporations. ..."
"... The genius of neoliberalism is such that it is able to achieve a high degree of coordination in detail across large numbers of people, institutions, even countries while still professing [fake] aims and values to which few object. A high degree of coordination on implementing a political policy agenda that is variously parasitical or predatory on the 90%. ..."
"... You can say this is just hypocrisy of a type the rich have always engaged in, and that would be true. The predatory rich have always had to disguise their predatory or parasitical activity, and have often done so by embracing, for example, shows of piety or philanthropy. So, neoliberalism falls into a familiar albeit broad category. ..."
"... What distinguishes neoliberalism is how good it is at coordinating the activities of the 9.9% in delivering the goods for the 0.1%. For a post-industrial economy, neoliberalism is better for the mega-rich than Catholicism was for the feudalism of the High Middle Ages. I do not think most practicing neoliberals among the 9.9% even think of themselves as hypocrites. ..."
"... "Free markets" has been the key move, the fulcrum where anodyne aims and values to which no one can object meet the actual detailed policy implementation by the state. Creating a "market" removes power and authority from the state and transfers it to private actors able to apply financial wealth to managing things, and then, because an actual market cannot really do the job that's been assigned, a state bureaucracy has to be created to manage the administrative details and financial flows -- work for the 9.9% ..."
"... As a special bonus, the insistence on treating a political economy organized in fact by large public and private bureaucracies as if it is organized by and around "markets" introduces a high degree of economic agnatology into the conventional political rhetoric. ..."
"... Pierre Bourdieu, the great French sociologist, would say neoliberalism, like the devil, is one of those things that makes a priority of pretending it does not exist. (Bourdieu cited many others.) It makes it much harder for those whose interests it does not serve to fight it, like forcing someone to eat Jello with a single chopstick. ..."
By Christine Berry. Originally published at
openDemocracy
The really fascinating battles in intellectual history tend to occur when some group
or movement goes on the offensive and asserts that Something Big really doesn't actually
exist."
So says Philip Morowski in his book 'Never Let a Serious Crisis Go To Waste: How
Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown' . As Mirowski argues, neoliberalism is
a particularly fascinating case in point. Just as Thatcher asserted there was 'no such thing as
society', it's common to find economics commentators asserting that there is 'no such thing as
neoliberalism' – that it's simply a meaningless insult bandied about by the left, devoid
of analytical content.
But on the list of 'ten tell-tale signs you're a neoliberal', insisting that Neoliberalism
Is Not A Thing must surely be number one. The latest commentator to add his voice to the chorus
is Sky
Economics Editor Ed Conway . On the Sky blog, he gives four reasons why Neoliberalism Is
Not A Thing. Let's look at each of them in turn:
1. It's only used by its detractors, not by its supporters
This one is pretty easy to deal with, because it's flat-out not true. As Mirowski documents,
"the people associated with the doctrine did call themselves 'neo-liberals' for a
brief period lasting from the 1930s to the early 1950s, but then they abruptly stopped the
practice" – deciding it would serve their political project better if they claimed to be
the heirs of Adam Smith than if they consciously distanced themselves from classical
liberalism. Here's just one example, from Milton Friedman in 1951:
"a new ideology must give high priority to real and efficient limitation of the
state's ability to, in detail, intervene in the activities of the individual. At the same
time, it is absolutely clear that there are positive functions allotted to the state. The
doctrine that, one and off, has been called neoliberalism and that has developed, more or
less simultaneously in many parts of the world is precisely such a doctrine But instead of
the 19 th century understanding that laissez-faire is the means to achieve this
goal, neoliberalism proposes that competition will lead the way".
You might notice that as well as the word 'neoliberalism', this also includes the word
'ideology'. Remember that one for later.
It's true that the word 'neoliberalism' did go underground for a long time, with its
proponents preferring to position their politics simply as sound economics than to admit it was
a radical ideological programme. But that didn't stop them from knowing what they stood for, or
from acting collectively – through a well-funded network of think tanks and research
institutes – to spread those ideas.
It's worth noting that one of those think tanks, the Adam Smith Institute, has in the last
couple of years consciously reclaimed the mantle .
Affiliated intellectuals like Madsen Pirie and Sam
Bowman have explicitly sought to define and defend neoliberalism. It's no accident that
this happened around the time that neoliberalism began to be seriously challenged in the UK,
with the rise of Corbyn and the shock of the Brexit vote, after a post-crisis period where the
status quo seemed untouchable.
2. Nobody can agree on what it means
Well, this one at least is half-true. Like literally every concept that has ever mattered,
the concept of 'neoliberalism' is messy, it's deeply contested, it has evolved over time and it
differs in theory and practice. From the start, there has been debate within the neoliberal
movement itself about how it should define itself and what its programme should be. And, yes,
it's often used lazily on the left as a generic term for anything vaguely establishment. None
of this means that it is Not A Thing. This is something sociologists and historians
instinctively understand, but which many economists seem to have trouble with.
Having said this, it is possible to define some generally accepted core features of
neoliberalism. Essentially, it privileges markets as the best way to organise the economy and
society, but unlike classical liberalism, it sees a strong role for the state in creating and
maintaining these markets. Outside of this role, the state should do as little as possible, and
above all it must not interfere with the 'natural' operation of the market. But it has always
been part of the neoliberal project to take over the state and transform it for its own ends,
rather than to dismantle or disable it.
Of course, there's clearly a tension between neoliberals' professed ideals of freedom and
their need for a strong state to push through policies that often don't have democratic
consent. We see this in the actions of the Bretton Woods institutions in the era of 'structural
adjustment', or the Troika's behaviour towards Greece during the Eurozone crisis. We see it
most starkly in Pinochet's Chile, the original neoliberal experiment. This perhaps helps to
explain the fact that neoliberalism is sometimes equated with libertarianism and the 'small
state', while others reject this characterisation. I'll say it again: none of this means that
neoliberalism doesn't exist.
3. Neoliberalism is just good economics
Neoliberalism may not exist, says Conway, but what do exist are "conventional economic
models – the ones established by Adam Smith all those centuries ago", and the principles
they entail. That they may have been "overzealously implemented and sometimes misapplied" since
the end of the Cold War is "unfortunate", but "hardly equals an ideology". I'm sure he'll hate
me for saying this, but Ed – this is the oldest neoliberal trick in the book.
The way Conway defines these principles (fiscal conservatism, property rights and leaving
businesses to make their own decisions) is hardly a model of analytical rigour, but we'll let
that slide. Instead, let's note that the entire reason neoliberal ideology developed was that
the older classical "economic models" manifestly failed during the Great Depression of the
1930s, leading them to be replaced by Keynesian demand-management models as the dominant
framework for understanding the economy.
Neoliberals had to update these models in order to restore their credibility: this is why
they poured so much effort into the development of neoclassical economics and the capture of
academic economics by the Chicago School. One of the great achievements of neoliberalism has
been to induce such a level of collective amnesia that it's now once again possible to claim
that these tenets are simply "fundamental economic rules" handed down directly from Adam Smith
on tablets of stone, unchallenged and unchallengeable in the history of economic thought.
In any case, even some people that ascribe to neoclassical economics – like Joseph
Stiglitz – are well enough able to distinguish this intellectual framework from the
political application of it by neoliberals. It is perfectly possible to agree with the former
but not the latter.
4. Yes, 'neoliberal' policies have been implemented in recent decades, but this has been
largely a matter of accident rather than design
Privatisation, bank deregulation, the dismantling of capital and currency controls:
according to Conway, these are all developments that came about by happenstance. "Anyone who
has studied economic history" will tell you they are "hardly the result of a guiding ideology."
This will no doubt be news to the large number of eminent economic historians who have
documented the shift from Keynesianism to neoliberalism, from Mirowski and Daniel Stedman-Jones
to Robert Skidelsky and Robert Van Horn (for a good reading list, see this
bibliographic review by Will Davies .)
It would also be news to Margaret Thatcher, the woman who reportedly slammed down Hayek's
'Constitution of Liberty' on the table at one of her first cabinet meetings and declared
"Gentlemen, this is our programme"; and who famously said "Economics is the method; the object
is to change the soul". And it would be news to those around her who strategized for a
Conservative government with carefully laid-out battleplans for dismantling the key
institutions of the post-war settlement, such as the Ridley Report on privatising state-run
entities.
What Conway appears to be denying here is the whole idea that policymaking takes place
within a shared set of assumptions (or paradigm), that dominant paradigms tend to shift over
time, and that these shifts are usually accompanied by political crises and resulting transfers
of political power – making them at least partly a matter of ideology rather than simply
facts.
Whether it's even meaningful to claim that ideology-free facts exist on matters so
inherently political as how to run the economy is a whole debate in the sociology of knowledge
which we don't have time to go into here, and which Ed Conway doesn't seem to have much
awareness of.
But he shows his hand when he says that utilities were privatised because "governments
realised they were mostly a bit rubbish at running them". This is a strong – and highly
contentious – political claim disguised as a statement of fact – again, a classic
neoliberal gambit. It's a particularly bizarre one for an economist to make at a time when
70% of UK rail
routes are owned by foreign states who won the franchises through competitive tender. Just
this week, we learned that
the East Coast main line is to be temporarily renationalised because Virgin and Stagecoach
turned out to be, erm, a bit rubbish at running it.
* * *
It may be a terrible cliché, but the old adage "First they ignore you, then they
laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" seems appropriate here. Neoliberalism
successfully hid in plain sight for decades, with highly ideological agendas being implemented
amidst claims we lived in a post-ideological world. Now that it is coming under ideological
challenge, it is all of a sudden stood naked in the middle of the room, having to explain why
it's there (to borrow a phrase from a very brilliant colleague).
There are a number of strategies neoliberals can adopt in response to this. The Adam Smith
Institute response is to go on the offensive and defend it. The Theresa May response is to pay
lip service to the need for systemic change whilst quietly continuing with the same old
policies. Those, like Ed Conway, who persist in claiming neoliberalism doesn't even exist, may
soon find themselves left behind by history. 95 comments
Neoliberalism may not exist, says Conway, but what do exist are "conventional economic
models – the ones established by Adam Smith all those centuries ago",
Um please name one "conventional economic model" established by Adam Smith. I mean,
really, who would actually write such nonsense?
In fairness, I expect Conway is referring to the "invisible hand" of market competition,
wherein the competitive market qua an institution supposedly transforms the private pursuit
of self-interest into a public benefit. From the OP, Milton Friedman saying, "instead of . .
. laissez-faire . . . neoliberalism proposes . . . competition".
A pedant can rightly claim that the actual Adam Smith had a more nuanced and realistic
view, but that does not help to understand, let alone defeat, the intellectual smoke and
mirrors of neoliberalism. And, in spirit, the neoliberals are more right than wrong in
claiming Adam Smith: on the economics, he was a champion of market competition against the
then degenerate corporate state and an advocate of a modified laissez faire against
mercantilism, not to mention feudalism.
My personal view is that you have lost the argument if you agree to the key element of
neoclassical economics: that the economy is organized around and by (metaphoric) markets and
policy is justified (sic!) by remedying market failure. If you concede "the market economy"
even as a mere convention of political speech, you are lost, because you have entered into
the Alice-in-Wonderland neoliberal model, and you can no longer base your arguments on
socially-constructed references to the real, institutional world.
Adam Smith was systematically interpreting his observed world, he kept himself honest by
being descriptively accurate. It was Ricardo who re-invented classical economics as an
abstract theory deductible from first principles and still later thinkers, who re-invented
that abstract, deductive theory as a neoclassical economics in open defiance of observed
reality. And, still later thinkers, many of them critics (Hayek being a prime example) of
neoclassical economics as it existed circa 1930, who founded neoliberalism as we know it. We
really should not blame Adam Smith.
You comment is confusing to me -- not quite sure what you are arguing. You close asserting
"We really should not blame Adam Smith." Was he blamed in this post?
I think it's the very selective reading, and quoting, of Adam Smith's writings to give
neoliberal economics more legitimacy; the parts where he mentions the supremacy of the common
good and the need to prevent too much accumulation of money in too few hands is ignored.
Restated, the free market with its invisible hand is best so long as the whole community
benefits. However, wealth and the power it brings tends to become monopolized into a very few
hands. That needs to be prevented and if needed by government.
I think I need to go back over the Wealth of Nations to be sure I am not being
too selective myself. That said, what the neoliberals are doing is like some people's very
selective reading of the New Testament to support their interests. (Like the vile
Prosperity Gospel)
There is so much claptrap in this article, on all sides of what is supposedly being
debated. Yet, the one underlying historical fact that is being completely overlooked is pure
Keynesian demand driven economics.
An economics that not only has a basis in fact, but also has an actual history of
success.
Keynesian economics did not fail. It was undermined by a movement back toward neo-liberal
Adam Smith "invisible hand of the free market" nonsense that has done nothing throughout
history except proven itself to be greed disguised as an economic theory to give the powerful
an opportunity to fleece the poor and the government treasury.
"Free markets" is incoherent, yet it is a very well accepted and unquestioned notion, to
the degree it is regularly depicted as virtuous and achieving it, a worthy policy goal.
I have written about how the East Germans were absorbed by Germany as neoliberalism was
ascendant in 1990, with such shibboleths as TINA and The End of History taken as cosmological
verities by the West German government. Now I'm doing research on Detroit, where
neoliberalism remains powerful and the source of a meretricious "renaissance" taking place
there even as it is increasingly found to be a generator of and rationalization for all
manner of class-based exploitation. Mirowski's checklist of the attributes of neoliberalism
is on display in state and local government there as they serve corporations, such as the
city "selling" the Little Ceasar's empire 39 acres of downtown land for $1 upon which was
built the new hockey arena. Detroit is a bellwether city, and despite the depredations of
corporations and government there is much organized opposition to neoliberal rule in the
city.
I believe there was an article here recently by Mirowski – The something or other
that dare not speak it's name ? I have spent quite a few hours in the past listening to his
podcasts & videos, which tend to repeat themselves, although something new slips in from
time to time, especially from Q & A's.
His assertion that economics is merely one part of a whole in the Neoliberal assault woke
me up, & indeed then appeared very obvious.
I believe I have seen an example of the Detroit devastation used as film sets in two
films: " Only Lovers Left alive " & " Don't Breathe ", which suit the darkness of them
very well.
Good to know that there is resistance & I wish you the very best outcome for your
& or their endeavours.
I too have watched many hours of Phillip Mirowski's videos, several of them more than
once. I have a little trouble with your assertion they "tend to repeat themselves, although
something new slips in from time to time". He does repeatedly emphasize points which are hard
to believe on first hearing but grow evident upon further reflection. For example his
emphasis on the concept of the Market as the Neoliberal epistemology -- an ultimate tool for
discovering Truth. A little recall of some recent and surprisingly commonplace constructs
like a "market of ideas", or various ways of suggesting we are each a commodity we need to
package, promote, and sell as exemplified by Facebook "likes" and "networking" as a way to
get ahead. Looking at the whole of the videos, and excluding obvious repetitions like
multiple versions of book promotion interviews at different venues I think the range of ideas
Mirowski explores is remarkable -- from the Neoliberal thought collective to climate change
to the Market applied to direct the truth science can discover.
[Where do you find podcasts of Mirowski? I recall collecting a few but most of what I find
are videos. He has numerous of his papers posted at academia.edu which can be downloaded for
free by signing up for the website.]
There are just a few. You may already have heard some of these: Search for Symptomatic
Redness, and search for This Is Hell. Search for [PPE Polanyi Hayek]. He talked to Doug
Henwood. He talked to Will Davies and that is audio only I believe. There's the Science Mart
talk that he gave in Australia. If you look in archive.org and soundcloud as well as youtube
and vimeo, you will find most of them. I think all four of those sites have a few recordings
that are exclusive from the others. Archive.org has a couple of his appearances on community
radio. A few are also linked from the media page for a given book on the publishers' sites,
like go to the links on the book page for Science Mart, for an appearance on I think Boston
radio.
I'm a nerd. Heh. But if you've come this far and listened to the videos (the one with
Homer's brain and markomata, the Boundary2 conference talk, the Leukana one, Prof Nik-Khah at
the Whitlam center, Sam Seder, the one on climate, talking about Cowles in Brazil), you will
enjoy the others. Hope these notes help you find a few.
I wrote a web page back in April of
2016 about the neoliberal forces in Detroit. Let me know at my twitter page what you think. Feel
free to use whatever you find helpful
I found then that the City of Detroit and the State of Michigan had been hornswaggled by
private enterprises nesting their own feathers.
Utilitarianism, expressed as the greatest aggregate well-being to humanity
(economic production and growth) and preference for economic efficiency (monopolies,
duopolies, cartels, etc.) over market competition, are two additional hallmarks of
neoliberalism.
Recognizing these two important values helps explain the growing economic and social
inequality we're witnessing around the western world.
I will checkout your recommendation and I hope that it will discuss, for instance, the
assumption that *economic* production and growth and preference for economic efficiency is
and should be the proper goal of human life.
The book is descriptive and critical, but not particularly prescriptive. But yes, one of
the real strengths of Davies' work is his documentation of the many economic, social, and
political assumptions that provide the foundations of neoliberal thought. I was impressed by
the many logical inconsistencies that advocates of neoliberalism are comfortable in
accepting. I don't believe that the bulk of neoliberal ideas could exist for long outside the
philosophical context of postmodernism as the cognitive dissonance they (should) generate
would find them quickly abandoned.
The intersection of postmodernism, neoliberalism , and neoconservatism defines our current
Western civilization, and I wish somebody would come up with a name for it. Whatever we have
now is the successor to Modernism, in its broadest sense.
I saw one of those political compass memes recently that had at the "center", "Everything
is rent seeking, except for literal rent seeking, which is okay."
Well, there is at least some labeling issue, as one of the first people to use term
"neoliberalism" (for his proposed policy) was Germany's Alexander Rustow, who hardlty anyone
knows about these days, so they don't know either that Rustow would likely sign off most of
Corbyn's proposed policies
IIRC Rustow was one of the more 'moderate' founder members of the Mont Pelerin Society.
His views did not prevail, though they initially adopted his term for their project. I wonder
if, when he saw which way the wind was blowing, he demanded it back.
The term was sometimes applied to the New Deal but didn't really catch on.
It was also used in the early '80s for a movement trying to resurrect the New Deal in the
face of Reagan but that didn't catch on either.
Hey, I just remembered something. When I was a kid growing up everybody knew all about the
mafia but all those in the know denied that there was any such thing when questioned in a
court of law. It got to be a running joke how these gang bosses and members were always
denying that the mafia was an actual thing. Could it be that the neoliberals took a page out
of their book and adopted the same tactic of denying the existence of neoliberalism while
actively pushing it at every opportunity?
And like the line from 'fight club', the first rule of neoliberalism is that you don't
talk about it.
To extend your analogy, much like the mafia, there's a handful of shadowy law breakers who
benefit from neoliberalism and a whole lot of people that suffer violence so that those
benefits can flow up to that few.
this is why I keep Mario Puzo next to Adam and Karl on the econ shelf in my library.
It's not so much Omerta, as gobbdeygook and wafer thin platitudes.
Like the concurrent and related "Conservative revolution"(1973-), they stole the Cell
Structure from the Comintern, and bought out the competition.
I am inclined to believe that the Libertarian Party was a vehicle for this counterrevolution,
too.
and finally, with the DLC, they were able to buy the "opposition party" outright and here we
are.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! He's only here to direct you to a very
robust curtain marketplace to suit all your needs, including our newest offering for
consumers without a desire to invest in (or a steady home for) full curtain infrastructure:
Curtains-as-a-Service! Ultimate mobility! Low(ish) monthly payments forever!"
"Neoliberalism" is indeed a thing, but it is not in any way an economic model.
"Neoliberalism" is simply the ethos of Sit Back and Let the Big Dog Eat, and it wraps itself
in whatever words or models is most effective at distracting and camouflaging its rotten
core. Neoliberalism is like a Caddis Fly larvae, that sticks random objects outside its
cocoon to blend in.
So the Neoliberals talk about free markets when it suits them – and when their
wealthy patrons want to be bailed out with public funds, they talk about government
responsibility. They harp about freedom – but demand that large corporations get to use
de-jure slave labor to peel shrimp. They talk about how wonderful free trade is – and
demand that private citizens not be able to import legal pharmaceuticals because this would
destroy the freedom of big pharma to maximize profits by restricting trade and without this
new drug development would stop and anyone who believes in free trade wants a free lunch. I
could go on. It's pointless to try and refute them, because there is nothing to refute, and
they have no shame. Only brute power, but this they have in abundance.
So of course they reject the label, because co-opting and corrupting and hiding behind
legitimate philosophies is part of their modus operandi. Using the terminology of the enemy
is always a mistake. Long may the vile practitioners of 'neoliberalism' be forced to be
referred to by an accurate label!
It is. I wish he had gone on. Might we build on it? I think such examples clarify
brilliantly exactly of whom we speak:
"Neoliberals want minimal government regulation because such regulation makes the market
inefficient. Except when making dubious student loans; then they want the government to
guarantee those loans and serve as their muscle in collecting."
Excellent comment.
"It's pointless to try and refute them, because there is nothing to refute, and they have no
shame. Only brute power, but this they have in abundance."
Absolutely.
Neoliberalism: an old fashioned expression of the seemingly eternal "all for me, none for
thee".
A million tonnes of economic speciousness, the thickness of a piece of plastic wrap, covering
the bloated & putrifying zombie body of a small "elite".
"Now that it is coming under ideological challenge, it is all of a sudden stood naked in
the middle of the room, having to explain why it's there (to borrow a phrase from a very
brilliant colleague)."
One gambit in denying neoliberalism is to pretend it must be a specific doctrine and then
dispute about which that doctrine that is. Or that neoliberalism must be a specific programme
and dispute whether that programme has been consistent thru time. But, the intellectual cum
ideological history cum policy history here is that neoliberalism has been a dialectic.
There's Thatcher and then there's Blair.
It is the back-and-forth of that dialectic that has locked in "the shared set of
assumptions" and paradigm of policy inventiveness that has given neoliberalism its remarkable
ability to survive its own manifest policy-induced crises.
Neoliberalism did not just adopt neoclassical economics, nor did it simply infest
political parties of the right. Neoliberalism re-invented neoclassical economics in ways that
defined not just the "right" of academic economics, but also defined the "left". Keynesian
economics was absorbed and transmogrified by first one neoclassical synthesis and then a
second, leaving a New Keynesian macroeconomics to occupy the position of a nominal left
within mainstream economics. If you are waiting for a Krugman or even a Stiglitz to oppose
neoliberalism, you will be waiting a very long time, because they are effectively locked into
the neoliberal dialectic.
Something almost analogous happened with the political parties of the centre-left, as in
the iconic cases of Blair vs Thatcher or Clinton vs Reagan (and then, of course, Obama vs
Reagan/Bush II). In western Europe, grand coalitions figured in the process of eliminating
the ability of centre-left parties to think outside the neoliberal policy frames or to
represent their electoral bases rather than their donor bases.
Sitting here nodding my head. All the same criticisms could be made of, oh, say,
Christianity. Wars have been fought, hundreds of thousands of Christians have been persecuted
by other Christians, over the definition, but that certainly does not make it Not A
Thing.
Neoliberal thought is very deliberately projected as a many-headed Hydra. The Neoliberal
thought collective presents manifold statements and refinements of its principles. The value
of agnotology is a belief of held in sufficient regard to be deemed a principle of belief.
Just try dealing with an opponent that shifts and evaporates but never loses substance in
working toward its goals.
A fundamental difference between neoliberalism and classic economists like Ricardo &
Smith is the latter's adamant opposition to rent seeking and insistence on fighting it by
taxation. Neoliberalism on the other hand not only accepts rent-seeking, but actively
encourages it. Thus we see not only the ascendancy of of the FIRE sector, but the effective
destruction of markets as mechanisms of price discovery.
Also, Yves, thanks a million for these enlightening neoliberalism articles. I've had quite
a bit of trouble in the past putting my political beliefs in the appropriate context; a
general feeling of malaise and overall mistrust of free-trade agreements and big corporations
without anything to really back it up is usually a one-way ticket to losing an argument and
being labelled an old crank. Being able to put a name on something you know doesn't smell
right, and finding a framework that allows others to spot it, is a hell of a leg up.
It always reminds me of the index (or aside, or supplementary reading, whatever it was)
that accompanied my copy of 1984. It basically said that controlling the common language and
not allowing for terminology to define certain things (in this case, pulling the 'first two
rules of Fight Club' thing – thanks, johnnygl!) was key to keeping those things
essentially invisible, and those afflicted by the maladies off-balance and unable to organize
against them. That bit of Orwell made sense then, but it has really been hitting home after
reading some of these articles.
For anyone who missed it, this
one was also particularly great.
Neoliberalism is just another damn thing that externalizes and socializes costs. It is a
very costly thing. But I'm more inclined to think that no isms exist anywhere in the real
world in any constructive way – they are all just mental reflexes useful for
rationalizing irresponsibility and procrastination. And self interest. We might as well just
say economicism.
Interesting comment by the author about the sociology of knowledge. No doubt
there is a sensible mantra somewhere chanting: Do what works. Because if evolution had been
evolutionism we'd all be extinct. The only thing sticking in my dottering old head these days
is Ann Pettifor's last question: Please, please can you just tell us how the economy actually
works?
Much as I regard your past comments, I must disagree with your assertion "Neoliberalism is
just another damn thing that externalizes and socializes costs". Neoliberalism does indeed
externalize and socialize costs but it is more than just another damn thing. Just the scale
and scope of the think tank network assembled and well funded to promote the concepts of the
Neoliberal thought collective should be adequate to convince you that it is much more than
"just another damn thing".
Consider just the visible portion of the think tanks which are part of the Neoliberal
thought collective. "Today, Atlas Network connects more than 450 think tanks in nearly 100
countries. Each is writing its own story of how principled work to affect public opinion, on
behalf of the ideas of a free society, can better individuals' lives."
Members of the network
include: AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL (ALEC), AYN
RAND INSTITUTE, CATO INSTITUTE, GOLDWATER INSTITUTE, HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, HERITAGE FOUNDATION
selected members from the 177 think tanks in the U.S. which are a part of the 475 partners in
92 countries around the globe. [https://www.atlasnetwork.org/partners/global-directory]. This
is not "just another damn thing."
Next consider the state of the economics profession. Neoliberalism has taken over many
major schools of economics and a large number of the economics journals. In a publish or
perish world there are few alternatives to an adherence to some flavor of Neoliberal
ideology. This is not "just another damn thing." Consider how many national politicians are
spouting things like there is 'no such thing as society'. This is not "just another damn
thing" -- it is something much much more scary.
Thank you for this post. It is the methodical destruction of any possible alternatives to
this totalizing and dehumanizing system that is most frightening to me.
Basically the rich dismantled the New Deal and desperately are trying to hide it. The issue is that the decline in living standards for the middle class are so big that
they can no longer hide what they are. This was linked in NC a while ago:
Neoliberalism is quite fuzzy and difficult to attack. Neoliberalism intellectual framework comes from the underlying neoclassical economics that
can easily be attacked. Here's George Soros. George Soros realised the economics was wrong due to his experience with the markets. What the neoclassical economists said about markets and his experience just didn't
compare, and he knew it was so wrong he never even bothered to look into what the economics
said.
George Soros "I am not well qualified to criticize those theories, because as a market
participant, I considered them so unrealistic that I never bothered to study them"
Here is George Soros on the bad economics we have used for globalisation.
He had been complaining for years and at last in 2008 the bankruptcy of the economics
proved itself. With more widespread support, he set up INET (The Institute for New Economic
Thinking) to try and put things right. Globalisation's technocrats, trained in bad economics, never stood a chance.
"Those, like Ed Conway, who persist in claiming neoliberalism doesn't even exist, may
soon find themselves left behind by history."
During the last election, when leftist types were criticizing Hillary Clinton for her
neoliberal tendencies, the Ed Conway approach was favored by the online Dem Party shills as
the go-to response at mainstream liberal websites. In the comments sections of these
places, I read quite a lot of out-and-out bullsh*t about neoliberalism not being real, and
how charges of it had as much substance as similarly empty schoolyard taunts. If you said
someone was a neoliberal, it had no more meaning than if you'd called them "poopy pants" or
'booger breath." And all this delivered with the usual blistering abuse thrown at anyone not
willing to get down on all fours & kiss St. Hillary's blessed pants suit. It got to the
point where I finally had to stop visiting places like Lawyers, Guns and Money altogether.
They had become unbelievably nasty and unpleasant to progressives.
"One of the great achievements of neoliberalism has been to induce such a level of
collective amnesia that it's now once again possible to claim that these tenets are simply
"fundamental economic rules" handed down directly from Adam Smith on tablets of stone,
unchallenged and unchallengeable in the history of economic thought."
To prove this wrong read Adam Smith. Adam Smith observed the reality of small state, unregulated capitalism in the world around
him. Adam Smith on rent seeking:
"The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the
maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury
by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the
industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the
use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no
landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers."
So, landlords, usurers and taxes all raise the cost of living and minimum wage. They suck
purchasing power out of the real economy. Western housing booms have raised the cost of living and priced Western labour out of
international markets leading to the rise of the populists. Trickledown, no it trickles up.
Adam Smith on price gouging:
"The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or
manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the
public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the
dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the
public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable
the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their
own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens."
So this is why hedge funds look for monopoly suppliers of drugs. Big is not beautiful in capitalism, it needs competition and lots of it. The interests of business and the public are not aligned.
Adam Smith on lobbyists:
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order
ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till
after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with
the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly
the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to
oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and
oppressed it."
Not surprising TTIP and TPP didn't go down well with the public.
The interests of business and the public are not aligned.
Adam Smith on the 1%:
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people seems, in every age of the world, to
have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
2017 – Richest 8 people as wealthy as half of world's population
They haven't changed a bit.
Adam Smith on Profit:
"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and
fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and
high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to
ruin."
Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?
When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalising itself by:
1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services
Today's problems with growth and demand.
Amazon didn't suck its profits out as dividends and look how big it's grown (not so good
on the wages).
The problem with Adam Smith is the same as for Keynes: people quote what they imagine he
said, or what they want him to have said, rather than what he actually did say.
Adam Smith at least wrote more clearly than Keynes did, which makes claims like that
easier to refute.
Yet the problem with Smith is contextualizing the time and space he wrote of vs. that of
Keynes. Keynes was not addressing a burgeoning industrialist – agrarian economy that
had yet to employ oil to its potential with huge amounts of untapped natural resources still
waiting in the wings and nary any counter prevailing force to this periods philosophical
views.
Even if the whole anglophone experience had a touch of the Council of Nicea tinge to it
e.g. making nice between troublesome tribes within the fold.
Keynes at least looked at the data and attempted to reflect what he discern "at the time"
against the prevailing winds of doctrinaires contrary to all the sycophants.
This is was the lesson he attempted to forward, howls from the sycophants is a tell.
A reading of Smith's 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments' written before, but revised after,
WoN is also worthwhile. As is, as ever, Karl Polyani's opening salvo against Smith's take on 'human market nature'
(my term). Everyone should read 'The Great Transformation' at least once.
The 18th century was an interesting time. My take, only partially thought out, is that
Smith's later work was part of that move away from grand theorizing towards practical
improvement of the human condition seen in so many thinkers of the mid-century period. (With
the Lisbon Earthquake of 1755 acting as something of a catalyst)
Mr. Conway must be a fan of Mr. Fukuyama and his exercises for brain stunting.
IMO, Fukuyama's success depended very much on neoliberalism becoming dominant.
In a way, this comment sums up the modern condition very well. Life is always about the
struggle between the have and the have nots. "Civilization" is the human attempt to curb, or
put a respectable face on the raw power struggle between the weak and the powerful. It is
something worth fighting for if justice, equality under the law, and relief from human
suffering is the goal. If greed and self-interest is the only goal, one can be considered a
barbarian and resisted. In such a case, might makes right and the world is full of darkness
and destruction.
Short form- The elite are failing in their duty to humanity- and the rest of life on this
planet. As a scapegoat, they call out anyone not with their agenda deplorables and double
down on their barbarous ways. Greed, exploitation, and subjugation.
Neoliberalism is the refinement of this basic human tendency for domination. It is a
camouflaged form of oppression that is revealed through its ultimate effect, not what it does
at the moment. A neoliberal is a disguised raider or conquerer.
This is an amateur take, but as I see it classical liberalism was pretty much wrecked by
the combination of WWI, great depression, and WWII. The "everything laissez faire" ideology
had simply taken too much damage from the reality of political economy. So it evolved, as it
were, into three new ideologies: libertarianism, which faulted classical liberalism for not
going far enough in reducing the state, which goes a long ways towards explaining why it's
not very popular; the liberal-left/FDR liberalism/SocDem position, which faulted classical
liberalism for ignoring the social element, where there's a heavy welfare state, enterprises
are highly regulated, labor protections, but still private ownership and a capitalist class;
and neoliberalism, which faulted classical liberalism for being ideologically unwilling to
engage in the technocratic tinkering to right the ship, but still sees TIHOTFM as the center
of the economy. The first is the religious orthodoxy response, the second is to put the
market in the sandbox, and the third puts the state in the sandbox.
My take, influenced by Polanyi, is that classical Liberalism collapsed with WWI. In Europe
it was replaced with Socialism (of a sort), Social Democracy or Fascism. Sometimes switching
around and taking a while to settle.
In the US classical Liberalism had a glorious swansong in the 1920s but it finally died in
1929, giving way to Social Democracy in the New Deal.
The Neoliberal project did not properly start until after WWII and did not take over until
around 1980.
Neoliberals prefer a strong state that promotes their ends, not one that opposes them,
or has the ability to oppose the means and methods of private capital . That leaves
the playing field with a single team.
Neoliberals would have the state oppose the goals of others in society. To nurture that
environment, neoliberals seek to redefine society and citizenship as consumerism. Woman's
only role is as one of the species Homo economicus . Neoliberals argue that since
members of H. economicus exist in isolation, they have no need for the extensive
mutual aid and support networks that neoliberals rely on to survive and prosper. Again, that
leaves a single team on the playing field.
I would add tha neoliberalism is inherently about classism. That the wealthy, because of
their education, know more than poor people because of the lack of education. So when voters
complain about the lack of jobs or the poor state of healthcare, the Clintionites wave it
away because, well what do those poor people know anyway?
One of the topics that pops up regulary, is the question "why can't poor people tell how
great the economy is doing?" -face palm- A question that took on fresh important when
Clintion lost the election.
Ironically, the conversation is now, why can't poor people tell how shitty the economy is
with Trump in charge. -dabble face palm-.
You only have to walk around San Francisco or Los Angeles to see that something is wrong
with the current economic environment. This in the wealthy parts of California. There can be
plenty of disagreement over the what, the why, and the solutions, but to demand that I ignore
my lying eyes and believe their words' truthiness is either insulting or insanity and maybe
both.
Mirowski addressed this very issue in this paper –
"The Political Movement that Dared not Speak its own Name: The Neoliberal Thought
Collective Under Erasure" – In this paper I examine the disinclination to treat the
Neoliberal political project as a serious intellectual project motivating a series of
successes in the public sphere. Economists seem especially remiss in this regard.
I disagree that neoliberalism is a thing. There are still only the conservative and
liberal view points. My interpretation of them is as follows:
-Conservative ideology stems from maintaining status quo, tradition, hierarchy and individual
growth ( even at the cost of society). Religion dovetails this ideology as it is something
passed on through generations.
-Liberal ideology stems from growing the society( even at the cost of individual),
challenging the status quo and breaking away from tradition.
Neoliberalism to me is just a part of conservatism
Here is the dictionary definition of conservatism;
" the holding of political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership, and socially
conservative ideas."
A crude example would be to say that Libertarians are closet Republicans.
If I understand neoliberalism correctly it boils down to this: Whoever has money and power gets to make the rules within certain limits which are defined
by:
Whether they get caught
Whether people understand what they are doing
How they market what they do
How much political power they have
Success of the model is defined as success of the richest, most powerful actors. Anyone
who does not succeed is labeled as having been inadequate, lazy, or
socialist/communist/etc. Have I missed anything?
The claim that neoliberalism does not exist reminds me of Baudelaire's "la plus belle des
ruses du Diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas!" ("the cleverest ruse of the Devil is to persuade you he does not exist!")
We frogs have been in the pot for so long now we've forgotten that there ever was a
pond
A priori, what motivated Hayek's, Mises' and their associates' programme from its
conception in the '30's was that it was a *reaction* against the threat to freedom (as they
defined it) which they considered to be posed by the onward march of what they termed
"collectivism", embodied not only by avowedly socialist governments (as in Austria) but also
in that ostensible bulwark of capitalism the USA (whence Mises had emigrated), in the shape
of the New Deal.
Given that genesis, it baffles me that any historian can seriously question what was the
true nature of the project which (led by Hayek) was conceived in response, which later became
known as neoliberalism. It was conceived as a counter-offensive to what they identified as an
insidious mortal threat to all the values they subscribed to – as in Hayek's phrase
"the road to serfdom". How could any such counter-offensive be implemented other than through
devising and putting into effect a plan of action? How could it ever *not* have been "a
thing" (ie not possess objective reality) yet still achieve its specified objective –
namely to defeat the chosen enemy? To assert that it was not is to fly in the face of logic
and common sense.
Doesn't any serious historian need to deploy both of those faculties in good measure?
I agree that Hayek and others were engaged in a political movement that promoted intense
opposition to social democratic experiments sweeping the West after WWII.
Their chosen enemy seems to have been collective responses generally – governmental
and social – except those that they approved of. Coincidentally, those seem to be
approved of by their wealthy patrons. I don't recall their vocal opposition to the trade
associations, for example, that cooperated to promote the interests of the companies their
patrons controlled.
Hayek and others seem to have overreacted in their opposition to collective action, even
while making exceptions for the social networking and persistent patron funding that promoted
their own endeavours.
"[ ] Well, this one at least is half-true. Like literally every concept that has ever
mattered, the concept of 'neoliberalism' is messy, it's deeply contested [ ]"
Way I see it, it happens to be extremely simple:
Classical liberalism: "The state should leave us elites alone such that we may do what we must, it's our
plantations/factories/banks anyway!"
And, when the former didn't work (the conservative/aristocratic state didn't leave them
alone), came the neo-liberalism: " We should take control of the state and insure that we are not molested by its
services and that it disciplines the lower classes in our name!"
Neo-liberalism is extremely old and the only exceptions to this "new" development were the
so called "totalitarian" states (feared, by neo-libs, most of all things), which mainly
disciplined the elites, with great success, I might add.
In reply to several commenters, who have questioned why "neoliberalism" is not simply
another name for the political expression/ambitions of the greed of the rich-and-powerful,
aka conservatism.
Although it serves the purposes of the rich-and-powerful rather well, I think
"neoliberalism" as a rhetorical engine and set of ideas is the ideology of the 9.9%, the
chattering classes of professionals and bureaucrats who need a cover story for their own
participation in running the world for the benefit of the 0.1% These are the people who need
to rationalize what they do and cooperate and coordinate among themselves and that's a
challenge because of their sheer numbers.
If you try to examine neoliberalism as a set of aims or values or interests, I think you
miss the great accomplishment of neoliberalism as a mechanism of social cooperation.
Neoliberalism says it aims at freedom and social welfare and innovation and other good
things. If neoliberalism said it aimed to make the richest 0.1% richer at the expense of
everyone else, it would provoke political opposition from the 99% for obvious reasons.
Including opposition from the 9.9% whom they need to run things, to run the state, run the
corporations.
Not being clear on what your true objectives are tends to be an obstacle to organizing
large groups to accomplish those objectives. Being clear on the mission objective is a
prerequisite for organizational effectiveness in most circumstances. The genius of
neoliberalism is such that it is able to achieve a high degree of coordination in detail
across large numbers of people, institutions, even countries while still professing [fake] aims and
values to which few object. A high degree of coordination on implementing a political policy
agenda that is variously parasitical or predatory on the 90%.
You can say this is just hypocrisy of a type the rich have always engaged in, and that
would be true. The predatory rich have always had to disguise their predatory or parasitical
activity, and have often done so by embracing, for example, shows of piety or philanthropy.
So, neoliberalism falls into a familiar albeit broad category.
What distinguishes neoliberalism is how good it is at coordinating the activities of the
9.9% in delivering the goods for the 0.1%. For a post-industrial economy, neoliberalism is
better for the mega-rich than Catholicism was for the feudalism of the High Middle Ages. I do
not think most practicing neoliberals among the 9.9% even think of themselves as
hypocrites.
"Free markets" has been the key move, the fulcrum where anodyne aims and values to which
no one can object meet the actual detailed policy implementation by the state. Creating a
"market" removes power and authority from the state and transfers it to private actors able
to apply financial wealth to managing things, and then, because an actual market cannot
really do the job that's been assigned, a state bureaucracy has to be created to manage the
administrative details and financial flows -- work for the 9.9%
As a special bonus, the insistence on treating a political economy organized in fact by
large public and private bureaucracies as if it is organized by and around "markets"
introduces a high degree of economic agnatology into the conventional political rhetoric.
[This comment sounded much clearer when I conceived of it in the shower this morning. I am
sorry if the actual comment is too abstract or tone deaf. I will probably have to try again
at a later date.]
Pierre Bourdieu, the great French sociologist, would say neoliberalism, like the devil, is
one of those things that makes a priority of pretending it does not exist. (Bourdieu cited
many others.) It makes it much harder for those whose interests it does not serve to fight
it, like forcing someone to eat Jello with a single chopstick.
Amazingly BBC newsnight just started preparing viewers for the possibility that there was no
sarin attack, and the missile strikes might just have been for show, i plying Trump did it
for political reasons. Narrative changing a bit.
#Germany's state media senior correspondent (who is in Damascus right now & also visited
Douma) on primetime evening news on German television: "#Douma chemical attack is most likely
staged. A great many people here seem very convinced."
I too hope he will return soon, he seems to be one of the last sane voices of the msm.
Hopefully high viewer rates help to bring him back, but he wouldn't be the first one to
vanish from the screen, despite high ratings.
"... It is perfectly possible that the British government manufactured the whole Salisbury thing. We are capable of just as much despicable behavior and murder as the next. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson of Fox News has it nailed down.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M28aYkLRlm0 ..."
"... This "civil war" has been nothing but a war for Syrian resources waged by western proxies. ..."
"... So now, In desperation borne out of their impending defeat, the imperialists have staged a chemical attack in a last throw of the dice to gain popular support for an escalation in military intervention. Like military interventions of the past, it is being justified in the name of humanitarian intervention. ..."
Why is the prime minister of the United Kinkdom on the phone discussing whether or not to bomb a Sovereign country with the highly
unstable, Donald Trump?
Can she not make up her own mind? Either she thinks it's the right thing to do or it isn't. Hopefully,
the person on the other end of the phone was not Trump but someone with at least half a brain.
Proof, let's have some proof. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so. Russia is saying it's all a put up job, show us your
facts. We are saying, don't be silly, we're British and besides, you may have done this sort of thing before.
It is perfectly possible that the British government manufactured the whole Salisbury thing. We are capable of just as
much despicable behavior and murder as the next.
Part of the Great British act's of bravery and heroism in the second world war is the part played by women agents who were
parachuted into France and helped organize local resistance groups. Odette Hallowes, Noor Inayat Khan and Violette Szabo are just
a few of the many names but they are the best known. What is not generally know is that many agents when undergoing their training
in the UK, were given information about the 'D' day landings, the approx time and place. They were then dropped into France into
the hands of the waiting German army who captured and tortured and often executed them.
The double agent, who Winston Churchill met and fully approved of the plan was Henri Dericourt, an officer in the German army
and our man on the ground in France. Dericourt organized the time and place for the drop off of the incoming agents, then told
the Germans. The information about the 'D' day invasion time and place was false. The British fed the agents (only a small number)
into German hands knowing they would be captured and the false information tortured out of them.
Source :- 'A Quiet Courage' Liane Jones.
It's a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.
From The Guardian articles today that I have read on Syria, it makes absolutely clear that if you in any way question the narrative
forwarded here, that you are a stupid conspiracy theorist in line with Richard Spencer and other far-right, American nutcases.
A more traditional form of argument to incline people to their way of thinking would be facts. But social pressure to conform
and not be a conspiratorial idiot in line with the far-right obviously work better for most of their readers. My only surprise
it that position hasn't been linked with Brexit.
Did anyone see the massive canister that was shown on TV repeatedly that was supposed to have been air-dropped and smashed through
the window of a house, landed on a bed and failed to go off.
The bed was in remarkable condition with just a few ruffled bedclothes considering it had been hit with a metal object weighing
god knows what and dropped from a great height.
"More than 40 years after the US sprayed millions of litres of chemical agents to defoliate"
The Defoliant Agent Orange was used to kill jungles, resulting in light getting through to the dark jungle floors & a massive
amount of low bush regrowing, making the finding of Vietcong fighters even harder!
It was sprayed even on American troops, it is a horrible stuff. Still compared to Chlorine poison gas, let alone nerve gases,
it is much less terrible. Though the long term effects are pretty horrible.
Who needs facts when you've got opinions? Non more hypocritical than the British. Its what you get when you lie and distort though
a willing press, you get found out and then nobody believes anything you say.anymore. The white helmets are a western funded and
founded organisation, they are NOT independent they are NOT volunteers, The UK the US and the Dutch fund them to the tune of over
$40 million. They are a propaganda dispensing outlet. The press shouldn't report anything they release because it is utterly unable
to substantiate ANY of it, there hasn't been a western journalist in these areas for over 4 years so why do the press expect us
to believe anything they print? Combine this with the worst and most incompetent Govt this country has seen for decades and all
you have is a massive distraction from massive domestic troubles which the same govt has no answers too.
""I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," [Winston Churchill] declared in one secret memorandum."
The current condemnation by the international community and international law is good and needs enforcement. But no virtue
signalling where there is none.
But we're still awaiting evidence that a chemical attack has been carried out in Douma, aren't we? And if an attack was carried
out, by whom. But before these essential points are verified, you feel that a targeted military response is justified. Are you
equally keen for some targeted military response for the use of chemical weapons, namely white phosphorus, in Palestine by the
Israaeli military? Unlike Douma, the use of these chemical weapons in the occupied territories by the IDF's personnel is well
documented. But we haven't attacked them yet. Funny that.
Instead of "chemicals" why not just firebomb them - you know like we did to entire cities full of women and children in WW2?
Hamburg 27 July 1943 - 46,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Kassel 22 October 1943 - 9,000 civilians killed 24,000 houses destroyed in a firestorm
Darmstadt 11 September 1944 - 8,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Dresden 13/14th February - 25,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Obviously we were fighting Nazism and hadn't actually been invaded - and he is fighting Wahhabism and has had major cities
overrun...
Maybe if Assad burnt people to death rather than gassing them we would make a statue of him outside Westminster like the one
of Bomber Harris?
Remember the tearful Kuwaiti nurse with her heartrending story of Iraqi troops tipping premature babies out of their incubators
after the invasion in 1990? The story was published in pretty much every major Western newspaper, massively increased public support
for military intervention............................and turned out to be total bullshit.
Is it too much too ask that we try a bit of collective critical thinking and wait for hard evidence before blundering into
a military conflict with Assad; and potentially Putin?
Well, this is the sort of stuff that the Israelis would be gagging for. They want Assad neutralised and they are assisting ISIS
terrorists on the Golan Heights. They tend to their wounded and send them back across the border to fight Assad. What better than
to drag the Americans, Brits and French into the ring to finish him off. Job done eh?
Are you sure you are not promoting an Israeli agenda here Jonathan?
Incidentantally what did we in the west do when the Iraqis were gassing the Iranians with nerve agents in the marshes of southern
Iraq during the Iran Iraq War? Did we intervene then? No, we didn't we allowed it to happen.
Come on frip, you have to admit there was absolutely no motive for Assad's forces to carry out this attack. Why do you think the
Guardian and other main stream media outlets are not even considering the possibility the Jihadi rebels staged it to trigger western
intervention? I know, I know.. it's all evil Assad killing his own people for no other reason than he likes butchering people...
blah blah. The regime change agenda against Syria has been derailed, no amount of false flag attacks can change the facts on the
ground.
More than 40 years after the US sprayed millions of litres of chemical agents to defoliate vast swathes of Vietnam and in the
full knowledge it would be have a catastrophic effect on the health of the inhabitants of those area, Vietnam has by far the highest
incidence of liver cancer on the planet.
Then more recently we have the deadly depleted uranium from US shells that innocent Iraqis are inhaling as shrill voices denounce
Assad.
The Syrian people are heroically resisting and defeating western imperialism. This "civil war" has been nothing but a war
for Syrian resources waged by western proxies.
So now, In desperation borne out of their impending defeat, the imperialists have staged a chemical attack in a last throw
of the dice to gain popular support for an escalation in military intervention. Like military interventions of the past, it is
being justified in the name of humanitarian intervention.
But if we have a brief browse of history we can see that US & UK governments have brought only death, misery and destruction
on the populations it was supposedly helping. Hands off Syria.
"... People such as Stephen Cohen and myself, who were actively involved throughout the entirety of the Cold War, are astonished at the reckless and irresponsible behavior of the US government and its European vassals toward Russia. ..."
"... In this brief video, Stephen Cohen describes to Tucker Carlson the extreme danger of the present situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvK1Eu01Lz0 Published on Apr 13, 2018 ..."
A normal person would answer "yes" to the three questions. So what does this tell us about
Trump's government as these insane actions are the principle practice of Trump's
government?
Does anyone doubt that Nikki Haley is insane?
Does anyone doubt that John Bolton is insane?
Does anyone doubt that Mike Pompeo is insane?
Does this mean that Trump is insane for appointing to the top positions insane people who
foment war with a nuclear power?
Does this mean that Congress is insane for approving these appointments?
These are honest questions. Assuming we avoid the Trump-promised Syrian showdown, how long
before the insane Trump regime orchestrates another crisis?
The entire world should understand that because of the existence of the insane Trump regime,
the continued existence of life on earth is very much in question.
People such as Stephen Cohen and myself, who were actively involved throughout the entirety
of the Cold War, are astonished at the reckless and irresponsible behavior of the US government
and its European vassals toward Russia. Nothing as irresponsible as what we have witnessed
since the Clinton regime and which has worsened dramatically under the Obama and Trump regimes
would have been imaginable during the Cold War. In this brief video, Stephen Cohen describes to
Tucker Carlson the extreme danger of the present situation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvK1Eu01Lz0
Published on Apr 13, 2018
The failure of political leadership throughout the Western world is total. Such total
failure is likely to prove deadly to life on earth.
"... And, quoting his colleague Archon Fung from the Harvard Kennedy School, " American politics is no longer characterized by the rule of the median voter, if it ever was. Instead, in contemporary America the median capitalist rules as both the Democratic and Republican parties adjust their policies to attract monied interests." And finally Mr. Ringen adds, "American politicians are aware of having sunk into a murky bog of moral corruption but are trapped." ..."
"... Trump merely reflects the dysfunctionality and internal contradictions of American politics. He is the American Gorbachev, who kicked off perestroika at the wrong time. ..."
"... Global financial services exercise monopolistic power over national policies, unchecked by any semblance of global political power. Trust is haemorrhaging. The European Union, the greatest ever experiment in super-national democracy, is imploding ..."
"... Probably this is because the Western model of neoliberalism does not provide any real freedom of commerce, speech, or political activity, but rather imposes a regime of submission within a clearly defined framework. ..."
"... america is going through withdraw from 30 years of trickledown crap. the young are realizing that the shithole they inherit does not have to be a shithole, and the old pathetic white old men who run the show will be dead soon. ..."
"... The liberal order is dying because it is led by criminally depraved Predators who have pauperized the labor force and created political strife, though the populists don't pose much threat to the liberal-order Predators. ..."
"... However by shipping the productive Western economies overseas to Asia, the US in particular cannot finance and physically support a military empire or the required R&D to stay competitive on the commercial and military front. ..."
"... So the US Imperialists are being eclipsed by the Sino-Russo Alliance and wants us to believe this is a great tragedy. Meanwhile the same crew of Liberal -neoCon Deep Staters presses on with wars and tensions that are slipping out of control. ..."
Haass writes: " Liberalism is in retreat. Democracies are feeling the effects of growing populism. Parties of the political extremes
have gained ground in Europe. The vote in the United Kingdom in favor of leaving the EU attested to the loss of elite influence.
Even the US is experiencing unprecedented attacks from its own president on the country's media, courts, and law-enforcement institutions.
Authoritarian systems, including China, Russia, and Turkey, have become even more top-heavy. Countries such as Hungary and Poland
seem uninterested in the fate of their young democracies
"We are seeing the emergence of regional orders. Attempts to build global frameworks are failing."
Haass has previously made alarmist statements , but this
time he is employing his rhetoric to point to the global nature of this phenomenon. Although between the lines one can easily read,
first of all, a certain degree of arrogance -- the idea that only we liberals and globalists really know how to administer foreign
policy -- and second, the motifs of conspiracy.
"Today's other major powers, including the EU, Russia, China, India, and Japan, could be criticized for what they are doing,
not doing, or both."
Probably this list could be expanded by adding a number of Latin American countries, plus Egypt, which signs arms deals with North
Korea while denying any violation of UN sanctions, and the burgeoning Shiite axis of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
But Haass is crestfallen over the fact that it is Washington itself that is changing the rules of the game and seems completely
uninterested in what its allies, partners, and clients in various corners of the world will do.
" America's decision to abandon the role it has played for more than seven decades thus marks a turning point. The liberal
world order cannot survive on its own, because others lack either the interest or the means to sustain it. The result will be
a world that is less free, less prosperous, and less peaceful, for Americans and others alike."
Richard Haass's colleague at the CFR, Stewart Patrick, quite agrees with the claim that it is
the US itself that is burying the liberal world order . However, it's not doing it on its own, but alongside China. If the US
had previously been hoping that the process of globalization would gradually transform China (and possibly destroy it, as happened
to the Soviet Union earlier), then the Americans must have been quite surprised by how it has actually played out. That country modernized
without being Westernized, an idea that had once been endorsed by the leader of the Islamic revolution in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini.
Now China is expanding its influence in Eurasia in its own way, and this is for the most part welcomed by its partner countries.
But this has been a painful process for the US, as it is steadily and irrevocably undermining its hegemony.
"Its long-term ambition is to dismantle the U.S. alliance system in Asia, replacing it with a more benign (from Beijing's perspective)
regional security order in which it enjoys pride of place, and ideally a sphere of influence commensurate with its power.
China's Belt and Road initiative is part and parcel of this effort, offering not only (much-needed) infrastructure investments
in neighboring countries but also the promise of greater political influence in Southeast, South, and Central Asia. More aggressively,
China continues to advance outrageous jurisdictional claims over almost the entirety of the South China Sea , where it continues
its island-building activities, as well as engaging in provocative actions against Japan in the East China Sea," writes Patrick.
And as for the US:
"The United States, for its part, is a weary titan, no longer willing to bear the burdens of global leadership, either economically
or geopolitically.
Trump treats alliances as a protection racket, and the world economy as an arena of zero-sum competition. The result is a fraying
liberal international order without a champion willing to invest in the system itself. "
One can agree with both authors' assessments of the changed behavior of one sector of the US establishment, but this is about
more than just Donald Trump (who is so unpredictable that he has
staffed his own team with a member of the very swamp he was preparing to drain) and North American populism. One needs to look
much deeper.
"Today, American democratic exceptionalism is defined by a system that is dysfunctional in all the conditions that are needed
for settlement and loyalty...
Capitalism has collapsed into crisis in an orgy of deregulation. Money is transgressing into politics and undermining democracy
itself ."
And, quoting his colleague Archon Fung from the Harvard Kennedy School, " American politics is no longer characterized by
the rule of the median voter, if it ever was. Instead, in contemporary America the median capitalist rules as both the Democratic
and Republican parties adjust their policies to attract monied interests." And finally Mr. Ringen adds, "American politicians are
aware of having sunk into a murky bog of moral corruption but are trapped."
Trump merely reflects the dysfunctionality and internal contradictions of American politics. He is the American Gorbachev,
who kicked off perestroika at the wrong time. Although it must be conceded that if Hillary Clinton had become president, the
US collapse would have been far more painful, particularly for the citizens of that country. We would have seen yet more calamitous
reforms, a swelling influx of migrants, a further decline in the nation's manufacturing base, and the incitement of new conflicts.
Trump is trying to keep the body of US national policy somewhat alive through hospice care, but what's really needed is a major restructuring,
including far-reaching political reforms that would allow the country's citizens to feel that they can actually play a role in its
destiny.
These developments have spread to many countries in Europe, a continent that, due to its transatlantic involvement, was already
vulnerable and susceptible to the current geopolitical turbulence. The emergence of which, by the way, was largely a consequence
of that very policy of neoliberalism.
Stein Ringen continues on that score:
"Global financial services exercise monopolistic power over national policies, unchecked by any semblance of global political
power. Trust is haemorrhaging. The European Union, the greatest ever experiment in super-national democracy, is imploding
"
It is interesting that panic has seized Western Europe and the US -- the home of transatlanticism, although different versions
of this recipe for liberalism have been employed in other regions -- suffice it to recall the experience of Singapore or Brazil.
But they don't seem as panicked there as in the West.
Probably this is because the Western model of neoliberalism does not provide any real freedom of commerce, speech, or political
activity, but rather imposes a regime of submission within a clearly defined framework. Therefore, the destruction of the current
system entails the loss of all those dividends previously enjoyed by the liberal political elites of the West that were obtained
by speculating in the stock market, from the mechanisms of international foreign-exchange payments (the dollar system), and through
the instruments of supranational organizations (the UN, WTO, and World Bank). And, of course, there are the fundamental differences
in the cultural varieties of societies.
In his book The Hidden God, Lucien Goldmann draws some interesting conclusions, suggesting that the foundations of Western culture
have rationalistic and tragic origins, and that a society immersed in these concepts that have "abolish[ed] both God and the community
[soon sees] the disappearance of any external norm which might guide the individual in his life and actions." And because by its
very nature liberalism must carry on, in its mechanical fashion, "liberating" the individual from any form of structure (social classes,
the Church, family, society, and gender, ultimately liberating man from his very self), in the absence of any standards of deterrence,
it is quite logical that the Western world was destined to eventually find itself in crisis. And the surge of populist movements,
protectionist measures, and conservative policies of which Haass and other liberal globalists speak are nothing more than examples
of those nations' instinct for self-preservation. One need not concoct conspiracy theories about Russia or Putin interfering in the
US election (which Donald Trump has also denied, noting only that support was seen for Hillary Clinton, and it is entirely true that
a portion of her financial backing did come from Russia). The baseline political decisions being made in the West are in step with
the current crisis that is evident on so many levels. It's just that, like always, the Western elites need their ritual whipping
boy(although it would be more accurate to call it a human sacrifice). This geopolitical shake-up began in the West as a result of
the implicit nature of the very project of the West itself.
But since alternative development scenarios exist, the current system is eroding away. And other political projects are starting
to fill the resultant ideological void -- in both form as well as content.
Thus it's fairly likely that the current crisis of liberalism will definitively bury the unipolar Western system of hegemony.
And the budding movements of populism and regional protectionism can serve as the basis for a new, multipolar world order.
Oh, Wicked Witch of the West Wing, the cleansing fire awaits thy demise! Those meds can only keep you standing for so long.
Keep tripping. Keep stumbling. Satan calls you to him. The day approacheth. Tick tock tick tock. 👹😂
Democracy ultimately melts down into chaos. We have a perfectly good US Constitution, why don't we go back to using it as written?
That said, I am for anything that makes the elites become common.
Democracy is a form of government. Populism is a movement. Populist movements come about when the current form of government
is failing ... historically it seems they seldom choose wisely.
Ridiculous cunt Hillary thinks after getting REJECTED by the voters in the USA that somehow being asked to "go the fuck away
and shut the fuck up" makes her a women's leader. The cocksucker Soros and some of these other non-elected globalist should keep
in mind that while everybody has a right to an opinion: it took the Clinton Crime Family and lots of corruption to create the
scandals that sets a Clinton Crime Family member aside, and why Soros was given a free pass on election meddling and not others
requires congressional investigation and a special prosecutor. And then there is that special kind of legal and ignorant opinion
like David Hogg who I just disagree with, making him in my opinion and many fellow NRA members a cocksucker and a cunt. I'd wish
shingles on David Hogg, Hillary Clinton, and Soros.
america is going through withdraw from 30 years of trickledown crap. the young are realizing that the shithole they inherit
does not have to be a shithole, and the old pathetic white old men who run the show will be dead soon.
all i see is a bunch of fleeting old people who found facebook 10 years late are temporarily empowered since they can now connect
with other equally impotent old people.
The usual self-serving swill from the Best and the Brightest of the Predator Class out of the CFR via Haas.
The liberal order aka the New British Empire, was born 70 years ago by firebombing and nuking undefended civilian targets.
It proceeded to launch serial genocidal rampages in the Koreas, SE Asia, Latin America until finally burning down a large portion
of the Middle East.
The fact that there has not been a catastrophic nuclear war is pure dumb luck. The Deep State came within seconds of engineering
a nuclear cataclysm off the waters of Cuba in 1962. When JFK started dismantling the CIA Deep State and ending the Cold War with
the USSR, Dulles dispatched a CIA hit-squad to gun down the President. (RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination
was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past).
The liberal order is dying because it is led by criminally depraved Predators who have pauperized the labor force and created
political strife, though the populists don't pose much threat to the liberal-order Predators.
However by shipping the productive Western economies overseas to Asia, the US in particular cannot finance and physically
support a military empire or the required R&D to stay competitive on the commercial and military front.
So the US Imperialists are being eclipsed by the Sino-Russo Alliance and wants us to believe this is a great tragedy. Meanwhile
the same crew of Liberal -neoCon Deep Staters presses on with wars and tensions that are slipping out of control.
Liberalism is anything but liberal... and I suppose that is the problem with it. It aims to do to the western world what Mao
did to China and Stalin did to Russia. Many people were murdered or imprisoned and people had no rights, just obligations to dictators
and their cronies.
I think this world is past the point where any benefit is gained from having "owners of the people", benevolent or otherwise.
And we certainly do not benefit from perverted demonic entities even if they come bearing technology. The price is too high.
Populism goes along with essential freedoms for the human race.-
As I told the idiotic retards who argued with me on Prodigy fucking 27 years ago, China will not change because of increased
trading and the West making them wealthier. In fact, just the opposite. I wonder if they have caught on yet?
"... President Trump was said to complain that Tillerson disagreed with him and McMaster talked too much. Bolton seems likely to combine both of those traits in one pugnacious, mustachioed package. ..."
"... Bolton may find that in this job, he's the midlevel munchkin. Remember, the national security adviser is supposed to be the coordinator, conciliator, and honest broker among Cabinet officials, managing a process by which all get a fair say and the president makes well-informed decisions. Outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster reportedly lost favor with Defense Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly for failing to defer to them, and for being too emotional . ..."
John Bolton has been one of liberals' top bogeymen on national security for more than a decade now. He seems to relish the
role, going out of his way to argue that the Iraq War wasn't really a failure, calling for U.S.-led regime change in Iran and
preventive war against North Korea, and writing the foreword for a
book
that proclaimed President Obama to be a secret Muslim. He is a profoundly partisan creature, having started a
super-PAC whose largest donor was leading Trump benefactor Rebekah Mercer and whose provider of analytics was Cambridge
Analytica, the firm alleged to have improperly used Facebook data to make voter profiles, which it sold to the Trump and
Brexit campaigns, among others.
Recently Bolton's statements have grown more extreme, alarming centrist and conservative national security professionals along
with his longtime liberal foes. He seemed to
say
that the United States could attack North Korea without the agreement of our South Korean allies, who would face the
highest risk of retaliation and casualties; just two months ago he
called for
a regime change effort in Iran that would allow the U.S. to open a new embassy there by 2019, the 40th
anniversary of the Iranian Revolution and the taking of Americans hostage in Tehran. His
hostility toward Islam
points toward a set of extreme policies that could easily have the effect of abridging American
Muslims' rights at home and alienating America's Muslim allies abroad.
As worrying as these policies are, it's worth taking a step back and thinking not about Bolton, but about his new boss, Donald
Trump. Trump reportedly considered Bolton for a Cabinet post early on, but then
soured
on him, finding his mustache unprofessional. His choice of Bolton to lead the National Security Council reinforces
several trends: right now, this administration is all about making Trump's opponents uncomfortable and angry. Internal
coherence and policy effectiveness are not a primary or even secondary consideration. And anyone would be a fool to imagine
that, because Bolton pleases Trump today, he will continue to do so tomorrow.
Yes, Bolton has taken strong stances against the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin (though he has also been
quoted
praising Russian "democracy" as recently as 2013). That's nothing new: Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, incoming
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster have called for greater pushback on
Russia as well. But there's every reason to think that, rather than a well-oiled war machine, what we'll get from Bolton's
National Security Council is scheming and discord – which could be even more dangerous.
President Trump was said to complain that Tillerson disagreed with him and McMaster talked too much. Bolton seems likely
to combine both of those traits in one pugnacious, mustachioed package.
Their disagreements are real – Bolton has
famously pooh-poohed the kind of summit diplomacy with North Korea that Trump is now committed to. While Trump famously backed
away from his support for the 2002 invasion of Iraq, courting the GOP isolationist base, Bolton continues to argue that the
invasion worked, and seldom hears of a war he would not participate in. Trump
attempted
to block transgender people from serving in the military, but Bolton has declined to take part in the right's
LGBT-bashing, famously hiring gay staff and
calling for
the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
That's all substance. What really seems likely to take Bolton down is his style, which is legendary – and not in a good way.
His colleagues from the George W. Bush administration responded to Trump's
announcement
with
comments like
"the obvious question is whether John Bolton has the temperament and the judgment for the job" – not exactly
a ringing endorsement. One former co-worker
described
Bolton as a "kiss up, kick down kind of guy," and he was notorious in past administrations for conniving and
sneaking around officials who disagreed with him, both traits that Trump seems likely to enjoy until he doesn't. This is a
man who can't refrain from
telling Tucker Carlson
that his analysis is "simpleminded" – while he's a guest on Carlson's show. Turns out it's not true
that he threw a stapler at a contractor – it was a
tape dispenser.
When Bolton was caught attempting to cook intelligence to suggest that Cuba had a biological weapons
program, he bullied the analyst who had dared push back, calling him a "
midlevel
munchkin
." How long until Trump tires of the drama – or of being eclipsed?
Bolton may find that in this job, he's the midlevel munchkin. Remember, the national security adviser is supposed to be
the coordinator, conciliator, and honest broker among Cabinet officials, managing a process by which all get a fair say and
the president makes well-informed decisions. Outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster reportedly lost favor with
Defense Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly for failing to defer to them, and for being
too emotional
.
Love Bolton or hate him, no one imagines he will be a self-effacing figure, and no one hires him to run a no-drama process.
It's also hard to imagine that many of the high-quality professionals McMaster brought into the National Security Council
staff will choose to stay. McMaster repeatedly had to fight for his team within the Trump administration, but Bolton seems
unlikely to follow that pattern, or to inspire the kind of loyalty that drew well-regarded policy wonks to work for McMaster,
regardless their views of Trump.
So even if you like the policies Bolton espouses, it's hard to imagine a smooth process implementing them. That seems likely
to leave us with Muslim ban-level incompetence, extreme bellicosity, and several very loud, competing voices – with
Twitter feeds
– on the most sensitive issues of war and weapons of mass destruction.
Like many high demand cults neoliberalism is a trap, from which it is very difficult to escape...
Notable quotes:
"... A large, open-border global free market would be left, not subject to popular control but managed by a globally dispersed, transnational one percent. And the whole process of making this happen would be camouflaged beneath the altruistic stylings of a benign humanitarianism. ..."
"... Globalists, as neoliberal capitalists are often called, also understood that democracy, defined by a smattering of individual rights and a voting booth, was the ideal vehicle to usher neoliberalism into the emerging world. Namely because democracy, as commonly practiced, makes no demands in the economic sphere. Socialism does. Communism does. These models directly address ownership of the means of production. Not so democratic capitalism. This permits the globalists to continue to own the means of production while proclaiming human rights triumphant in nations where interventions are staged. ..."
"... The enduring lie is that there is no democracy without economic democracy. ..."
This 'Washington Consensus' is the false promise promoted by the West. The reality is quite
different. The crux of neoliberalism is to eliminate democratic government by downsizing,
privatizing, and deregulating it. Proponents of neoliberalism recognize that the state is the
last bulwark of protection for the common people against the predations of capital. Remove the
state and they'll be left defenseless .
Think about it. Deregulation eliminates the laws. Downsizing eliminates departments and their
funding. Privatizing eliminates the very purpose of the state by having the private sector take
over its traditional responsibilities.
Ultimately, nation-states would dissolve except perhaps for armies and tax systems. A large, open-border global free
market would be left, not subject to popular control but managed by a globally dispersed, transnational one percent. And the
whole process of making this happen would be camouflaged beneath the altruistic stylings of a benign humanitarianism.
Globalists, as neoliberal capitalists are often called, also understood that democracy, defined
by a smattering of individual rights and a voting booth, was the ideal vehicle to usher
neoliberalism into the emerging world. Namely because democracy, as commonly practiced, makes
no demands in the economic sphere. Socialism does. Communism does. These models directly
address ownership of the means of production. Not so democratic capitalism. This permits the
globalists to continue to own the means of production while proclaiming human rights triumphant
in nations where interventions are staged.
The enduring lie is that there is no democracy
without economic democracy.
What matters to the one percent and the media conglomerates that disseminate their worldview is
that the official definitions are accepted by the masses. The real effects need never be known.
The neoliberal ideology (theory) thus conceals the neoliberal reality (practice). And for the
masses to accept it, it must be mass produced. Then it becomes more or less invisible by virtue
of its universality.
Are powerful intelligence agencies compatible even with limited neoliberal democracy, or
democracy for top 10 or 1%?
Notable quotes:
"... I recall during the George II administration someone in congress advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to bankruptcy ..."
"... Soros, like the Koch brothers, heads an organization. He has lots of "people" who do what he demands of them. ..."
"... Let's give these guys (and gals, too, let's not forget the Pritzkers and DeVoses and the Walton Family, just among us Norte Americanos) full credit for all the hard work they are putting in, and money too, of course, to buy a world the way they want it -- one which us mopes have only slave roles to play... ..."
You have a good point, but I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression
becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip
service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian. Karl
Rove's dream to return the economy to the late 19th Century standard.
The Clintonoid project seems set on taking it to the late 16th century. Probably with a
return of chattel slavery. I recall during the George II administration someone in congress
advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to
bankruptcy
Soros, like the Koch brothers, heads an organization. He has lots of "people" who do what he
demands of them.
Do you really contend that Soros and the Koch brothers, and people like Adelson, aren't busily "undermining American democracy," whatever that is, via their
organizations (like ALEC and such) in favor of their oligarchic kleptocratic interests, and
going at it 24/7?
The phrase "reductio ad absurdam" comes to mind, for some reason...
Let's give these guys (and gals, too, let's not forget the Pritzkers and DeVoses and the
Walton Family, just among us Norte Americanos) full credit for all the hard work they are
putting in, and money too, of course, to buy a world the way they want it -- one which us
mopes have only slave roles to play...
At the core of Trumpism is the rejection of neoliberalism
Pat Buchanan does not understand neoliberalism well and mixes apples with oranges, but the key idea expressed here stands: " Consider
this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants, not one of whom ever built
a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits since Bush I. Our cities have
been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic independence Hamilton sought and Republican
presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history."
Notable quotes:
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever." ..."
"I walk through this world with greater courage and hope when I find myself in a relation of friendship and intimacy with this
great man, whose fame has gone out not only over all Russia, but the world. We regard Marshal Stalin's life as most precious to the
hopes and hearts of all of us."
Returning home, Churchill assured a skeptical Parliament, "I know of no Government which stands to its obligations, even in its
own despite, more solidly than the Russian Soviet Government."
George W. Bush, with the U.S. establishment united behind him, invaded Iraq with the goal of creating a Vermont in the Middle
East that would be a beacon of democracy to the Arab and Islamic world.
Ex-Director of the NSA Gen. William Odom correctly called the U.S. invasion the greatest strategic blunder in American history.
But Bush, un-chastened, went on to preach a crusade for democracy with the goal of "ending tyranny in our world."
... ... ...
After our victory in the Cold War, we not only plunged into the Middle East to remake it in our image, we issued war guarantees
to every ex-member state of the Warsaw Pact, and threatened Russia with war if she ever intervened again in the Baltic Republics.
No Cold War president would have dreamed of issuing such an in-your-face challenge to a great nuclear power like Russia. If Putin's
Russia does not become the pacifist nation it has never been, these guarantees will one day be called. And America will either back
down -- or face a nuclear confrontation. Why would we risk something like this?
Consider this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants, not one
of whom ever built a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits since
Bush I. Our cities have been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic independence
Hamilton sought and Republican presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history.
But the greatest risk we are taking, based on utopianism, is the annual importation of well over a million legal and illegal immigrants,
many from the failed states of the Third World, in the belief we can create a united, peaceful and harmonious land of 400 million,
composed of every race, religion, ethnicity, tribe, creed, culture and language on earth.
Where is the historic evidence for the success of this experiment, the failure of which could mean the end of America as one nation
and one people?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and
Divided America Forever."
Pat Buchanan does not understand neoliberalism well and mixes apples with oranges, but the key idea expressed here stands:
" Consider this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants,
not one of whom ever built a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits
since Bush I. Our cities have been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic
independence Hamilton sought and Republican presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history."
The truth is that now Trump does not represent "Trumpism" -- the movement that he created which includes the following:
– rejection of neoliberal globalization;
– rejection of unrestricted immigration;
– fight against suppression of wages by multinationals via cheap imported labor;
– fight against the elimination of meaningful, well-paying jobs via outsourcing and offshoring of manufacturing;
– rejection of wars for enlargement and sustaining of neoliberal empire, especially NATO role as global policemen and wars for
Washington client Israel in the Middle East;
– détente with Russia;
– more pragmatic relations with Israel and suppression of Israeli agents of influence;
– revision of relations with China and addressing the problem of trade deficit.
– rejection of total surveillance on all citizens;
– the cut of military expenses to one third or less of the current level and concentrating on revival on national infrastructure,
education, and science.
– abandonment of maintenance of the "sole superpower" status and global neoliberal empire for more practical and less costly "semi-isolationist"
foreign policy; closing of unnecessary foreign military bases and cutting aid to the current clients.
Of course, the notion of "Trumpism" is fuzzy and different people might include some additional issues and disagree with some
listed here, but the core probably remains.
Of course, Trump is under relentless attack (coup d'état or, more precisely, a color revolution) of neoliberal fifth column,
which includes Clinton gang, fifth column elements within his administration (Rosenstein, etc) as well from remnants of Obama
administration (Brennan, Comey, Clapper) and associated elements within corresponding intelligence agencies. He probably was forced
into some compromises just to survive. He also has members of the neoliberal fifth column within his family (Ivanka and Kushner).
So the movement now is in deep need of a new leader.
That's a good summary of what the public voted for and didn't get.
And whether Trump has sold out, or was blackmailed or was a cynical manipulative liar for the beginning is really irrelevant.
The fact is that he is not doing it – so he is just blocking the way.
At some point the US public are going to have to forget about their "representatives" (Trump and Congress and the rest of
them) and get out onto the street to make themselves heard. The population of the US is 323 million people and if just 1/2
of 1% (1,6 million) of them decided to visit Congress directly the US administration might get the message.
pyrrhus, March 3, 2018 at 2:15 am GMT
@anon
Finally, Pat understands that the American [Neoliberal] Empire and habit of intervention all over the world is a disaster.
Very weak analysis The authors completely missed the point. Susceptibility to rumors (now
called "fake new" which more correctly should be called "improvised news") and high level of
distrust to "official MSM" (of which popularity of alternative news site is only tip of the
iceberg) is a sign of the crisis and tearing down of the the social fabric that hold the so
social groups together. This first of all demonstrated with the de-legitimization of the
neoliberal elite.
As such attempt to patch this discord and unite the US society of fake premises of Russiagate
and anti-Russian hysteria look very problematic. The effect might be quite opposite as the story
with Steele dossier, which really undermined credibility of Justice Department and destroyed the
credibility o FBI can teach us.
In this case claims that "The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan
" are just s a sign of rejection of neoliberalism by voters. Nothing more nothing less.
Notable quotes:
"... It has infected the American political system, weakening the body politic and leaving it vulnerable to manipulation. Russian misinformation seems to have exacerbated the symptoms, but laced throughout the indictment are reminders that the underlying disease, arguably far more damaging, is all American-made. ..."
"... A recent study found that the people most likely to consume fake news were already hyperpartisan and close followers of politics, and that false stories were only a small fraction of their media consumption. ..."
That these efforts might have actually made a difference, or at least were intended to,
highlights a force that was already destabilizing American democracy far more than any
Russian-made fake news post: partisan polarization.
"Partisanship can even alter memory, implicit evaluation, and even perceptual judgment," the
political scientists Jay J. Van Bavel and Andrea Pereira wrote in a recent paper . "The human attraction to fake and
untrustworthy news" -- a danger cited by political scientists far more frequently than
orchestrated meddling -- "poses a serious problem for healthy democratic functioning."
It has infected the American political system, weakening the body politic and leaving it
vulnerable to manipulation. Russian misinformation seems to have exacerbated the symptoms, but
laced throughout the indictment are reminders that the underlying disease, arguably far more
damaging, is all American-made.
... ... ...
A recent study found
that the people most likely to consume fake news were already hyperpartisan and close followers
of politics, and that false stories were only a small fraction of their media
consumption.
Americans, it said, sought out stories that reflected their already-formed partisan view of
reality. This suggests that these Russians efforts are indicators -- not drivers -- of how
widely Americans had polarized.
That distinction matters for how the indictment is read: Though Americans have seen it as
highlighting a foreign threat, it also illustrates the perhaps graver threats from
within.
An Especially Toxic Form of Partisanship
... ... ...
"Compromise is the core of democracy," she said. "It's the only way we can govern." But, she
said, "when you make people feel threatened, nobody compromises with evil."
The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan is in many ways just a
faint echo of the partisan anger and fear already dominating American politics.
Those emotions undermine a key norm that all sides are served by honoring democratic
processes; instead, they justify, or even seem to mandate, extreme steps against the other
side.
In taking this approach, the Russians were merely riding a trend that has been building for
decades.
Since the 1980s , surveys have found that Republicans and Democrats' feelings toward the
opposing party have been growing more and more negative. Voters are animated more by distrust
of the other side than support for their own.
This highlights a problem that Lilliana Mason, a University of Maryland political scientist,
said had left American democracy dangerously vulnerable. But it's a problem driven primarily by
American politicians and media outlets, which have far louder megaphones than any Russian-made
Facebook posts.
"Compromise is the core of democracy," she said. "It's the only way we can govern." But, she
said, "when you make people feel threatened, nobody compromises with evil."
The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan is in many ways just a
faint echo of the partisan anger and fear already dominating American politics.
Those emotions undermine a key norm that all sides are served by honoring democratic
processes; instead, they justify, or even seem to mandate, extreme steps against the other
side.
Money quote: "And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries
or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them
hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War
3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real.
And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage,
to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation."
Notable quotes:
"... And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation. ..."
"... Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council. But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times ..."
"... Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need to be confronted by force, an opportunity described by Foreign Policy ..."
"... What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf. ..."
"... You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran. ..."
"... The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal, the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his republican opponents will not let him. ..."
"... That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence Agencies to the contrary not withstanding. ..."
"... The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard. ..."
"... The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality" but by "special interests" seems .missing ..."
"... Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies never work and ours quit long ago. ..."
"... I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this. I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security. Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US? ..."
"... The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting her wars of conquest. ..."
"... The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer. ..."
"... Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty work" for them. ..."
"... There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems. They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance of US goals. ..."
"... Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential. ..."
"... Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that. ..."
"... Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance. ..."
"... And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA already owns that country. ..."
"... The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans. ..."
It is one of the great ironies that the United States, a land mass protected by two broad oceans while also benefitting from the
world's largest economy and most powerful military, persists in viewing itself as a potential victim, vulnerable and surrounded by
enemies. In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and the
second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries
or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them
hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World
War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative
than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or
no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating
their cooperation.
Also, I would characterize international terrorism as a faux threat at a national level, though one that has been exaggerated
through the media and fearmongering to such an extent that it appears much more dangerous than it actually is. It has been observed
that more Americans are killed by falling furniture than by terrorists in a year but terrorism has a particularly potency due to
its unpredictability and the fear that it creates. Due to that fear, American governments and businesses at all levels have been
willing to spend a trillion dollars per annum to defeat what might rationally be regarded as a relatively minor problem.
So if the United States were serious about dealing with or deflecting the actual threats against the American people it could
first of all reduce its defense expenditures to make them commensurate with the actual threat before concentrating on three things.
First, would be to establish a solid modus vivendi with Russia and China to avoid conflicts of interest that could develop
into actual tit-for-tat escalation. That would require an acceptance by Washington of the fact that both Moscow and Beijing have
regional spheres of influence that are defined by their interests. You don't have to like the governance of either country, but their
national interests have to be appreciated and respected just as the United States has legitimate interests within its own hemisphere
that must be respected by Russia and China.
Second, Washington must, unfortunately, continue to spend on the Missile Defense Agency, which supports anti-missile defenses
if the search for a modus vivendi for some reason fails. Mutual assured destruction is not a desirable strategic doctrine
but being able to intercept incoming missiles while also having some capability to strike back if attacked is a realistic deterrent
given the proliferation of nations that have both ballistic missiles and nukes.
Third and finally, there would be a coordinated program aimed at international terrorism based equally on where the terror comes
from and on physically preventing the terrorist attacks from taking place. This is the element in national defense that is least
clear cut. Dealing with Russia and China involves working with mature regimes that have established diplomatic and military channels.
Dealing with terrorist non-state players is completely different as there are generally speaking no such channels.
It should in theory be pretty simple to match threats and interests with actions since there are only a handful that really matter,
but apparently it is not so in practice. What is Washington doing? First of all, the White House is deliberately turning its back
on restoring a good working relationship with Russia by insisting that Crimea be returned to Kiev, by blaming Moscow for the continued
unrest in Donbas, and by attacking Syrian military targets in spite of the fact that Russia is an ally of the legitimate government
in Damascus and the United States is an interloper in the conflict. Meanwhile congress and the media are poisoning the waters through
their dogged pursuit of Russiagate for political reasons even though nearly a year of investigation has produced no actual evidence
of malfeasance on the part of U.S. officials and precious little in terms of Moscow's alleged interference.
Playing tough to the international audience has unfortunately become part of the American Exceptionalism DNA. Upon his arrival
in Warsaw last week, Donald Trump doubled down on the
Russia-bashing, calling on Moscow to "cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes
including Syria and Iran." He then recommended that Russia should "join the community of responsible nations in our fight against
common enemies and in defense of civilization itself."
The comments in Warsaw were unnecessary, even if the Poles wanted to hear them, and were both highly insulting and ignorant. It
was not a good start for Donald's second overseas trip, even though the speech has otherwise been interpreted as a welcome defense
of Western civilization and European values. Trump also followed up with a two hour plus discussion with President Vladimir Putin
in which the two apparently agreed to differ on the alleged Russian hacking of the American election. The Trump-Putin meeting indicated
that restoring some kind of working relationship with Russia is still possible, as it is in everyone's interest to do so.
Fighting terrorism is quite another matter and the United States approach is the reverse of what a rational player would be seeking
to accomplish. The U.S. is rightly assisting in the bid to eradicate ISIS in Syria and Iraq but it is simultaneously attacking the
most effective fighters against that group, namely the Syrian government armed forces and the Shiite militias being provided by Iran
and Hezbollah. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that at least some in the Trump Administration are seeking to use the Syrian
engagement as a stepping stone to war with Iran.
As was the case in the months preceding the ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003, all buttons are being pushed to vilify Iran. Recent
reports suggest that two individuals in the White House in particular have been pressuring the Trump administration's generals to
escalate U.S. involvement in Syria to bring about a war with Tehran sooner rather than later. They are Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Derek
Harvey, reported to be holdovers from the team brought into the White House by the virulently anti-Iranian former National Security
Adviser Michael Flynn.
Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and
has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council.
But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times
that "wants to use American spies to help oust the Iranian government," a comment that reflects complete ignorance, both regarding
Iran and also concerning spy agency capabilities. His partner in crime Harvey, a former military officer who advised General David
Petraeus when he was in Iraq, is the NSC advisor on the Middle East.
Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need
to be confronted by force,
an opportunity described by Foreign Policy magazine as having developed into "a pivotal moment that will determine whether
Iran or the United States exerts influence over Iraq and Syria." Other neocon promoters of conflict with Iran have described their
horror at a possible Shiite "bridge" or "land corridor" through the Arab heartland, running from Iran itself through Iraq and Syria
and connecting on the Mediterranean with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery
but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar
sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make
a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security
Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not
wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's
number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument
on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf.
The problem with the Trump analysis is that he has his friends and enemies confused. He is actually supporting Saudi Arabia, the
source of most of the terrorism that has convulsed Western Europe and the United States while also killing hundreds of thousands
of fellow Muslims. Random terrorism to kill as many "infidels and heretics" as possible to create fear is a Sunni Muslim phenomenon,
supported financially and doctrinally by the Saudis. To be sure, Iran has used terror tactics to eliminate opponents and select targets
overseas, to include several multiple-victim bombings, but it has never engaged in anything like the recent series of attacks in
France and Britain. So the United States is moving seemingly inexorably towards war with a country that itself constitutes no actual
terrorist threat, unless it is attacked, in support of a country that very much is part of the threat and also on behalf of Israel,
which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its own sons and daughters.
Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very hard
on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's
armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go. Saudi
financing and Washington's propensity to go to war and thereby create a deep well of hatred just might be the principal causative
elements in the rise of global terrorism. Do I think that Donald Trump's White House has the courage to take such a step and change
direction? Unfortunately, no.
Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.
Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian
era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was
pro-Arabic/Islamic. And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud. So,
our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled by
WASP Elites.
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
No, the only threats are the following three:
Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts
of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.
The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike
Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.
The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole.
It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.
Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.
Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles
that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of
cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and
replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.
The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women
are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with
few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.
Look at YouTube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading
the savage genes.
Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of
the West.
Besides what Priss Factor said above the following is to be reinforced with every real American man, woman and child.
Israel , which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its
own sons and daughters.
Israel, the REAL enemy! ,
@K India is looking to unload hindus to U.S? Quite the opposite. India is 'losing' its best brains to the U.S so its
trying to attract them back to their country. For eg: The chief- architect of IBM's Watson is a Hindu Indian and so is the
head of IBM's neuro-morphic computing. These people are advancing western technology.... civilian and also defense (IBM
is collaborating with the American defense organization DARPA) instead of helping India achieve technological competence.
And most of other super intelligent Indians also India is losing them to the west.
(i dont hate the west for doing that. Any country in amercia's place would have done the same. It is india's job to keep
its best brains working for it and not for others. And india is trying its best to do that albeit unsuccessfully.)
100 Words #UNRIG adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"
Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out
Cynthia McKinney's twitter.
#UNRIG – Robert David Steele Weekly Update
@Durruti Nice action approach
to cure ills of society.
Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed - with a similar approach at a cure.
*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet - both sides).
The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.
Feel free to contact.
Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed
the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald
Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a
wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .
In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry
and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs
cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working
citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation,
the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations.
Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate
has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with
the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently
conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much
on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget
is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United
States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever
is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely
tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican
factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated
and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned
and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only
a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International
Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations,
including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional
regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with
a clean slate.
As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation
receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with
a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure
President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom
from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government,
hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage
of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort
to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran.
The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand
the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal,
the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his
republican opponents will not let him.
That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given
so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence
Agencies to the contrary not withstanding.
The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel
will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard.
The western world is dependent on oil, especially ME oil. Saudi Arabia was made the USA's main oil supplier at the end of 1944.
The Saud dynasty depends on the USA. That the Saudis would sponsor terrorism, why would they ? And which terrorism is Muslim terrorism
?
Sept 11 not, Boston not, Madrid and London very questionably. We then are left with minor issues, the Paris shooting the biggest.
That Saudi Arabia is waging war in Yemen certainly is with USA support. The Saudi army does what the USA wants them to do.
Mr. Giraldi, you forgot to mention Israel as one of America's biggest liabilities besides Saudi Arabia. But with such amateur
dramatics in the White House and on the Security Council, the US is destined for war but only against the wrong enemy such as
Iran. If the Saudis and the right-wing Netanyahu regime want to get after Iran they should do it alone. They surely will get a
bloody nose. Americans have shed enough blood for these rascal regimes. President Trump should continue with his rapprochement
towards Russia because both nation states have more in common than expected.
I'm a little disappointed in this article. Not that it's a bad article per se: perfectly rational, reasonable, academic even.
But unfortunately, it's simply naive.
"Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very
hard on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which
America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have
a go."
Realize who the real enemy is ? Come down hard on the Saud's ? No -- really ?
The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality" but by "special interests" seems
.missing. Israel, the Saudi's themselves, the MIC & so on & so forth ARE the special interests who literally "realise" US Policy.
Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag.
Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle
east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.)
I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies.
So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? ,
"The White House is targeting Iran but should instead focus on Saudi Arabia"
Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for
him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies
never work and ours quit long ago.
I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy',
the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established
established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security. Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?
Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia
population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves.
USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The
operation was by and large very successful btw.
It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world.
Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first
country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance.
And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so
much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA
already owns that country.
So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood – "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House
about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap
on a suicide vest and have a go."
Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English
Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.
The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud,
Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal
tendencies of Mexicans.
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
No, the only threats are the following three:
Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts
of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.
The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike
Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.
The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole.
It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.
Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.
Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles
that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of
cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and
replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.
The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women
are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with
few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.
Look at youtube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading
the savage genes.
Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of
the West.
Replies: @Sowhat And what grudge
is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization of their natural
resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast and the decades
long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that
bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting
her wars of conquest.
You won't see Israeli troops in the streets, since their confederates control the economy thru their control of the FED and
US Treasury and most of those TBTF banks, which we always bail out, no matter the cost.
The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them
a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer.
The WH is also Israeli territory, especially now with a Jew NYC slumlord now Trump's top adviser and his fashion model faux
Jew daughter egging Daddy on to kill more Arab babies, since she can't stand the sight of dead babies
@Paul Well, the real enemy of
the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters
to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) I am beginning to get interested in why some
people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if
any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report?
@eah The WH should focus on
the USA. And what grudge is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization
of their natural resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast
and the decades long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others
to do their "dirty work" for them.
The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely
argue that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.
1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's
take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".
2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders"
-- goyim
or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective
"tribe".
3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider"
will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.
4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding
that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands
moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.
Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of
us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses
Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend her interests just
as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).
Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and
Judaism. In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians--except
for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.
As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they
acknowledge that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity)
or they can go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture,
Drama and Music or blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.
Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try
to act like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe.
, @bjondo Jews/Judaism
bring death, destruction, misery.
Muslims/Islam (minus Western creation of "Muslim"terrorists) brought golden ages to many areas.
Christianity and Islam elevate the human spirit. Judaism degrades.
June 7, 2017 We Have Met the Evil Empire and It Is Us
Life in America was pure injustice, the lash and the iron boot, despite the version of history we have been given by the Ford
and Rockefeller Foundations who "re-invented" America and its history through taking control of public education in the late 1940s.
You see, the multi-generational ignorance we bask in today is not unplanned. The threat represented by advances in communications
and other technology was recognized and dealt with, utterly quashed at birth.
@anarchyst Israel's current
"agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty
work" for them.
The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely argue
that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.
1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's
take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".
2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders"--goyim
or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective
"tribe".
3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider"
will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.
4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding
that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands
moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.
Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran...you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of
us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses... Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend
her interests just as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).
Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and Judaism.
In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians–except
for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.
As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they acknowledge
that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity) or they can
go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture, Drama and Music or
blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.
Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try to act
like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe.
Trump is torn between Israel's permanent need to weaken its powerful neighbors (Iraq, Iran) and the necessity to protect the USA
from terrorists attacks.
Iran is an hypothetical threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia has proven to be a threat to the world.
In Tehran and other Iranian cities including Iran's holiest, that is, most conservative cities like Mashad. there are taxi
companies owned and run by women.
Tehran traffic makes NYC look like Mayberry RFD; many Iranians use small motorcycles to commute and take care of daily chores.
It's not at all uncommon to see an Iranian woman in full chador driving a motorcycle with a child and parcels in tow.
Iranian women could offer to teach the women of Saudi Arabia to drive.
@Wizard of Oz I am beginning
to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening
question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? A better question: Have YOU read
The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Phillip Shenon?
There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming
there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've
spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way
of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems.
They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance
of US goals.
They live the royal life thanks to being able to use the money from their nation's resource wealth as their own personal kitty,
living in palaces, buying obscene amounts of jewelry and other luxury goods, and so on. They'll never give that up and being a
close ally of the US affords them protection which of course they pay for. They may be seen as an enemy by the average person
but not at the elite level with whom they all consort and roll around in the money with.
Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has
good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential.
Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also
because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial
political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration
to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that.
@Paul Well, the real enemy of
the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters
to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) "Well, the real enemy of the people are the
real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag."
Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.
Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian
era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was
pro-Arabic/Islamic.
And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud.
So, our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled
by WASP Elites. SECOND worst,my friend.
@Chad I fully agree that attacking
Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less,
in alt-media circles like this.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established
established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security.
Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?
Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority
Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands
this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large
very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across
the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran
became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became
the new resistance.
And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher
so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA
already owns that country.
So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood - "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House
about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap
on a suicide vest and have a go."
Bingo. Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English
Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.
The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it
wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans.
1,000 Words @RobinG#UNRIG
adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
..................."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"
Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out
Cynthia McKinney's twitter.
#UNRIG - Robert David Steele Weekly Update Nice action approach to cure ills of society.
Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed – with a similar approach at a cure.
*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet – both sides).
The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.
Feel free to contact.
Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed
the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald
Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a
wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .
In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry
and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs
cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working
citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation,
the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations.
Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate
has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with
the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently
conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much
on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget
is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United
States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever
is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely
tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican
factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated
and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned
and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only
a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International
Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations,
including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional
regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with
a clean slate.
As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation
receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with
a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure
President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom
from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government,
hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage
of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
are studying US states and ranking them according to financial stability measures. The states with biggest problems -- Illinois,
California, New Jersey, Connecticut -- are in the mess they are in largely because of pension liability issues: some pensions
are unfunded or underfunded.
I recall that ten years ago about a dozen Jewish organizations formed the "Iran Task Force," ** whose primary activity was
to persuade managers of State pension funds to divest from Iran-connected companies; that is, corporations & banks, etc. that
did business with Iran. I recall very clearly that Arnold Schwartznegger was the poster child for California's vanguard role in
divesting from such nasty nasty companies, in accord with the wishes of Jewish Israel-firsters.
Perhaps the Mercatus scholars could prepare an exercise in alternative financial history: What shape would the US economy,
and the various States's economies, be in if the US were NOT so overwhelmingly influenced by Israel firsters, and were NOT persuaded,
Against Our Better Judgment, to entangle themselves in Israel's nefarious activities?
____
** The 2007 Iran Task Force is NOT the same as the group formed in 2015 or so, embedded in US House/Senate, with Joe Lieberman
and Michael Hayden playing prominent roles in attempting to influence the Iran Deal.
The 2007 initiative was sponsored by groups such as ZOA, RJC, AIPAC, etc., and / or spun off groups such as Foundation for
Defense of Democracy, United Against Nuclear Iran.
"... 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]
Petras did not mention that it was Carter who started neoliberalization of the USA. The subsequent election of Reagan signified
the victory of neoliberalism in this country or "quite coup". The death of New Deal from this point was just a matter
of time. Labor relations drastically changes and war on union and atomization of workforce are a norm.
Welfare state still exists but only for corporation and MIC. Otherwise the New Deal society is almost completely dismanted.
It is true that "The ' New Deal' was, at best, a de facto ' historical compromise' between the capitalist class
and the labor unions, mediated by the Democratic Party elite. It was a temporary pact in which the unions secured legal recognition
while the capitalists retained their executive prerogatives." But the key factor in this compromise was the existence of the USSR as
a threat to the power of capitalists in the USA. when the USSR disappeared cannibalistic instincts of the US elite prevailed over caution.
Notable quotes:
"... The earlier welfare 'reforms' and the current anti-welfare legislation and austerity practices have been accompanied by a series of endless imperial wars, especially in the Middle East. ..."
"... In the 1940's through the 1960's, world and regional wars (Korea and Indo-China) were combined with significant welfare program – a form of ' social imperialism' , which 'buy off' the working class while expanding the empire. However, recent decades are characterized by multiple regional wars and the reduction or elimination of welfare programs – and a massive growth in poverty, domestic insecurity and poor health. ..."
"... modern welfare state' ..."
"... Labor unions were organized as working class strikes and progressive legislation facilitated trade union organization, elections, collective bargaining rights and a steady increase in union membership. Improved work conditions, rising wages, pension plans and benefits, employer or union-provided health care and protective legislation improved the standard of living for the working class and provided for 2 generations of upward mobility. ..."
"... Social Security legislation was approved along with workers' compensation and the forty-hour workweek. Jobs were created through federal programs (WPA, CCC, etc.). Protectionist legislation facilitated the growth of domestic markets for US manufacturers. Workplace shop steward councils organized 'on the spot' job action to protect safe working conditions. ..."
"... World War II led to full employment and increases in union membership, as well as legislation restricting workers' collective bargaining rights and enforcing wage freezes. Hundreds of thousands of Americans found jobs in the war economy but a huge number were also killed or wounded in the war. ..."
"... So-called ' right to work' ..."
"... Trade union officials signed pacts with capital: higher pay for the workers and greater control of the workplace for the bosses. Trade union officials joined management in repressing rank and file movements seeking to control technological changes by reducing hours (" thirty hours work for forty hours pay ..."
"... Trade union activists, community organizers for rent control and other grassroots movements lost both the capacity and the will to advance toward large-scale structural changes of US capitalism. Living standards improved for a few decades but the capitalist class consolidated strategic control over labor relations. While unionized workers' incomes, increased, inequalities, especially in the non-union sectors began to grow. With the end of the GI bill, veterans' access to high-quality subsidized education declined ..."
"... With the election of President Carter, social welfare in the US began its long decline. The next series of regional wars were accompanied by even greater attacks on welfare via the " Volker Plan " – freezing workers' wages as a means to combat inflation. ..."
"... Guns without butter' became the legislative policy of the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The welfare programs were based on politically fragile foundations. ..."
"... The anti-labor offensive from the ' Oval Office' intensified under President Reagan with his direct intervention firing tens of thousands of striking air controllers and arresting union leaders. Under Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and William Clinton cost of living adjustments failed to keep up with prices of vital goods and services. Health care inflation was astronomical. Financial deregulation led to the subordination of American industry to finance and the Wall Street banks. De-industrialization, capital flight and massive tax evasion reduced labor's share of national income. ..."
"... The capitalist class followed a trajectory of decline, recovery and ascendance. Moreover, during the earlier world depression, at the height of labor mobilization and organization, the capitalist class never faced any significant political threat over its control of the commanding heights of the economy ..."
"... Hand in bloody glove' with the US Empire, the American trade unions planted the seeds of their own destruction at home. The local capitalists in newly emerging independent nations established industries and supply chains in cooperation with US manufacturers. Attracted to these sources of low-wage, violently repressed workers, US capitalists subsequently relocated their factories overseas and turned their backs on labor at home. ..."
"... President 'Bill' Clinton ravaged Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and Somalia and liberated Wall Street. His regime gave birth to the prototype billionaire swindlers: Michael Milken and Bernard 'Bernie' Madoff. ..."
"... Clinton converted welfare into cheap labor 'workfare', exploiting the poorest and most vulnerable and condemning the next generations to grinding poverty. Under Clinton the prison population of mostly African Americans expanded and the breakup of families ravaged the urban communities. ..."
"... President Obama transferred 2 trillion dollars to the ten biggest bankers and swindlers on Wall Street, and another trillion to the Pentagon to pursue the Democrats version of foreign policy: from Bush's two overseas wars to Obama's seven. ..."
"... Obama was elected to two terms. His liberal Democratic Party supporters swooned over his peace and justice rhetoric while swallowing his militarist escalation into seven overseas wars as well as the foreclosure of two million American householders. Obama completely failed to honor his campaign promise to reduce wage inequality between black and white wage earners while he continued to moralize to black families about ' values' . ..."
"... Obama's war against Libya led to the killing and displacement of millions of black Libyans and workers from Sub-Saharan Africa. The smiling Nobel Peace Prize President created more desperate refugees than any previous US head of state – including millions of Africans flooding Europe. ..."
"... Forty-years of anti welfare legislation and pro-business regimes paved the golden road for the election of Donald Trump ..."
"... Trump and the Republicans are focusing on the tattered remnants of the social welfare system: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. The remains of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society -- are on the chopping block. ..."
"... The moribund (but well-paid) labor leadership has been notable by its absence in the ensuing collapse of the social welfare state. The liberal left Democrats embraced the platitudinous Obama/Clinton team as the 'Great Society's' gravediggers, while wailing at Trump's allies for shoving the corpse of welfare state into its grave. ..."
"... Over the past forty years the working class and the rump of what was once referred to as the ' labor movement' has contributed to the dismantling of the social welfare state, voting for ' strike-breaker' Reagan, ' workfare' Clinton, ' Wall Street crash' Bush, ' Wall Street savior' Obama and ' Trickle-down' Trump. ..."
"... Gone are the days when social welfare and profitable wars raised US living standards and transformed American trade unions into an appendage of the Democratic Party and a handmaiden of Empire. The Democratic Party rescued capitalism from its collapse in the Great Depression, incorporated labor into the war economy and the post- colonial global empire, and resurrected Wall Street from the 'Great Financial Meltdown' of the 21 st century. ..."
"... The war economy no longer fuels social welfare. The military-industrial complex has found new partners on Wall Street and among the globalized multi-national corporations. Profits rise while wages fall. Low paying compulsive labor (workfare) lopped off state transfers to the poor. Technology – IT, robotics, artificial intelligence and electronic gadgets – has created the most class polarized social system in history ..."
"... "The collaboration of liberals and unions in promoting endless wars opened the door to Trump's mirage of a stateless, tax-less, ruling class." ..."
"... Corporations [now] are welfare recipients and the bigger they are, the more handouts they suck up ..."
"... Corporations not only continuously seek monopolies (with the aid and sanction of the state) but they steadily fine tune the welfare state for their benefit. In fact, in reality, welfare for prols and peasants wouldn't exist if it didn't act as a money conduit and ultimate profit center for the big money grubbers. ..."
"... The article is dismal reading, and evidence of the failings of the "unregulated" society, where the anything goes as long as you are wealthy. ..."
"... Like the Pentagon. Americans still don't readily call this welfare, but they will eventually. Defense profiteers are unions in a sense, you're either in their club Or you're in the service industry that surrounds it. ..."
The American welfare state was created in 1935 and continued to develop through 1973. Since then, over a prolonged period, the
capitalist class has been steadily dismantling the entire welfare state.
Between the mid 1970's to the present (2017) labor laws, welfare rights and benefits and the construction of and subsidies for
affordable housing have been gutted. ' Workfare' (under President 'Bill' Clinton) ended welfare for the poor and displaced
workers. Meanwhile the shift to regressive taxation and the steadily declining real wages have increased corporate profits to an
astronomical degree.
What started as incremental reversals during the 1990's under Clinton has snowballed over the last two decades decimating welfare
legislation and institutions.
The earlier welfare 'reforms' and the current anti-welfare legislation and austerity practices have been accompanied by a
series of endless imperial wars, especially in the Middle East.
In the 1940's through the 1960's, world and regional wars (Korea and Indo-China) were combined with significant welfare program
– a form of ' social imperialism' , which 'buy off' the working class while expanding the empire. However, recent decades are characterized
by multiple regional wars and the reduction or elimination of welfare programs – and a massive growth in poverty, domestic insecurity
and poor health.
New Deals and Big Wars
The 1930's witnessed the advent of social legislation and action, which laid the foundations of what is called the ' modern
welfare state' .
Labor unions were organized as working class strikes and progressive legislation facilitated trade union organization, elections,
collective bargaining rights and a steady increase in union membership. Improved work conditions, rising wages, pension plans and
benefits, employer or union-provided health care and protective legislation improved the standard of living for the working class
and provided for 2 generations of upward mobility.
Social Security legislation was approved along with workers' compensation and the forty-hour workweek. Jobs were created through
federal programs (WPA, CCC, etc.). Protectionist legislation facilitated the growth of domestic markets for US manufacturers. Workplace
shop steward councils organized 'on the spot' job action to protect safe working conditions.
World War II led to full employment and increases in union membership, as well as legislation restricting workers' collective
bargaining rights and enforcing wage freezes. Hundreds of thousands of Americans found jobs in the war economy but a huge number
were also killed or wounded in the war.
The post-war period witnessed a contradictory process: wages and salaries increased while legislation curtailed union rights via
the Taft Hartley Act and the McCarthyist purge of leftwing trade union activists. So-called ' right to work' laws effectively
outlawed unionization mostly in southern states, which drove industries to relocate to the anti-union states.
Welfare reforms, in the form of the GI bill, provided educational opportunities for working class and rural veterans, while federal-subsidized
low interest mortgages encourage home-ownership, especially for veterans.
The New Deal created concrete improvements but did not consolidate labor influence at any level. Capitalists and management still
retained control over capital, the workplace and plant location of production.
Trade union officials signed pacts with capital: higher pay for the workers and greater control of the workplace for the bosses.
Trade union officials joined management in repressing rank and file movements seeking to control technological changes by reducing
hours (" thirty hours work for forty hours pay "). Dissident local unions were seized and gutted by the trade union bosses
– sometimes through violence.
Trade union activists, community organizers for rent control and other grassroots movements lost both the capacity and the
will to advance toward large-scale structural changes of US capitalism. Living standards improved for a few decades but the capitalist
class consolidated strategic control over labor relations. While unionized workers' incomes, increased, inequalities, especially
in the non-union sectors began to grow. With the end of the GI bill, veterans' access to high-quality subsidized education declined.
While a new wave of social welfare legislation and programs began in the 1960's and early 1970's it was no longer a result of
a mass trade union or workers' "class struggle". Moreover, trade union collaboration with the capitalist regional war policies led
to the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of workers in two wars – the Korean and Vietnamese wars.
Much of social legislation resulted from the civil and welfare rights movements. While specific programs were helpful, none of
them addressed structural racism and poverty.
The Last Wave of Social Welfarism
The 1960'a witnessed the greatest racial war in modern US history: Mass movements in the South and North rocked state and federal
governments, while advancing the cause of civil, social and political rights. Millions of black citizens, joined by white activists
and, in many cases, led by African American Viet Nam War veterans, confronted the state. At the same time, millions of students and
young workers, threatened by military conscription, challenged the military and social order.
Energized by mass movements, a new wave of social welfare legislation was launched by the federal government to pacify mass opposition
among blacks, students, community organizers and middle class Americans. Despite this mass popular movement, the union bosses at
the AFL-CIO openly supported the war, police repression and the military, or at best, were passive impotent spectators of the drama
unfolding in the nation's streets. Dissident union members and activists were the exception, as many had multiple identities to represent:
African American, Hispanic, draft resisters, etc.
Under Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, Medicare, Medicaid, OSHA, the EPA and multiple poverty programs were implemented.
A national health program, expanding Medicare for all Americans, was introduced by President Nixon and sabotaged by the Kennedy Democrats
and the AFL-CIO. Overall, social and economic inequalities diminished during this period.
The Vietnam War ended in defeat for the American militarist empire. This coincided with the beginning of the end of social welfare
as we knew it – as the bill for militarism placed even greater demands on the public treasury.
With the election of President Carter, social welfare in the US began its long decline. The next series of regional wars were
accompanied by even greater attacks on welfare via the " Volker Plan " – freezing workers' wages as a means to combat inflation.
Guns without butter' became the legislative policy of the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The welfare programs were based
on politically fragile foundations.
The Debacle of Welfarism
Private sector trade union membership declined from a post-world war peak of 30% falling to 12% in the 1990's. Today it has sunk
to 7%. Capitalists embarked on a massive program of closing thousands of factories in the unionized North which were then relocated
to the non-unionized low wage southern states and then overseas to Mexico and Asia. Millions of stable jobs disappeared.
Following the election of 'Jimmy Carter', neither Democratic nor Republican Presidents felt any need to support labor organizations.
On the contrary, they facilitated contracts dictated by management, which reduced wages, job security, benefits and social welfare.
The anti-labor offensive from the ' Oval Office' intensified under President Reagan with his direct intervention
firing tens of thousands of striking air controllers and arresting union leaders. Under Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush
and William Clinton cost of living adjustments failed to keep up with prices of vital goods and services. Health care inflation was
astronomical. Financial deregulation led to the subordination of American industry to finance and the Wall Street banks. De-industrialization,
capital flight and massive tax evasion reduced labor's share of national income.
The capitalist class followed a trajectory of decline, recovery and ascendance. Moreover, during the earlier world depression,
at the height of labor mobilization and organization, the capitalist class never faced any significant political threat over its
control of the commanding heights of the economy.
The ' New Deal' was, at best, a de facto ' historical compromise' between the capitalist class and the labor
unions, mediated by the Democratic Party elite. It was a temporary pact in which the unions secured legal recognition while the capitalists
retained their executive prerogatives.
The Second World War secured the economic recovery for capital and subordinated labor through a federally mandated no strike
production agreement. There were a few notable exceptions: The coal miners' union organized strikes in strategic sectors and some
leftist leaders and organizers encouraged slow-downs, work to rule and other in-plant actions when employers ran roughshod with special
brutality over the workers. The recovery of capital was the prelude to a post-war offensive against independent labor-based political
organizations. The quality of labor organization declined even as the quantity of trade union membership increased.
Labor union officials consolidated internal control in collaboration with the capitalist elite. Capitalist class-labor official
collaboration was extended overseas with strategic consequences.
The post-war corporate alliance between the state and capital led to a global offensive – the replacement of European-Japanese
colonial control and exploitation by US business and bankers. Imperialism was later 're-branded' as ' globalization' . It
pried open markets, secured cheap docile labor and pillaged resources for US manufacturers and importers.
US labor unions played a major role by sabotaging militant unions abroad in cooperation with the US security apparatus: They worked
to coopt and bribe nationalist and leftist labor leaders and supported police-state regime repression and assassination of recalcitrant
militants.
' Hand in bloody glove' with the US Empire, the American trade unions planted the seeds of their own destruction at home.
The local capitalists in newly emerging independent nations established industries and supply chains in cooperation with US manufacturers.
Attracted to these sources of low-wage, violently repressed workers, US capitalists subsequently relocated their factories overseas
and turned their backs on labor at home.
Labor union officials had laid the groundwork for the demise of stable jobs and social benefits for American workers. Their collaboration
increased the rate of capitalist profit and overall power in the political system. Their complicity in the brutal purges of militants,
activists and leftist union members and leaders at home and abroad put an end to labor's capacity to sustain and expand the welfare
state.
Trade unions in the US did not use their collaboration with empire in its bloody regional wars to win social benefits for the
rank and file workers. The time of social-imperialism, where workers within the empire benefited from imperialism's pillage, was
over. Gains in social welfare henceforth could result only from mass struggles led by the urban poor, especially Afro-Americans,
community-based working poor and militant youth organizers.
The last significant social welfare reforms were implemented in the early 1970's – coinciding with the end of the Vietnam War
(and victory for the Vietnamese people) and ended with the absorption of the urban and anti-war movements into the Democratic Party.
Henceforward the US corporate state advanced through the overseas expansion of the multi-national corporations and via large-scale,
non-unionized production at home.
The technological changes of this period did not benefit labor. The belief, common in the 1950's, that science and technology
would increase leisure, decrease work and improve living standards for the working class, was shattered. Instead technological changes
displaced well-paid industrial labor while increasing the number of mind-numbing, poorly paid, and politically impotent jobs in the
so-called 'service sector' – a rapidly growing section of unorganized and vulnerable workers – especially including women and minorities.
Labor union membership declined precipitously. The demise of the USSR and China's turn to capitalism had a dual effect: It eliminated
collectivist (socialist) pressure for social welfare and opened their labor markets with cheap, disciplined workers for foreign manufacturers.
Labor as a political force disappeared on every count. The US Federal Reserve and President 'Bill' Clinton deregulated financial
capital leading to a frenzy of speculation. Congress wrote laws, which permitted overseas tax evasion – especially in Caribbean tax
havens. Regional free-trade agreements, like NAFTA, spurred the relocation of jobs abroad. De-industrialization accompanied the decline
of wages, living standards and social benefits for millions of American workers.
The New Abolitionists: Trillionaires
The New Deal, the Great Society, trade unions, and the anti-war and urban movements were in retreat and primed for abolition.
Wars without welfare (or guns without butter) replaced earlier 'social imperialism' with a huge growth of poverty and homelessness.
Domestic labor was now exploited to finance overseas wars not vice versa. The fruits of imperial plunder were not shared.
As the working and middle classes drifted downward, they were used up, abandoned and deceived on all sides – especially by the
Democratic Party. They elected militarists and demagogues as their new presidents.
President 'Bill' Clinton ravaged Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and Somalia and liberated Wall Street. His regime gave birth to the
prototype billionaire swindlers: Michael Milken and Bernard 'Bernie' Madoff.
Clinton converted welfare into cheap labor 'workfare', exploiting the poorest and most vulnerable and condemning the next
generations to grinding poverty. Under Clinton the prison population of mostly African Americans expanded and the breakup of families
ravaged the urban communities.
Provoked by an act of terrorism (9/11) President G.W. Bush Jr. launched the 'endless' wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and deepened
the police state (Patriot Act). Wages for American workers and profits for American capitalist moved in opposite directions.
The Great Financial Crash of 2008-2011 shook the paper economy to its roots and led to the greatest shakedown of any national
treasury in history directed by the First Black American President. Trillions of public wealth were funneled into the criminal banks
on Wall Street – which were ' just too big to fail .' Millions of American workers and homeowners, however, were '
just
too small to matter' .
The Age of Demagogues
President Obama transferred 2 trillion dollars to the ten biggest bankers and swindlers on Wall Street, and another trillion
to the Pentagon to pursue the Democrats version of foreign policy: from Bush's two overseas wars to Obama's seven.
Obama's electoral 'donor-owners' stashed away two trillion dollars in overseas tax havens and looked forward to global free trade
pacts – pushed by the eloquent African American President.
Obama was elected to two terms. His liberal Democratic Party supporters swooned over his peace and justice rhetoric while
swallowing his militarist escalation into seven overseas wars as well as the foreclosure of two million American householders. Obama
completely failed to honor his campaign promise to reduce wage inequality between black and white wage earners while he continued
to moralize to black families about ' values' .
Obama's war against Libya led to the killing and displacement of millions of black Libyans and workers from Sub-Saharan Africa.
The smiling Nobel Peace Prize President created more desperate refugees than any previous US head of state – including millions of
Africans flooding Europe.
'Obamacare' , his imitation of an earlier Republican governor's health plan, was formulated by the private corporate
health industry (private insurance, Big Pharma and the for-profit hospitals), to mandate enrollment and ensure triple digit profits
with double digit increases in premiums. By the 2016 Presidential elections, ' Obama-care' was opposed by a 45%-43% margin
of the American people. Obama's propagandists could not show any improvement of life expectancy or decrease in infant and maternal
mortality as a result of his 'health care reform'. Indeed the opposite occurred among the marginalized working class in the old 'rust
belt' and in the rural areas. This failure to show any significant health improvement for the masses of Americans is in stark contrast
to LBJ's Medicare program of the 1960's, which continues to receive massive popular support.
Forty-years of anti welfare legislation and pro-business regimes paved the golden road for the election of Donald Trump
Trump and the Republicans are focusing on the tattered remnants of the social welfare system: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
The remains of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society -- are on the chopping block.
The moribund (but well-paid) labor leadership has been notable by its absence in the ensuing collapse of the social welfare
state. The liberal left Democrats embraced the platitudinous Obama/Clinton team as the 'Great Society's' gravediggers, while wailing
at Trump's allies for shoving the corpse of welfare state into its grave.
Conclusion
Over the past forty years the working class and the rump of what was once referred to as the ' labor movement' has contributed
to the dismantling of the social welfare state, voting for ' strike-breaker' Reagan, ' workfare' Clinton, ' Wall Street crash' Bush,
' Wall Street savior' Obama and ' Trickle-down' Trump.
Gone are the days when social welfare and profitable wars raised US living standards and transformed American trade unions
into an appendage of the Democratic Party and a handmaiden of Empire. The Democratic Party rescued capitalism from its collapse in
the Great Depression, incorporated labor into the war economy and the post- colonial global empire, and resurrected Wall Street from
the 'Great Financial Meltdown' of the 21 st century.
The war economy no longer fuels social welfare. The military-industrial complex has found new partners on Wall Street and
among the globalized multi-national corporations. Profits rise while wages fall. Low paying compulsive labor (workfare) lopped off
state transfers to the poor. Technology – IT, robotics, artificial intelligence and electronic gadgets – has created the most class
polarized social system in history. The first trillionaire and multi-billionaire tax evaders rose on the backs of a miserable
standing army of tens of millions of low-wage workers, stripped of rights and representation. State subsidies eliminate virtually
all risk to capital. The end of social welfare coerced labor (including young mother with children) to seek insecure low-income employment
while slashing education and health – cementing the feet of generations into poverty. Regional wars abroad have depleted the Treasury
and robbed the country of productive investment. Economic imperialism exports profits, reversing the historic relation of the past.
Labor is left without compass or direction; it flails in all directions and falls deeper in the web of deception and demagogy.
To escape from Reagan and the strike breakers, labor embraced the cheap-labor predator Clinton; black and white workers united to
elect Obama who expelled millions of immigrant workers, pursued 7 wars, abandoned black workers and enriched the already filthy rich.
Deception and demagogy of the labor-
If the welfare state in America was abolished, major American cities would burn to the ground. Anarchy would ensue, it would be
magnitudes bigger than anything that happened in Ferguson or Baltimore. It would likely be simultaneous.
I think that's one of the only situations where preppers would actually live out what they've been prepping for (except for
a natural disaster).
I've been thinking about this a little over the past few years after seeing the race riots. What exactly is the line between
our society being civilized and breaking out into chaos. It's probably a lot thinner than most people think.
I don't know who said it but someone long ago said something along the lines of, "Democracy can only work until the people
figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public treasury." We are definitely in this situation today.
I wonder how long it can last.
While I agree with Petras's intent (notwithstanding several exaggerations and unnecessary conflations with, for example, racism),
I don't agree so much with the method he proposes. I don't mind welfare and unions to a certain extent, but they are not going
to save us unless there is full employment and large corporations that can afford to pay an all-union workforce. That happened
during WW2, as only wartime demand and those pesky wage freezes solved the Depression, regardless of all the public works programs;
while the postwar era benefited from the US becoming the world's creditor, meaning that capital could expand while labor participation
did as well.
From then on, it is quite hard to achieve the same success after outsourcing and mechanization have happened all over the world.
Both of these phenomena not only create displaced workers, but also displaced industries, meaning that it makes more sense to
develop individual workfare (and even then, do it well, not the shoddy way it is done now) rather than giving away checks that
probably will not be cashed for entrepreneurial purposes, and rather than giving away money to corrupt unions who depend on trusts
to be able to pay for their benefits, while raising the cost of hiring that only encourages more outsourcing.
The amount of welfare given is not necessarily the main problem, the problem is doing it right for the people who truly need
it, and efficiently – that is, with the least amount of waste lost between the chain of distribution, which should reach intended
targets and not moochers.
Which inevitably means a sound tax system that targets unearned wealth and (to a lesser degree) foreign competition instead
of national production, coupled with strict, yet devolved and simple government processes that benefit both business and individuals
tired of bureaucracy, while keeping budgets balanced. Best of both worlds, and no military-industrial complex needed to drive
up demand.
The American welfare state was created in 1935 and continued to develop through 1973. Since then, over a prolonged period,
the capitalist class has been steadily dismantling the entire welfare state.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Corporations [now] are welfare recipients and the bigger they are, the more handouts they suck up, and welfare for
them started before 1935. In fact, it started in America before there was a USA. I do not have time to elaborate, but what were
the various companies such as the British East India Company and the Dutch West India Companies but state pampered, welfare based
entities? ~200 years ago, Herbert Spencer, if memory serves, pointed out that the British East India Company couldn't make a profit
even with all the special, government granted favors showered upon it.
Corporations not only continuously seek monopolies (with the aid and sanction of the state) but they steadily fine tune
the welfare state for their benefit. In fact, in reality, welfare for prols and peasants wouldn't exist if it didn't act as a
money conduit and ultimate profit center for the big money grubbers.
Well, the author kind of nails it. I remember from my childhood in the 50-60 ties in Scandinavia that the US was the ultimate
goal in welfare. The country where you could make a good living with your two hands, get you kids to UNI, have a house, a telly
ECT. It was not consumerism, it was the American dream, a chicken in every pot; we chewed imported American gum and dreamed.
In the 70-80 ties Scandinavia had a tremendous social and economic growth, EQUALLY distributed, an immense leap forward. In the
middle of the 80 ties we were equal to the US in standards of living.
Since we have not looked at the US, unless in pity, as we have seen the decline of the general income, social wealth fall way
behind our own.
The average US workers income has not increased since 90 figures adjusted for inflation. The Scandinavian workers income in the
same period has almost quadrupled. And so has our societies.
The article is dismal reading, and evidence of the failings of the "unregulated" society, where the anything goes as long
as you are wealthy.
Between the mid 1970's to the present (2017) labor laws, welfare rights and benefits and the construction of and subsidies
for affordable housing have been gutted. 'Workfare' (under President 'Bill' Clinton) ended welfare for the poor and displaced
workers. Meanwhile the shift to regressive taxation and the steadily declining real wages have increased corporate profits
to an astronomical degree.
What does Hollywood "elite" JAP and wannabe hack-stand-up-comic Sarah Silverman think about the class struggle and problems
facing destitute Americans? "Qu'ils mangent de la bagels!", source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
Like the Pentagon. Americans still don't readily call this welfare, but they will eventually. Defense profiteers are unions
in a sense, you're either in their club Or you're in the service industry that surrounds it.
As other commenters have pointed out, it's Petras curious choice of words that sometimes don't make too much sense. We can probably
blame the maleable English language for that, but here it's too obvious. If you don't define a union, people might assume you're
only talking about a bunch of meat cutters at Safeway.
The welfare state is alive and well for corporate America. Unions are still here – but they are defined by access and secrecy,
you're either in the club or not.
The war on unions was successful first by co-option but mostly by the media. But what kind of analysis leaves out the role
of the media in the American transformation? The success is mind blowing.
America has barely literate (white) middle aged males trained to spout incoherent Calvinistic weirdness: unabased hatred for
the poor (or whoever they're told to hate) and a glorification of hedge fund managers as they get laid off, fired and foreclosed
on, with a side of opiates.
There is hardly anything more tragic then seeing a web filled with progressives (management consultants) dedicated to disempowering,
disabling and deligitimizing victims by claiming they are victims of biology, disease or a lack of an education rather than a
system that issues violence while portending (with the best media money can buy) that they claim the higher ground.
""Democracy can only work until the people figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public
treasury." We are definitely in this situation today."
Quite right: the 0.01% have worked it out & US democracy is a Theatre for the masses.
I don't know who said it but someone long ago said something along the lines of, "Democracy can only work until the people
figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public treasury."
Some French aristocrat put it as, once the gates to the treasury have been breached, they can only be closed again with gunpowder.
Anyone recognize the author?
The author doesn't get it. What we have now IS the welfare state in an intensely diverse society. We have more transfer spending
than ever before and Obamacare represents another huge entitlement.
Intellectuals continue to fantasize about the US becoming a Big Sweden, but Sweden has only been successful insofar as it has
been a modest nation-state populated by ethnic Swedes. Intense diversity in a huge country with only the remnants of federalism
results in massive non-consensual decision-making, fragmentation, increased inequality, and corruption.
The welfare state is alive and well for corporate America. Unions are still here – but they are defined by access and
secrecy, you're either in the club or not.
They are largely defined as Doctors, Lawyers, and University Professors who teach the first two. Of course they are not called
unions. Access is via credentialing and licensing. Good Day
Bernie Sanders, speaking on behalf of the MIC's welfare bird: "It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and
of NATO."
Elizabeth Warren, referring to Mossad's Estes Rockets: "The Israeli military has the right to attack Palestinian hospitals
and schools in self defense"
Barack Obama, yukking it up with pop stars: "Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming."
It's not the agitprop that confuses the sheep, it's whose blowhole it's coming out of (labled D or R for convenience) that
gets them to bare their teeth and speak of poo.
What came first, the credentialing or the idea that it is a necessary part of education? It certainly isn't an accurate indication
of what people know or their general intelligence – although that myth has flourished. Good afternoon.
For an interesting projection of what might happen in total civilizational collapse, I recommend the Dies the Fire series of
novels by SM Stirling.
It has a science-fictiony setup in that all high-energy system (gunpowder, electricity, explosives, internal combustion, even
high-energy steam engines) suddenly stop working. But I think it does a good job of extrapolating what would happen if suddenly
the cities did not have food, water, power, etc.
Spoiler alert: It ain't pretty. Those who dream of a world without guns have not really thought it through.
It has been pointed out repeatedly that Sweden does very well relative to the USA. It has also been noted that people of Swedish
ancestry in the USA do pretty well also. In fact considerably better than Swedes in Sweden
This is three years old article. What changed ? The USA is still the center of the global neoliberal empire.
Slavoj Žižek develops a false premise but with real mastery of the language. he is definitely talanted writer, but not so much a
thinker. He completely missed the gorth of nationalism as a reaction to neoliberalism. So comments are more
interesting then that article and some of them proved to be prophetic.
"... The stabilisation of society under the Putin reign is largely because of the newly established transparency of these unwritten rules. ..."
"... the US stands for neoliberal capitalism, Europe for what remains of the welfare state, China for authoritarian capitalism, Latin America for populist capitalism. ..."
"... This is why our times are potentially more dangerous than they may appear. ..."
"... the next stage of a geopolitical struggle for control in a nonregulated, multicentred world. ..."
"... the impossibility of creating a global political order that would correspond to the global capitalist economy. ..."
"... In politics, age-old fixations, and particular, substantial ethnic, religious and cultural identities, have returned with a vengeance ..."
"... Capitalism is a system engineered to ensure that the psychopaths get to the top. Ruthlessness, selfishness, blind pursuit of profit, manipulation and coercion of others, believing your own lies - these are the necessary qualities for success, which have been elevated into desirable qualities. If you don't have them, you're a loser. ..."
"... To get to the top, you have to be a psychopath. If you're at the top, you're a psychopath. ..."
"... The oligarchs, of course. ..."
"... The current Ukrainian problem may have more in common with Georgia, than Syria, Libya and Iraq, but they all have the US squaring off against Russia. ..."
"... What might be more worrying is when the current FRB resuscitation of the US economy fails to show the promise anticipated and the debt to China becomes a political problem. What then? Does Washington send warships to Beijing? ..."
"... Most likely Ukraine would be a quasi-independent, bankrupt state heavily indebted to the West, with NATO bases, folklore instead of real politics, large emigration (mostly illegal), and desperate population ..."
"... The rest of the population would be slowly dropping to substance level, no jobs, no money, no futures. ..."
"... So having Russia - as a savior, boogeyman or a distraction - immensely help all Ukrainians. It makes them important enough to have to be bought out. It forces a competition for their affection and thus bids up any rewards. ..."
"... This is an end-of-days party for those who seem to have no place in the neo-liberal world, either EU or the Russian version. ..."
"... Most power gets dissipated with over-reach, so I am not sure capitalizing faster would have been better for US. Most power is also always local, and the world is a big place. ..."
"... US neo-con dreamers tend to see the world as a map. It is not a "map". It is a much more complex environment with local dynamics, histories, and lots and lots of people. Who want stuff. Moving in, or "capitalizing" as you call it, creates heightened expectations and inevitable disappointments. My advise is to chill and keep it small. Over-reach and too much ambition never work in the long run. ..."
"... and kill left and right for 'freedoms'. ..."
"... Therein is another contradiction. Globalists cannot focus on their national economy. ..."
"... Our predicament TOMORROW will be defined by an intensifying scarcity of finite resources, with the additional whammy of climate change. ..."
"... My own gut-feeling is that globalisation is already beginning to decline and disintegrate due to economic, political, resource and environmental constraints. ..."
"... My guess is Bankers and big corporations will control the post capitalist world. ..."
"... the US stands for neoliberal capitalism, Europe for what remains of the welfare state, China for authoritarian capitalism, Latin America for populist capitalism ..."
"... First and foremost; perturbations we are witnessing are processes of reversing the globalisation-effect that in its core value destroys centralised global-powers control. ..."
"... There's no such thing as your fantasy version of Capitalism; where all the markets are "free" and there are no assholes and sociopaths trying to manipulate and screw people. ..."
"... ALL the ISM words are worthless labels used by people with economic morality OCD. ..."
"... Zizek's analysis is once again spot on and would be accepted as self-evident (Ukraine a proxy war between superpowers) were it not for our twisted corporate controlled media. ..."
"... Seems very obvious here in the USA we are controlled (owned) by the multi-national corporations. ..."
"... Governments now exist to funnel wealth to the .01% who own the corporations. ..."
"... or the corporate elite more likely !! ..."
"... will involve the nation state recapturing its power and the diminishing authority of the corporate elite who of course are hell bent on taking over everything affecting our lives ..."
"... The 'corporate elite' already OWN our governments. The nation state is disappearing at the same rate as democratic representation. ..."
"... Something I find interesting is the transnational nature of modern capital, and labour. This is making geo control difficult for modern superpowers, not impossible, but increasingly difficult. As revenue is increasingly tied to transnational enterprises, the paradox is that state interests are tied to cross border peace and stability. Not a goal helped by upsetting regional stability. ..."
"... Our predicament today is defined by this tension: the global free circulation of commodities is accompanied by growing separations in the social sphere. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the rise of the global market, new walls have begun emerging everywhere, separating peoples and their cultures. Perhaps the very survival of humanity depends on resolving this tension. ..."
"... Consider that there may be an elite group of power-mongers who, through the control of global mega-institutions, wield the power to mobilize e.g the military might of the U.S. and of Britain and of other puppet nations ..."
"... Actually, even Obama himself, could be a proxy! ..."
"... Global corporations appear to be the new weapon of war, ..."
"... most power and influence in any country comes from its wealth holders and in many cases these are faceless suits in big business and high finance all protected by a blag legal system set up to protect companies and 'their' assets. ..."
"... The transnational entity called the United Nations has long passed its use-by date. The US government is in thrall to Wall Street, corporations and their lobby groups and is over-extended in numerous wars and conflicts across the planet. Americans are tired of fighting, they are sinking into Third World poverty, their jobs are disappearing and more of them are ending up in prisons operated by private firms for profit. ..."
"... It is definitely time to teach the superpowers, old and new, some manners, but who will do it? ..."
"... All gringos have done in their century of greatness ("the land of 'the' 'free' and 'the' 'brave'") is abusing people who can't defend themselves on an equal basis, mess with the environment and (very successfully I would admit) brainwash many, many people by selling them very stupid and unsustainable illusions ..."
"... Monied interests will control the 'post-superpower capitalist world order.' During the past few years, they quietly used their power to force governments austerity policies in both the US and Europe and hack away at their social safety nets. ..."
"... Communism at least gave social liberalism in the West a chance, as an alternative to deprive the Soviets of sympathizers. Once communism collapsed in Eastern Europe, the monied interests felt they could dispense with liberalism and pursue more extreme aims. ..."
"... We exist in a world where might makes right. ..."
"... These few percent, consciously or not, create, enforce, and change all the rules; it is for the rest of us to find some way to survive under them. Good luck all. ..."
"... Otherwise, the US was pretty much entirely indifferent to Russia's national interests and preferences ..."
"... Far more accurate to say that the US simply treated Russia as the loser of the Cold War ..."
"... and as such should simply roll over and accept all edicts from Washington. ..."
"... Gangs are the most primitive form of government and within neo-liberalism all governments are merely gangs. ..."
"... neo-liberalism's excessive division is dehumanising hence the institutional collapse. ..."
"... Super-rich people and large corporations, are a luxury we can no longer afford. ..."
"... 'Survival in numbers' is a prime survival mechanism in our species. Cooperation trumps competition most of the time. Neo-liberalism has made far too much division for our species to survive it. Cooperating with neo-liberalism is the biggest mistake. ..."
"... What if, for structural reasons, and not only due to empirical limitations, there cannot be a worldwide democracy or a representative world government? ..."
"... since Consumerism is nothing more than a superstitious belief in Perpetual Motion ..."
"... Here Zizek encourages a kind of liberal naiveté, astonishing for a guy who pretends to be comfortable with Lenin's no-nonsense revolutionary analytic approach. ..."
"... Global capital doesn't want world democracy. They want the TransPacific Partnership G8, etc. They want elite enrichment and militarized police. ..."
"... Slavoj Žižek develops a false premise with great ease. ..."
"... The USA is subconsciously aware of this problem and its inevitable endpoint. It is thus armed to the teeth and will remain so. ..."
"... Only an economic collapse can disarm the USA. ..."
"... The problem could be tempered by the citizenry, but the public is cowed by fears of terrorism, real and imagined. ..."
In a divided and dangerous world, we need to teach the new powers some manners
To know a society is not only to know its explicit rules. One must also know how to apply them: when to use them, when to violate
them, when to turn down a choice that is offered, and when we are effectively obliged to do something but have to pretend we are
doing it as a free choice. Consider the paradox, for instance, of offers-meant-to-be-refused. When I am invited to a restaurant by
a rich uncle, we both know he will cover the bill, but I nonetheless have to lightly insist we share it – imagine my surprise if
my uncle were simply to say: "OK, then, you pay it!"
There was a similar problem during the chaotic post-Soviet years of Yeltsin's rule in Russia. Although the legal rules were known,
and were largely the same as under the Soviet Union, the complex network of implicit, unwritten rules, which sustained the entire
social edifice, disintegrated. -[ It's he is completely detached from reality; that was a neoliberal revolution,
nothing more nothing less -- NNB] In the Soviet Union, if you wanted better hospital treatment, say, or a new apartment, if you
had a complaint against the authorities, were summoned to court or wanted your child to be accepted at a top school, you knew the
implicit rules. You understood whom to address or bribe, and what you could or couldn't do.
After the collapse of Soviet power, one
of the most frustrating aspects of daily life for ordinary people was that these unwritten rules became seriously blurred. People
simply did not know how to react, how to relate to explicit legal regulations, what could be ignored, and where bribery worked. (One
of the functions of organized crime was to provide a kind of ersatz legality. If you owned a small business and a customer owed you
money, you turned to your mafia protector, who dealt with the problem, since the state legal system was inefficient.)
The stabilisation
of society under the Putin reign is largely because of the newly established transparency of these unwritten rules. Now, once
again, people mostly understand the complex cobweb of social interactions.
In international politics, we have not yet reached this stage. Back in the 1990s, a silent pact regulated the relationship between
the great western powers and Russia. Western states treated Russia as a great power on the condition that Russia didn't act as one.--[
That' beyong naive -- the USA treated Yeltisn Russia as a vassal, it actually was a time --NNB] But what if the person
to whom the offer-to-be-rejected is made actually accepts it? What if Russia starts to act as a great power? A situation like this
is properly catastrophic, threatening the entire existing fabric of relations – as happened
five years ago in Georgia. Tired of only being
treated as a superpower, Russia actually acted as one.
How did it come to this? The "American
century" is over, and we have entered a period in which
multiple
centres of global capitalism have been forming. In the US, Europe, China and maybe Latin America, too, capitalist systems have
developed with specific twists: the US stands for neoliberal capitalism, Europe for what remains of the welfare state, China
for authoritarian capitalism, Latin America for populist capitalism.
After the attempt by the US to impose itself as the sole
superpower – the universal policeman – failed, there is now the need to establish the rules of interaction between these local centres
as regards their conflicting interests.
This is why our times are potentially more dangerous than they may appear. During the cold war, the rules of international
behaviour were clear, guaranteed by the Mad-ness – mutually assured destruction
– of the superpowers. When the Soviet Union violated these unwritten rules by invading Afghanistan, it paid dearly for this infringement.
The war in Afghanistan was the beginning of its end. Today, the old and new superpowers are testing each other, trying to impose
their own version of global rules, experimenting with them through proxies – which are, of course, other, small nations and states.
Karl Popper once praised the scientific testing of hypotheses,
saying that, in this way, we allow our hypotheses to die instead of us. In today's testing, small nations get hurt and wounded instead
of the big ones – first Georgia, now Ukraine. Although the official arguments are highly moral, revolving around human rights and
freedoms, the nature of the game is clear. The events in Ukraine
seem something
like the crisis in Georgia, part two – the next stage of a geopolitical struggle for control in a nonregulated, multicentred
world.
It is definitely time to teach the superpowers, old and new, some manners, but who will do it? Obviously, only a transnational
entity can manage it – more than 200 years ago, Immanuel Kant saw the need for a transnational legal order grounded in the rise of
the global society. In his project for perpetual peace, he wrote: "Since the narrower or wider community of the peoples of the earth
has developed so far that a violation of rights in one place is felt throughout the world, the idea of a law of world citizenship
is no high-flown or exaggerated notion."
This, however, brings us to what is arguably the "principal contradiction" of the new world order (if we may use this old Maoist
term): the impossibility of creating a global political order that would correspond to the global capitalist economy.
What if, for structural reasons, and not only due to empirical limitations, there cannot be a worldwide democracy or a representative
world government? What if the global market economy cannot be directly organised as a global liberal democracy with worldwide elections?
Today, in our era of globalisation, we are paying the price for this "principal contradiction." In politics, age-old fixations,
and particular, substantial ethnic, religious and cultural identities, have returned with a vengeance. Our predicament today
is defined by this tension: the global free circulation of commodities is accompanied by growing separations in the social sphere.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the rise of the global market, new walls have begun emerging everywhere, separating peoples
and their cultures. Perhaps the very survival of humanity depends on resolving this tension.
GreeneGrasshopper -> Strummered, 06 May 2014 10:05pm
Capitalism is a system engineered to ensure that the psychopaths get to the top. Ruthlessness, selfishness, blind
pursuit of profit, manipulation and coercion of others, believing your own lies - these are the necessary qualities for success,
which have been elevated into desirable qualities. If you don't have them, you're a loser.
To get to the top, you have to be a psychopath. If you're at the top, you're a psychopath.
Whitt, 06 May 2014 9:22pm
"Who can control the post-superpower capitalist world order?"
*
Is this a trick question?
The oligarchs, of course.
Silvertown Swedinburgh, 06 May 2014 11:24pm
For the 1948 Italian General Election the US fleet was in Italian ports with the US Marines on board just so the electorate
would get the message and as one CIA agent said "We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their
political expenses, their campaign expenses, for posters, for pamphlets," according to CIA operative F. Mark Wyatt. and they kept
interfering in Italian elections into the 1970s
MsrOboulot Malkatrinho, 07 May 2014 1:19pm
Northern Cyprus was annexed by Turkey. Many commentators would also argue that Croatia and Slovenia were effectively annexed
by the EU, if not Austria and Germany. Commentators such as Pilger would argue that 80% of Latin America was annexed by the US
a long time ago, but let's not go there. Of course, we can also talk about the Occupied Territories, how would you describe them?
As I said, it's a matter of political views we disagree on, not one of terminology.
StephenStafford, 06 May 2014 9:39pm
Though the article deals with countries and geographic areas, much might be equivalently true of companies which may be likened
to countries especially when some have larger revenues than many countries which they may tend to be able. individually or as
a group, to dominate.
The Obama regime is calling fo sanctions on the Putin regime, whilst ExxonMobil seems unfazed and is busily investing with a Russian
oil company Rosneft.
After Yeltsin, Putin very obviously searched for ways to reclaim State assets sold off on the cheap and whereas he could manage
to deal with one (Yukos), his Government was obviously too impaired to go after many other Oligarchs, so for the moment they and
their ill-gotten assets are 'safe' .
The current Ukrainian problem may have more in common with Georgia, than Syria, Libya and Iraq, but they all have the US
squaring off against Russia. In Ukraine, Russia acted decisively over Crimea and left the US in a quandary as to what their
next move could be, other than backing their puppet regime.
The US has shown little wish to be directly involved after Iraq in many of these local skirmishes apart from 'drones'. Russia
has not turned up in any war zone using drones so far, though Iran and Hezbollah seem to see in their next conflicts, the use
of drones will be very important.
What might be more worrying is when the current FRB resuscitation of the US economy fails to show the promise anticipated
and the debt to China becomes a political problem. What then? Does Washington send warships to Beijing?
Putin told Bush a long while ago that Russia appreciated the US interest in its natural resources, but no thank you.
Beckow -> StephenStafford, 06 May 2014 11:50pm
"Ukrainian problem may have more in common with Georgia, than Syria, Libya and Iraq, but they all have the US squaring off
against Russia."
I agree that Georgia was a mini-version of this, but because of its size the Ukraine problem is in a class of its own. In other
words, this is truly new and almost anything can happen.
When trying to understand the reality around us it helps to do a few logical games, and Zizek does that, just not fully. For example,
let's say there was no Russia, or only an absolutely powerless Russia (like Yeltsin in the 90's). What would happen?
Most likely Ukraine would be a quasi-independent, bankrupt state heavily indebted to the West, with NATO bases, folklore instead
of real politics, large emigration (mostly illegal), and desperate population. It would be run by Western approved oligarchs
who would share all local resources with Western "investors". It would not be in EU, although a small layer of Kiev intelligentsia
would be heavily subsidized by the West, given do-nothing cushy NGO positions, offered frequent trips and humored as needed. The
nationalists would be changing public holidays, tearing down and putting up statues, and occasionally venting their anger at minorities
and at football games. The rest of the population would be slowly dropping to substance level, no jobs, no money, no futures.
In other words just like some of the poorer EU countries, except without the accumulated wealth, euro currency and access
to EU as an escape valve.
So having Russia - as a savior, boogeyman or a distraction - immensely help all Ukrainians. It makes them important enough
to have to be bought out. It forces a competition for their affection and thus bids up any rewards. All Ukrainians do better
(except the killed ones): the NGO crowd in Kiev gets more grants, oligarchs get more deals, nationalists get more respect, Russians
in the south-east will get a veto power, so they will also have to be compensated. This is a win-win and on the ground the people
engaged sense it: so they will keep it going, they will escalate. What are the alternatives? Greece without the Aegean islands?
Or a dumpy provincial life?
This is locally driven and not any longer by super-powers, indispensable one, aspiring one, or any other kind. It will go on and
will be quite entertaining. That's what Zizek missed, he is too globally focused. This is about a unique place, strange and desperate
people, and no resources to pay for the entertainment. This is an end-of-days party for those who seem to have no place in
the neo-liberal world, either EU or the Russian version.
StephenStafford -> Beckow, 07 May 2014 2:12pm
Good synopsis of the problem in Ukraine.
re
What would happen?
The weakness of Russia wasn't immediately capitalised upon by the USA, though the Clinton foreign policy increasingly reflected
this, particularly with the interference in the Balkans. The PNAC on the other hand did see the advantage that the USA could take
and that was obvious in the Afghanistan attack and more especially with Iraq.
Arguably in this post 1990 period, the USA acted relatively slowly to capitalise on the dissolution of the USSR.
Beckow StephenStafford, 07 May 2014 7:54pm
Most power gets dissipated with over-reach, so I am not sure capitalizing faster would have been better for US. Most power
is also always local, and the world is a big place.
US neo-con dreamers tend to see the world as a map. It is not a "map". It is a much more complex environment with local dynamics,
histories, and lots and lots of people. Who want stuff. Moving in, or "capitalizing" as you call it, creates heightened expectations
and inevitable disappointments. My advise is to chill and keep it small. Over-reach and too much ambition never work in the long
run.
WhatIsWhat -> StephenStafford
The US has shown little wish to be directly involved after Iraq in many of these local skirmishes apart from 'drones'.
For the sake of the truth, little correction:
The US has shown little wish to be openly and visibly involved after Iraq in many of these local skirmishes apart from 'drones'.
They prefer to be invisible and remotely control 'human drones' who 'peacefully protest' and kill left and right for 'freedoms'.
Rialbynot, 06 May 2014 9:47pm
What if the global market economy cannot be directly organised as a global liberal democracy with worldwide elections?
Today, in our era of globalisation, we are paying the price for this "principal contradiction."
Some are paying the price; others are benefitting. That's the first thing we need to recognise.
Having done so, we can then start "solving" the contradiction by re-focussing attention on our national economies, while also
seeking to make the global market economy a little more people-friendly (the aim being a global social market economy).
Perhaps the EU's principle (or concept) of subsidiarity, which, unfortunately, the EU itself so often fails to apply, could be
used to identify at which level decisions should be taken.
Brigitte Bernadotte -> Rialbynot, 07 May 2014 12:43pm
A "global democracy" is a nightmare per se, because it's a global government. The US is a democracy, and Germany was a democracy
in the 20's, too. However, it turned into one of the most terrible dictatorships ever. Hell-bent on removing borders actually.
Any kind of global government, as friendly and benevolent it might be, could turn into a global dictaorship, like in Star Wars
the Republic was turned into the Empire. Which country would fight the golbal dictorship? To which country wold whistleblowers
and refugees go? Ivory tower left-wing populist academics like Zizek, who conveniently blames "capitalism" (the right to own property)
as the root of all evil - as if the Soviet Union and Mao's China had been bastions of liberty - fail to deal with this aspect.
I am not surprised, the EU welfare state is the reason for the euro debt mountain (in the US it's military overstretch), which
is the reason for the EU's misery, and he failed to even mention that, too.
That's also why the EU is dangerous, it reduces political diversity, which helped Europe to overcome dictatorships in the past.
Several EU countries grounding Morales' plane on American orders was a taste of that. As for subsidiarity, the EU is based on
"ever closer union", which is an euphemism for centralist power grab.
Brian o'Cualain -> Brigitte Bernadotte, 07 May 2014 1:51pm
When looking at the EU welfare debt mountain it's worth looking who exactly benefits from the welfare, not only in terms of the
generally recognized view of welfare but also the whole notion of corporate welfare, subsidies, tax-breaks etc. I think you'll
find the scales will tend to tip where they tip for everything else.
Avi Unobtaniumstein -> Rialbynot, 08 May 2014 11:36am
Therein is another contradiction. Globalists cannot focus on their national economy.
michaelmichael, 06 May 2014 9:58pm
"Our predicament today is defined by this tension: the global free circulation of commodities is accompanied by growing separations
in the social sphere. "
The tension lies primarily between those who have and those who haven't. As far as the corporations are concerned, its business
as usual.
Our predicament TOMORROW will be defined by an intensifying scarcity of finite resources, with the additional whammy of climate
change.
Luismdv, 06 May 2014 10:25pm
"What if the global market economy cannot be directly organised as a global liberal democracy with worldwide elections?"
There seems to be some plausibility in that hypothesis. If this was true, both the left and the right will have to check their
political premises because the "democratic consensus" is shared across the whole political specter (except, both political extremes,
largely irrelevant).
But unlike classic Marxism, which made the (socio-cultural) superstructure dependent on the (economic) structure, there is no
evidence that this is true now. The implication could be that the economic structure remains in place (supported by basic human
needs) while the democratic superstructure falls apart. This is not what I want, but is a possibility.
What if, for structural reasons, and not only due to empirical limitations, there cannot be a worldwide democracy or a representative
world government? What if the global market economy cannot be directly organised as a global liberal democracy with worldwide
elections?
Today, in our era of globalisation, we are paying the price for this "principal contradiction.
A rather strange and unsatisfying article from Zizek. I partly agree with him but feel he needs to spell out what these 'structural
reasons' to which he alludes. Why it's dissatisfying is that he appears to lament the impossibility of a world government or liberal
democratic order. I consider that a blessing though, whatever shape or form it takes - not least liberal democratic - structurally
it could only be oppressive.
I also find it strange that Zizek appears to accept 'this era of (economic) globalisation' as something natural and permanent
rather than as contingent and transient - only a manifestation of a certain stage in the development of capitalism. My own
gut-feeling is that globalisation is already beginning to decline and disintegrate due to economic, political, resource and environmental
constraints.
While I'd certainly agree that this is a very dangerous time, in the long-run there's no point in lamenting the absence of
a global order/government - it's in fact our last, best hope of freedom and equality. If the oligarchs and plutocrats across the
globe were ever able to overcome their differences and unite behind a single global order or government it would inherently have
to be highly authoritarian and undemocratic to maintain control.
NOTaREALmerican -> TransReformation, 06 May 2014 10:37pm
Re: If the oligarchs and plutocrats across the globe were ever able to overcome their differences and unite behind a single
global order or government it would inherently have to be highly authoritarian and undemocratic to maintain control.
Well, not if it was run by the nice guys in Brussels. Didn't the people of the EU vote to consolidate power in Brussels because
of their hope that a United States of Europe would be as democratic and freedom-loving as the United States of Merica?
DailyMailHatesMe, 06 May 2014 10:38pm
In the discipline of international relations, constructivism is the claim that significant aspects of international relations
are historically and socially constructed, rather than inevitable consequences of human nature or other essential characteristics
of world politics.
Philosophish, 06 May 2014 10:42pm
Though geopolitics qua content change all the time in history the age old dictum stands strong as ever: he with the money makes
the rules!
The question is not who can control the 'superpowers', the question is who controls the money suppy.
sadhu, 06 May 2014 10:47pm
My guess is Bankers and big corporations will control the post capitalist world. Forget the political and moral arguments.
The top layer will do everything in their power to control. But the dilemma is if 'they' have the power and 'free will' to control
the 'we' the underdog should have the 'free will' as well to counter their control. However, as interesting as this article is,
it still argues in political, economic and super power terms, where as a more realistic approach would be to look at this in biological
and natural terms.
For example in plate tectonics, what controls what. Or does the matter of control even come into plate. In the past they attributed
volcanoes to the power of Gods and Devils, where as through scientific analysis (as apposed to social and particularly religious
ones) we have come to view volcanoes and plate tectonics as intricate natural processes.
Therefore, instead of speaking of controls how long will it take us to speak in terms of natural processes. How does it come about
that one strata of society much like some particular genes, hormones and possibly bacteria and viruses take over the processes
of a particular life form. It happens through natural processes and not political and moral arguments.
Bucky Fuller used to say that in order to have true democracy we should learn/discover its true principles just as we discovered
the principles of gravity and electricity.
Here is a good place to mention John McMurtry and his 'Cancer Stage of Capitalism', downloadable from his info in Wikipedia.
I am so grateful to the Guardian and Cif for it was in such discussions where a kind soul introduced me to McMurtry.
EarlyVictoria, 06 May 2014 10:53pm
the US stands for neoliberal capitalism, Europe for what remains of the welfare state, China for authoritarian capitalism,
Latin America for populist capitalism
Liking this neat formulation.
Laserlurk, 06 May 2014 10:56pm
First and foremost; perturbations we are witnessing are processes of reversing the globalisation-effect that in its core
value destroys centralised global-powers control.
Second; humans as a race have lost momentum of the discovery and are pretty much bound to the known territories, continents
and practices.
Without drive we are lost in a consumption and quite retarded innovation of the things and technologies that cause auto-dumb effect.
As understanding all of which is written above eases consequences of a post-Lacan society, we are generally unhappy about everything,
but we lost the crying shoulder.
So, one might say we also live post- mutually assured destruction, as everyone is inflicting it slowly on themselves.
Then again, one can be rather nihilistic and write as well: Who cares?
NOTaREALmerican -> Laserlurk , 06 May 2014 11:01pm
Re: Then again
Or, one can be pathologically optimist and keep consolidating power in the hope that - eventually - the nice people WILL eventually
run things.
taxhaven, 06 May 2014 11:08pm
...multiple centres of global capitalism have been forming. In the US, Europe, China and maybe Latin America, too, capitalist
systems have developed with specific twists: the US stands for neoliberal capitalism, Europe for what remains of the welfare
state, China for authoritarian capitalism, Latin America for populist capitalism...
Funny...everywhere I look I see authoritarian socialism, not "capitalism". I see manipulated markets, manipulated prices, crony
favourites, insolvent public sectors, rigged wages and prices and zillions of regulations.
NOTaREALmerican -> taxhaven, 06 May 2014 11:19pm
There's no such thing as your fantasy version of Capitalism; where all the markets are "free" and there are no assholes
and sociopaths trying to manipulate and screw people.
You live in the same fantasyland the Socialists and Libertarians do. None of the economic ISM's work according to moral rules
when you've got lots of smart-n-savvy assholes and sociopaths.
The morals are for the children, and the adults are out trying to figure out how to screw the children (which - it turns out
- is pretty easy).
taxhaven -> NOTaREALmerican, 06 May 2014 11:45pm
There's no such thing as your fantasy version of Capitalism (?)
So what IS there? It sure isn't anything close to "capitalism", is it...
NOTaREALmerican -> taxhaven, 06 May 2014 11:52pm
Re: So what IS there?
ALL the ISM words are worthless labels used by people with economic morality OCD. The assholes and sociopaths could care
less what "the systems" is, because from an asshole and sociopath's perspective there is only one system: how much can I take
NOW and how can I screw people to take more later.
What ELSE exists or has EVER existed? These dumbasses ISM's are worthless to even talk about; they exists only in a fantasyland
of no assholes and manipulative sociopaths who confidently take what they want and have no morals.
GiulioSica, 06 May 2014 11:13pm
Zizek's analysis is once again spot on and would be accepted as self-evident (Ukraine a proxy war between superpowers)
were it not for our twisted corporate controlled media.
But, unfortunately, he offers no solutions, only questions. As a result, it can be summed up in a short sentence: "Things are
bad. What is to be done?"
ID1812901, 06 May 2014 11:16pm
Big banks rule the world, don't they?
NOTaREALmerican ID1812901, 06 May 2014 11:22pm
When ya think about, a bank creates money from nothing and is protected by the state. How could they NOT rule the world.
WillShirley, 06 May 2014 11:24pm
Seems very obvious here in the USA we are controlled (owned) by the multi-national corporations. They control our
government, therefor they control our military and that makes them extremely dangerous.
They do not see killing tens of thousands of people as troubling in the slightest. Look at our invasion of Iraq. Look at the
other little wars we started to protect the corporations. They own most of the so-called civilized world and plan to retain that
control. They can't control the sunlight so we have almost NO solar power plants. They know clean water is going to be a problem...
it is now... so they sell us bottles of what they say is clean water.... and we buy it happily.
Governments now exist to funnel wealth to the .01% who own the corporations. We exist for the same reason cattle are
found at a dairy farm. Until the herd decides to act like adult men and women instead of domesticated animals we will continue
to allow the corporate takeover of our world. Until we stop worshiping the dollar and acting as if only money can make us happy
we will be in thrall to the capitalists/fascists who currently run the whole show.
North10, 06 May 2014 11:29pm
Sorry Zizek .far too sloppy .first Georgia, now Ukraine, well no, the US has interfered militarily with 75 countries since
WW2 and currently has military bases in 135 sovereign nations ..so hardly first Georgia and now Ukraine .just watch four star
US General Wesley Clark discussing in 2007 the US plans to topple seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria,
coincidence with real events, hardly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAWzvtVJA5A
So, hardly first Georgia and now Ukraine...
Vatslav Rente, 06 May 2014 11:30pm
Strange, abstract thinking Mr. Zizek.
What is this nonsense about Georgia and Ukraine. In Georgia, Russia prevented the genocide against Ossetians. In Eastern Ukraine
supported ethnic Russians. What is the problem?
The rules never change. Money and Power are everything. Democracy, dictatorship, the international community - fiction for outsiders,
words which superpower cover their interests. Of course Russia is holding its geopolitics. It's not like the state Department.
Is this news? Maybe Mr. Zizek doubts in competence of the American President? Don't worry, the U.S. can't win all the time, this
is normal. Moreover, to be "the world's policeman" ungrateful and dangerous activity, constantly crazy fundamentalist trying to
burn the flag of your country)
HumbleDawes, 06 May 2014 11:39pm
To know a society is not only to know its explicit rules. One must also know how to apply them: when to use them, when to
violate them, when to turn down a choice that is offered, and when we are effectively obliged to do something but have to pretend
we are doing it as a free choice. Consider the paradox, for instance, of offers-meant-to-be-refused. When I am invited to a
restaurant by a rich uncle, we both know he will cover the bill, but I nonetheless have to lightly insist we share it – imagine
my surprise if my uncle were simply to say: "OK, then, you pay it!"
This uninspired paragraph, including its misuse of the word 'paradox', could have just been written: 'to know a society is
not only to know its laws, one must also be aware of its social norms' without any real loss of meaning. 'Offers-meant-to-be-refused.'
Endless verbiage. Sort-it-out-Slavoj.
ronaldadair, 06 May 2014 11:43pm
You have it all wrong my friend - that is to say you are barking up the wrong tree when you talk about a world controlled by
who ? - one nation ? - or the corporate elite more likely !!
What so many people are missing is that we are heading at a fair rate of knots " back to the future " which will involve
the nation state recapturing its power and the diminishing authority of the corporate elite who of course are hell bent on taking
over everything affecting our lives not because they have any particular crusade in this direction, but simply because in
order to continue to enlarge their empires - to increase their economies of scale , their future, as they see it, lies in a world
where the corporation govern
This will not happen and one only has to move into a space where the correction occurs to see that the nation state will once
again govern us as part of a world connected by bi-lateral trade agreements.
GordonGecko -> ronaldadair, 07 May 2014 8:43am
The 'corporate elite' already OWN our governments. The nation state is disappearing at the same rate as democratic representation.
JacobJonker -> ronaldadair, 07 May 2014 11:20am
Obvious and uncommon common sense.It may,however,not eventuate due to the propensity of the majority to be blind to their fate.There
is also the usual apathy,though the coming generations will see a division into slaves,stooges,slave-masters,dissenters,freedom
fighters and the usual coterie of the power pyramid from the top to the bottom layer of slaves to a system.Nation-states whose
citizens wish to survive have a challenge ahead of them.Typically,only a minority is growing in awareness.
Robbli, 06 May 2014 11:45pm
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that
it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly
addicted.". - Frank Herbert, Dune.
Nice people are too busy doing nice things and have no desires to rule and exploit, hence we will always be ruled by a-holes as
long as we keep on voting for them and no, I don't know what the answer is unless we are prepared to make sacrifices, become self
sufficient and live off the grid.
ThomasPaine2 -> Robbli, 07 May 2014 9:18am
A very well made point. I have a suggestion about how it could possibly be fixed.
In order to prevent the scum rising to the top, for want of a better cliché, we should look to re-structure our local and central
law-making bodies. Rather than elections, which necessarily attract the vainglorious and selfish, a system of conscription should
be implemented. Government (local and central) should have an upper-house composed of people from the community selected randomly,
much like jury service.
Their job is to hear the legislative proposals and counter arguments and decide based upon evidence presented whether to approve
a proposal. That will instantly remove the capacity for political corruption, as all legislation will need the approval of citizen's
juries. Couple this with state funding of political parties for the lower house and corporate influence will be dramatically reduced.
When I am invited to a restaurant by a rich uncle, we both know he will cover the bill, but I nonetheless have to lightly insist
we share it – imagine my surprise if my uncle were simply to say: "OK, then, you pay it!"
I gave up those social contracts
a long time ago and I've never looked back. Your uncle knows damn well he is expected to pay, since you would never go to that
restaurant if it weren't for his invite. If both parties know what that you aren't being genuine, then why bother at all? This
is something that's always bothered me. Keep it real folks!
I´ll try an example: Slavoj´s uncle represents the banks, and Slavoj represent us. Slavoj is invited to dinner, he eats -not much.
This Slavoj´s meal were the cheap and easy-to-get credits to buy homes, that became the famous "junk bonds" through a complicated
financial engineering.
The end differs from Slavoj´s article:
I can´t pay, you know -Uncle says
So I´ll have to pay? -Slavoj, sweating, answers
I´m afraid you´ll have to -Uncle insists
Slavoj he asks the waiter to bring the bill, and thinks he´ll have to sell his car, no holidays, less clothes...
travellersjoy, 06 May 2014 11:58pm
Since US governments willingly colluded with its corporate class, and bullied and coerced Europe and the Anglosphere to transfer
the wealth of the West, to the Middle East and then China, I have no confidence that there is a class of people with the skills,
abilities, and INTELLIGENCE to see beyond the immediate profit horizon - except perhaps in China - and they are only thinking
about their own interests.
If the people of the western world are incapable of electing good governments in the public/national interest, I doubt the
possibility of any supra-power being more responsible. The fact is, all our governments can be, and often are, bought and sold
by the great multinationals that demand free rein to do what they will - and who brought us the GFC, as well as the shift of economic
power from West to East.
Asking for a benign dictator is just asking for trouble as any citizen of a fascist state can attest.
nj61nj, 07 May 2014 12:28am
what a depressing article which really doesn't tell us anything much at all. So kant -> almost pointless and sometimes damaging
UN, Popper - an exposure of the problem of positivism. To say there is a contradiction or tension here is a misnomer, in fact
it is just an increasingly unilateral domination of capitalism. It is increasingly difficult to find a dialectic within which
to understand struggles and tensions which result from this situation. What of the state in Syria, or South Sudan, or Ukraine?
Marxist philosophy needs to catch up quick.
Stevo0012345, 07 May 2014 12:32am
Something I find interesting is the transnational nature of modern capital, and labour. This is making geo control difficult
for modern superpowers, not impossible, but increasingly difficult.
As revenue is increasingly tied to transnational enterprises, the paradox is that state interests are tied to cross border peace
and stability. Not a goal helped by upsetting regional stability.
In the good old days when the world was divided into 2 spheres of influence stability was reasonably easy to enforce.
It is definitely time to teach the superpowers, old and new, some manners, but who will do it? Obviously, only a transnational
entity can manage it
Does Žižek really mean that only a transnational entity / a law of world citizenship / a global political order can keep the
PTB in check?
Presumably not, as he questions it:
What if, for structural reasons, and not only due to empirical limitations, there cannot be a worldwide democracy or a representative
world government? What if the global market economy cannot be directly organised as a global liberal democracy with worldwide
elections?
The notion of a worldwide democracy is obviously absurd.
However, Žižek is right. We do need legal and politcal mechanisms that, as I see it, will stand up for individuals, communities
and cultures in the face of the global economic order.
I think the solutions will have to be culturally pluralistic and local.
We need to recognise that superpowers, politicians and governments are still stuck in the 19th-Century of competitng nation
states, the fight economic wars to be the top dogs.
World economy is now a fact:
We only have one global economy and what we think of as the US economy or the Russian economy does not have any reality outside
of world economy. Governments try to impose their own rules on how they interact with global economic reality, but these rules
are merely reactive. World economy is fact. The problem is that governments continue to view nation states as separate controllable
economic entities -- which they are not.
They are not even interdependent entities (as was the case during colonial times). Goods
and services can come for anywhere and are financed from multiple global locations, produced in multiple locations and consumed
worldwide in different locations. This is even more the case when you consider global financial markets. Global financial actors
and multinational corporations know this, whereas governments are still stuck in 19th Century thinking. It is this outmoded way
of thinking that has led to economic wars in the past, continues to fuel current wars and will lead to future economic war if
politicians don't wake up to the fact of world economy.
2bapilgrim, 07 May 2014 8:52am
So many comments on the headline, but the real problem to be solved is stated in the last paragraph:
Our predicament today is defined by this tension: the global free circulation of commodities is accompanied by growing
separations in the social sphere. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the rise of the global market, new walls have begun emerging
everywhere, separating peoples and their cultures. Perhaps the very survival of humanity depends on resolving this tension.
MysticFish, 07 May 2014 8:53am
We now have a deeply serious moral crisis in politics not just a capitalist one. In the past right wing political crimes used
to be reported. This time, what we get instead is worrying silence and one-sidedness from the media. Why would our governments
go to such trouble to brush aside the gratuitous massacre of innocent unarmed Ukrainians?
" Today the old and new superpowers are...trying to impose their own version of global rules, experimenting with them through
proxies - which are, of course,...small nations and states. (...small nations get hurt and wounded instead of the big ones)."
Consider that there may be an elite group of power-mongers who, through the control of global mega-institutions, wield the
power to mobilize e.g the military might of the U.S. and of Britain and of other puppet nations. The anger resulting from
their atrocities would in effect be directed at the U.S or British footsoldier, NOT the hidden MANIPULATORS! Actually, even
Obama himself, could be a proxy!
MysticFish -> Kosmicfriend, 07 May 2014 10:25am
Your argument is plausible, since all kinds of entities are now able to disguise themselves behind global corporations, who
in turn, strangely exercise undue persuasion over our elected politicians. It's very difficult to see just what is going on.
Global corporations appear to be the new weapon of war, when, for example, you look at the carpet bombing effect fracking
has on vital agricultural land and water resources. The far right seem to think this technology serves their countries' interests,
but then they are not particularly bright when they also act as paid mercenaries for Chinese ambitions.
imight, 07 May 2014 9:02am
the only way to stop the big powers fighting is to stop the reasons they fight at source.....greed
most power and influence in any country comes from its wealth holders and in many cases these are faceless suits in big business
and high finance all protected by a blag legal system set up to protect companies and 'their' assets. i highlight 'their'
as companies have more rights than individuals in modern law and this allows a disconnect between the people running the company
and the consequences of decisions made.....
if companies and their executives and shareholders wish to continue receiving this rights of limited liability the law should
be changed to force them to to behave ethically and pay fairly (the difference between highest and lowest paid workers should
be low) and be responsible to the environment, if they cant do that ... why should they have limited public liabilities .... ????
If proof were needed that Slavoj Žižek has little understanding of the current crisis in Ukraine, who the responsible agents
are and what they seek to gain from plunging the country into chaos and war, this execrable post is it.
The transnational entity called the United Nations has long passed its use-by date. The US government is in thrall to Wall
Street, corporations and their lobby groups and is over-extended in numerous wars and conflicts across the planet. Americans are
tired of fighting, they are sinking into Third World poverty, their jobs are disappearing and more of them are ending up in prisons
operated by private firms for profit.
It seems Žižek prefers the old order of one country dominating the world and that country being the United States. Russia on the
other hand should meekly accept allowing Ukraine to fall under fascist rule and then itself being plundered by US corporations
and divided up into small squabbling statelets while Siberian mineral wealth and Caspian Sea oil and gas enrich a small parasitic
class that flits from one country to the next.
Martyn -> Blackburn, 07 May 2014 9:47am
The banks control the money supply, and so hold the nations to ransom. Some influential groups, some of them very wealthy,
are interested in controlling and manipulating public opinion both at local and international level. One might be tempted to think
that the people in power are those who have been democratically elected, but this is perhaps a deception. Whose democracy is it?
The leaders? Or does it belong to those who do things behind the scenes? Control the money supply and public opinion and you already
have a monopoly on rule.
Writeangle, 07 May 2014 10:22am
There are far too many different cultures and religions for there ever to be work agreement in many areas.Its only the political
elite that dream their dogmas will take over the world. The welfare state ridden EU has dreams of getting bigger and more important,
dreams that are extremely unlikely to be met.
Most Likely China will be the next world's superpower with the narcissistic welfare state EU sinking slowly in the west.
We will have to wait and see how China plays its new hand and how the others respond to it.
My guess is that the west will not be able to match China and will fall behind even in the US.
NinthLegion, 07 May 2014 10:34am
The Roman Caesars knew that thy could command respect, achieve unity, and lead efficiently and with deep authority if they
had an enemy - any credible enemy. Its what holds nations together with what passes for a common mindset. The psychology has not
changed. After the demise of the Soviet Union, Al Quieda stepped into the breach. Such a scenario also keeps a powerful and wholly
influental industrial military complex happy - as Eisenhower warned. It keeps macho politicians with huge nuclear arsenals in
power, clothed with their baubles at the conference tabe, and it also serves to impress wayward regimes. The threat to most governments
today, I believe, comes more from within, rather than from without, and a perceived need for security against a potential enemy
is beneficial (for them) in promoting a steady erosion of liberty.
Nations need an enemy that must be credible, sufficiently powerful, and able to provide a relatively malignant threat.
FrJack NinthLegion, 07 May 2014 11:24am
Nations need an enemy that must be credible, sufficiently powerful, and able to provide a relatively malignant threat.
Do you mean that there must actually be such a threat or that for a nation to hold together, it's population must believe (be
made to believe, constantly told) there is such a threat?
FrJack, 07 May 2014 10:39am
Perhaps the very survival of humanity depends on resolving this tension.
Perhaps the opposite is true. The success of humans as a species, humanity, has and is in large part driven by the soiciobiologically
evolved propensity to continually have the tensions/dynamic of competitive groups going on. We live in an age where it is now
easier than ever to see/make analysis and judgment on the minutiae of how these tensions constantly ebb and flow and morph, how
the players jockey for position and we are on the look out to see where that leaves us. But there is nothing new here, it is a
never ending process without resolution. The idea of resolution is a quasi religious dream of return to the garden of eden where
all the nuisance things that we have to worry about and deal with simply for being alive are 'solved' for us. 'Re'-solution is
a dream of something that never existed except for when we were babies. It is an infantile memory.
tiojo, 07 May 2014 12:05pm
The USA just now is comparable with Britain and its empire at the time prime minister MacMillan made his famous 'Winds of Change'
speech in South Africa. He was a politician who realised that the game was up. Britain was no longer the world power it had been.
Although he knew that to be the case he didn't have a coherent plan for the future. The empire was dismantled. Britain dithered,
and still does, about whether its future lies with Europe or not. Slow decline continued.
The USA post-Iraq is in slow decline as a world power. The bipolar world of the Cold War was replaced by an all too brief unipolar
world of US hegemony. But now with the EU, China, India, Russia, Brazil and others providing alternatives we are, as Mr Zizek
says, entering a multi-polar world where the dance moves have not been rehearsed. Such a shame that this fracturing of power does
not lead to a reaffirmation of faith in internationalism and a willingness to compromise and collaborate through the UN and its
agencies.
lioninthemeadow, 07 May 2014 12:06pm
Žižek touches on a fundamental truth that all reasonable human beings recognise: humanity must jettison its tribal attachments
to nations etc. and vest greater powers in supranational bodies like the UN.
I believe it is inevitable that the world will increasingly fuse together in the decades and centuries ahead - it is logical,
it is pragmatic and it is the only means of ensuring our mutual survival as a species.
As long as humans are divided by tribalism and reactionary loyalties then the world will be host to all manner of social catastrophes.
FrJack -> Danny Bird, 07 May 2014 12:49pm
As long as humans are divided by tribalism and reactionary loyalties then the world will be host to all manner of social
catastrophes.
The biggest catastrophy we are all facing is environmental. This is due in large part to the seemingly unending proliferation
of human beings. Now, evolution wise, it can be said that as a species, our proliferation is a big success. I have not seen anyone
argue that the behavioural propensity of tribalism and loyalty has or is having an effect that is hindering our evolutionary success.
Indeed, it seems more credible that they are positive attributes in that sense. But if faced with a scenario that population growth
must be curtailed or even reduced if we are to stand any hope of mitigating environmental ills, then I'd say it is better that
some other tribe than mine bear the cost of that. I have no doubt they feel they same way. Now, plenty of people seem to be hoping
for some other way out of this problem. I think they are dreaming.
Well, as you yourself say, in those old times of "mad"-ness (mutually assured destruction) at least we entertained more secure
and stable illusions even if based on very dangerous and unsustainable premises
It is definitely time to teach the superpowers, old and new, some manners, but who will do it?
No one ever has taught anything to the powerful. The best we can do is exactly what those so-called pro-Russia "terrorists"
are doing in Eastern Ukraine
There is not such a thing as "rationality" or Karl Popper's falsifiability and "scientific testing of hypotheses" among many
other things, because you can only have such a thing in the physical sciences. What on earth would be a baseline understanding
of truth in politics, when it is all based on lying and manipulating people?!?
Immanuel Kant saw the need for a transnational legal order grounded in the rise of the global society
Yeah, and the closest we have gotten to it is the UN which is an odd joke. They are just a proxy to the USG. Even its secretary
compulsively criticizes Snowden even if he doesn't have to, as a way to show "respect" his masters
"Since the narrower or wider community of the peoples of the earth has developed so far that a violation of rights in one place
is felt throughout the world, the idea of a law of world citizenship is no high-flown or exaggerated notion."
Yes, and this is happening. People are widely opening their eyes to the "freedom-loving" b#llsh!t of the USG
All gringos have done in their century of greatness ("the land of 'the' 'free' and 'the' 'brave'") is abusing people who can't
defend themselves on an equal basis, mess with the environment and (very successfully I would admit) brainwash many, many people
by selling them very stupid and unsustainable illusions
... or a representative world government
You are kidding us, right?
What if the global market economy cannot be directly organised as a global liberal democracy with worldwide elections?
Well, I think definitely are. I don't think that market forces will help our "global" problems. We should stop ferally playing
into market forces hoping for those illusions to solve our problems.
We have advanced our technologies and market a bit since the stone age, but morally we are still pretentious animals (monkeys
wearing ties and thumbing our cell phones).
What if the global market economy cannot be directly organised as a global liberal democracy with worldwide elections?
And some muddle about walls separating people and cultures. While delighted to read (at last) a reasonable article in the Guardian,
I find Žižek's take wanting.
Monied interests will control the 'post-superpower capitalist world order.' During the past few years, they quietly used their
power to force governments austerity policies in both the US and Europe and hack away at their social safety nets.
Communism at least gave social liberalism in the West a chance, as an alternative to deprive the Soviets of sympathizers.
Once communism collapsed in Eastern Europe, the monied interests felt they could dispense with liberalism and pursue more extreme
aims.
America is the first effective 'post-democratic' western nation, that is an oligarchy of business-people. Over the coming decades,
the machinery of democracy there will break down to be replaced by a shadow government of old money, CEOs, and financiers. It
will then quietly work to induce the same in the other western nations. John Calvin's Switzerland will be the model of this new
order.
Over the coming decades, the machinery of democracy there will break down to be replaced by a shadow government of old money,
CEOs, and financiers. It will then quietly work to induce the same in the other western nations
It didn't work before...remember WWII! True, the dimensions of globalized markets and imperialistic interests were not the
same those days, now they got internet and other means of cultural turning.
But national, religious, and ethnic identities remain strong in the Old World, from Portugal to Japan, you won't get people
to speak American English and hail an identity-lacking world order. I am not totally sure whether that is good or bad, though.
Cousin2, 07 May 2014 4:17pm
The sad reality is that nothing has changed. We exist in a world where might makes right. In some countries, the brief
period roughly between the end of WW2 and the beginning of the Reagan/Thatcher regimes will be remembered as a time when workers'
wages kept pace with increased productivity.
Today, we are some 35 years back into business as usual, when increases in prosperity flow largely to the top few percent as
they have been doing since the beginning and probably will "to the last syllable of recorded time."
These few percent, consciously or not, create, enforce, and change all the rules; it is for the rest of us to find some
way to survive under them. Good luck all.
akarlin, 07 May 2014 9:31pm
Back in the 1990s, a silent pact regulated the relationship between the great western powers and Russia. Western states
treated Russia as a great power on the condition that Russia didn't act as one. But what if the person to whom the offer-to-be-rejected
is made actually accepts it? What if Russia starts to act as a great power?
With all due respect to Zizek, this is only half-true at best.
This "acknowledgement" of Russia as a great power only extended to pretty insignificant measures such as including it in the G8
(and only in its political, not financial, component). Otherwise, the US was pretty much entirely indifferent to Russia's
national interests and preferences (often after having promised otherwise). NATO expansion is the big one, of course, but
there are plenty of others (creeping missile defense, Libya, etc).
Far more accurate to say that the US simply treated Russia as the loser of the Cold War (despite Gorbachev's piteous
assertions that it was ended by the USSR's own free choice and hence such attitudes are unfair) and as such should simply
roll over and accept all edicts from Washington.
yourmiddleclassfarce, 08 May 2014 8:34am
Gangs are the most primitive form of government and within neo-liberalism all governments are merely gangs.
neo-liberalism = raising importance of the invention called money over that of people which is a dehumanising
process which cultivates (culture being the inclusive process)
All institutions (specialism within and due to the divisive process called civilization) are collapsing (because the dehumanising
process is collapsing culture which is the inclusive process). Even the world's gangs (of all type and power) are in that same
precarious process.
neo-liberalism's excessive division is dehumanising hence the institutional collapse.
Rich people are a luxury WE can no longer afford.
MysticFish -> yourmiddleclassfarce, 08 May 2014 8:45am
Super-rich people and large corporations, are a luxury we can no longer afford. People will always need to hoard to
a certain extent, though, to get them through winter and, if you are a farmer, lean years. It's not good to have everyone totally
dependent on the tender mercies of a mafia run state, or they will become abject slaves.
We need to encourage benign human-scale enterprises that are responsive to local needs and don't cause harm on an industrial
scale.
yourmiddleclassfarce -> MysticFish, 08 May 2014 11:48pm
I agree however if enough of us get together to make, for instance, a decision regarding a transport system for everyone (inclusive)
that is not exclusive then benign state scale or even interstate scale agreements that are inclusive and not divisive will generate
more social cohesion, interaction and economy precisely because the most efficient use of the invention called money rides on
the back of social currency and not social exclusion. Social currency is destroyed by excessive division.
[Notice how the neo-liberals have removed the term 'mass transit' from the lexicon of social discourse?]
'Survival in numbers' is a prime survival mechanism in our species. Cooperation trumps competition most of the time. Neo-liberalism
has made far too much division for our species to survive it. Cooperating with neo-liberalism is the biggest mistake.
LittleRichardjohn, 08 May 2014 9:45am
What if, for structural reasons, and not only due to empirical limitations, there cannot be a worldwide democracy or
a representative world government? What if the global market economy cannot be directly organised as a global liberal
democracy with worldwide elections?
... ... ....
The prospect of global solidarity is almost certainly dependent on the absurdity of Consumerism hitting the buffers, which,
since Consumerism is nothing more than a superstitious belief in Perpetual Motion...
Here Zizek encourages a kind of liberal naiveté, astonishing for a guy who pretends to be comfortable with Lenin's no-nonsense
revolutionary analytic approach.
Yes, a global world democracy would be nice. But it's hardly the case that in not having it we have only chaos. Global
capital doesn't want world democracy. They want the TransPacific Partnership G8, etc. They want elite enrichment and militarized
police.They've got it, or are in the process of getting it.. Instead of the pap he wrote, Zizek should be talking
about the creation of a world-wide opposition to those political structures.
Slavoj Žižek develops a false premise with great ease. He hints that some sort of reference point for unwritten social
codes should exist when it's always been an experiment that is never resolved except by wars when the all sides are stretched
too thin with endless tolerance.
The USA is subconsciously aware of this problem and its inevitable endpoint. It is thus
armed to the teeth and will remain so.
In this situation it is impossible not to be a bully. Everyone else has to tolerate the bully and will continue to do so for
a very long time. Only an economic collapse can disarm the USA. A collapse of the magnitude necessary does not seem likely.
The problem could be tempered by the citizenry, but the public is cowed by fears of terrorism, real and imagined.
Everyone is monitored by the NSA to keep them in line. None of this will be resolved by any sort of world government as Žižek
and other idealists imagine. The world is stuck in limbo.
Much of this is discussed on the No Agenda Show. Google it.
Guardian in Russia coverage acts as MI6 outlet. Magnitsky probably was MI6 operation, anyway.
Notable quotes:
"... The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so. ..."
"... What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them. ..."
"... In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as" a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact. Which it isn't. ..."
"... No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks. ..."
The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing
anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. Take a look at
this gem :
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill Browder of being a "serial killer" –
the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.
But Putin has not been reported anywhere else as making any recent statement about Browder whatever, and the Observer article
makes no further mention of Putin's supposed utterance or the circumstances in which it was supposedly made.
As the rest of the article makes clear, the suspicions against Browder were actually voiced by Russian police investigators and
not by Putin at all.
The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic
journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented
an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so.
What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with
all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent
Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them.
When, as in this case, the required substitution of the demonised leader for their country can't be wrung out of the facts even
through the most vigorous twisting, a disreputable fake news site like The Guardian/Observer is free to simply make up new, alternative
facts that better fit their disinformative agenda. Because facts aren't at all sacred when the official propaganda line demands lies.
In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as"
a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported
claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact.
Which it isn't.
No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials
can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks.
The above falsifications were brought to the attention of the Observer's so-called Readers Editor – the official at the Guardian/Observer
responsible for "independently" defending the outlet's misdeeds against outraged readers – who did nothing. By now the article has
rolled off the site's front page, rendering any possible future correction nugatory in any case.
Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda
narrative about the case. Magnitsky
was actually an accountant .
A trifecta of fakery in one article! That makes crystal clear what the Guardian meant in
this article , published at precisely the same moment as the disinformation cited above, when it said:
"We know what you are doing," Theresa May said of Russia. It's not enough to know. We need to do something about it.
By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another.
From the 'liberal' Guardian/Observer wing of the rightwing bourgeois press, spot the differences with the article in the Mail
on Sunday by Nick Robinson?
This thing seems to have been cobbled together by a guy called Nick Robinson. The same BBC Nick Robinson that hosts the Today
Programme? I dunno, one feels really rather depressed at how low our media has sunk.
I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was
their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq.
The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember. Nothing happened afterwards. There
was no tribunal to examine the media's role in that massive international crime against humanity and things actually got worse
post Iraq, which the attack on Libya and Syria illustrates.
Exactly: in my opinion there should be life sentences banning scribblers who printed lies and bloodthirsty kill, kill, kill
articles from ever working again in the media.
Better still, make them go fight right now in Yemen. Amazing how quickly truth will spread if journalists know they have
a good chance of dying if they print lies and falsehoods ..
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and
the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the
political right . amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas
and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation.
The Guardian's writers get so much, so wrong, so often it's staggering and nobody gets the boot, except for the people who
allude to the incompetence at the heart of the Guardian. They fail dismally on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn and yet carry on as if
everything is fine and dandy. Nothing to complain about here, mover along now.
I suppose it's because they are actually media aristocrats living in a world of privilege, and they, as members of the ruling
elite, look after one another regardless of how poorly they actually perform. This is typical of an elite that's on the ropes
and doomed. They choose to retreat from grubby reality into a parallel world where their own dogmas aren't challenged and they
begin to believe their propaganda is real and not an artificial contruct. This is incredibly dangerous for a ruling elite because
society becomes brittle and weaker by the day as the ruling dogmas become hollow and ritualized, but without traction in reality
and real purpose.
The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF
symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush
it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this
is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems.
All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not
enough anymore.
All our problems are pathetically and conviniently blamed on the Russians and their Demon King and his vast army of evil Trolls.
It's like a political version of the Lord of the Rings.
Don't expect the Guardian to cover the biggest military build-up (NATO) on Russia's borders since Hitler's 1941 invasion.
John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda
system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonising Russia, I would
propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any
day.
The Guardian is trying to rescue citizens from 'dreadful dangers that we cannot see, or do not understand' – in other words they
play a central role in 'the power of nightmares'
https://www.youtube.com/embed/LlA8KutU2to
So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia?
If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia
in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template
of economic imperialism?
In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported
the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic
conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making
$100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral
damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave
..
I do not know the trurh about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organising mass
genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians
as murdering savages ..
It's perfectly possible, in fact the norm historically, for people to believe passionately in the existence of invisible threats
to their well-being, which, when examined calmly from another era, resemble a form of mass-hysteria or collective madness. For
example; the religious faith/dogma that Satan, demons and witches were all around us. An invisible, parallel, world, by the side
of our own that really existed and we were 'at war with.' Satan was our adversary, the great trickster and disseminator of 'fake
news' opposed to the 'good news' provided by the Gospels.
What's remarkable, disturbing and frightening is how closely our media resemble a religious cult or the Catholic Church in
the Middle Ages. The journalists have taken on a role that's close to that of a priesthood. They function as a 'filtering' layer
between us and the world around us. They are, supposedly, uniquely qualified to understand the difference between truth and lies,
or what's right and wrong, real news and propaganda. The Guardian actually likes this role. They our the guardians of the truth
in a chaotic world.
This reminds one of the role of the clergy. Their role was to stand between ordinary people and the 'complexities' of the
Bible and separate the Truths it contained from wild and 'fake' interpretations, which could easily become dangerous and undermine
the social order and fundamental power relationships.
The big challenge to the role of the Church happened when the printing press allowed the ordinary people to access the information
themselves and worst still when the texts were translated into the common language and not just Latin. Suddenly people could access
the texts, read and begin to interpret and understand for themselves. It's hard to imagine that people were actually burned alive
in England for smuggling the Bible in English translation a few centuries ago. That's how dangerous the State regarded such a
'crime.'
One can compare the translation of the Bible and the challenge to the authority of the Church and the clergy as 'guardians
of the truth' to what's happeing today with the rise of the Internet and something like Wikileaks, where texts and infromation
are made available uncensored and raw and the role of the traditional 'media church' and the journalist priesthood is challenged.
We're seeing a kind of media counter-reformation. That's why the Guardian turned on Assange so disgracefully and what Wikileaks
represented.
A brilliant historical comparison. They're now on the legal offensive in censoring the internet of course, because in truth
the filter system is wholly vulnerable. Alternative media has been operating freely, yet the majority have continued to rely on
MSM as if it's their only source of (dis)information, utilizing our vast internet age to the pettiness of social media and prank
videos. Marx was right: capitalist society alienates people from their own humanity. We're now aliens, deprived of our original
being and floating in a vacuum of Darwinist competition and barbarism. And we wonder why climate change is happening?
Apparently we are "living in disorientating times" according to Viner, she goes on to say that "championing the public interest
is at the heart of the Guardian's mission".
Really? How is it possible for her to say that when many of the controversial articles which appear in the Guardian are not
open for comment any more. They have adopted now a view that THEIR "opinion" should not be challenged, how is that in the public
interest?
In the Observer on Sunday a piece also appeared smearing RT entitled: "MPs defend fees of up to £1,000 an hour to appear
on 'Kremlin propaganda' channel." However they allowed comments which make interesting reading. Many commenter's saw through their
ruse and although the most vociferous critics of the Graun have been banished, but even the mild mannered ones which remain appear
not the buy into the idea that RT is any different than other media outlets. With many expressing support for the news and op-ed
outlet for giving voice to those who the MSM ignore – including former Guardian writers from time to time.
Why Viner's words are so poisonous is that the Graun under her stewardship has become a agitprop outlet offering no balance.
In the below linked cringe worthy article there is no mention of RT being under attack in the US and having to register itself
and staff as foreign agents. NO DEFENCE OF ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by the US state is mentioned.
Surely this issue is at the heart of championing public interest?
For the political/media/business elites (I suppose you could call them 'the Establishment') in the US and UK, the main problem
with RT seems to be that a lot of people are watching it. I wonder how long it will be before access is cut. RT is launching a
French-language channel next month. We are already being warned by the French MSM about how RT makes up fake news to further Putin's
evil propaganda aims (unlike said MSM, we are told). Basically, elites just don't trust the people (this is certainly a constant
in French political life).
It's not just that they don't allow comments on many of their articles, but even on the articles where CiF is enabled, they ban
any accounts that disagree with their narrative. The end result is that Guardianistas get the false impression everyone shares
their view and that they are in the majority. The Guardian moderators are like Scientology leaders who banish any outsiders
for fear of influencing their cult members.
Everyone knows that Russia-gate is a feat of mass hypnosis, mesmerized from DNC financed lies. The Trump collusion myth is
baseless and becoming dangerously hysterical: but conversely, the Clinton collusion scandal is not so easy to allay. Whilst
it may turn out to be the greatest story never told: it looks substantive enough to me. HRC colluded with Russian oligarchy
to the tune of $145m of "donations" into her slush fund. In return, Rosatom gained control of Uranium One.
A curious adjunct to this corruption: HRC opposed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Given her subsequent rabid Russophobia: you'd
have thought that if the Russians (as it has been spun) arrested a brave whistleblowing tax lawyer and murdered him in prison
– she would have been quite vocal in her condemnation. No, she wanted to make Russia
great again. It's amazing how $145m can focus ones
attention away from ones natural instinct.
[Browder and Magnitsky were as corrupt as each other: the story that the Russians took over Browder's hedge fund and implicated
them both in a $230m tax fraud and corruption scandal is as fantastical as the "Golden Shower" dossier. However, it seems to me
Magnitsky's death was preventable (he died from complications of pancreatitis, for which it seems he was initially refused treatment
) ]
So if we turn the clock back to 2010-2013, it sure looks to me as though we have a Russian collusion scandal: only it's not
one the Guardian will ever want to tell. Will it come out when the FBI 's "secret" informant (William D Cambell) testifies to
Congress sometime this week? Not in the Guardian, because their precious Hillary Clinton is the real scandal here.
This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false
in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media.
In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes.
I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as
Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after
whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up.
Some months ago you saw tweets saying Russophobia had hit ridiculous levels. They hadn't seen anything yet. It's scary how easily
people can be brainwashed.
The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or
the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which
they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell
us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy.
The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc
etc.
Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the
Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket..
This outbreak is reaching the dimensions of the sort of mass hysteria that gave us St Vitus' dance. Oh and the 'sonic' terrorism
practised against US diplomats in Havana, in which crickets working for the evil one (who he?) appear to have been responsible
for a breach in diplomatic relations. It couldn't have happened to a nicer empire.
"... Google is algorithmically burying leftist news and opinion sources such as Alternet, Counterpunch, Global Research, Consortium News, and Truthout, among others. ..."
"... my political essays are often reposted by right-wing and, yes, even pro-Russia blogs. I get mail from former Sanders supporters, Trump supporters, anarchists, socialists, former 1960s radicals, anti-Semites, and other human beings, some of whom I passionately agree with, others of whom I passionately disagree with. As far as I can tell from the emails, none of these readers voted for Clinton, or Macron, or supported the TPP, or the debt-enslavement and looting of Greece, or the ongoing restructuring of the Greater Middle East (and all the lovely knock-on effects that has brought us), or believe that Trump is a Russian operative, or that Obama is Martin Luther Jesus-on-a-stick. ..."
"... What they share, despite their opposing views, is a general awareness that the locus of power in our post-Cold War age is primarily corporate, or global capitalist, and neoliberal in nature. They also recognize that they are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign designed to lump them all together (again, despite their opposing views) into an intentionally vague and undefinable category comprising anyone and everyone, everywhere, opposing the hegemony of global capitalism, and its non-ideological ideology (the nature of which I'll get into in a moment). ..."
"... Although the term has been around since the Fifth Century BC, the concept of "extremism" as we know it today developed in the late Twentieth Century and has come into vogue in the last three decades. During the Cold War, the preferred exonymics were "subversive," "radical," or just plain old "communist," all of which terms referred to an actual ideological adversary. ..."
"... Which is why, despite the "Russiagate" hysteria the media have been barraging us with, the West is not going to war with Russia. Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony (which I like to prefer "the Corporatocracy," as it sounds more poetic and less post-structural). ..."
"... Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies, mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war, like any other victorious force, it has been "clear-and-holding" the conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map, and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other "interventions" conducted by the West and its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you're done with that, consider how, over the last fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of "emergency" fostered, and paranoia about "the threat of extremism" propagated by the corporate media. ..."
"... Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know, violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless interests. The world will become increasingly "normal." The scourge of "extremism" and "terrorism" will persist, as will the general atmosphere of "emergency." There will be no more Trumps, Brexit referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology will be systematically marginalized and pathologized. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
"... That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting proles. They've painted themselves into a corner with non-white identity politics combined with mass immigration. The logical conclusion of where they're going is pogroms and none of the kleptocracy seem bold enough to try and stop this from happening. ..."
"... Germany is the last EU member state where an anti EU party entered parliament. In the last French elections four out of every ten voters voted on anti EU parties. In Austria the anti EU parties now have a majority. So if I were leading a big corporation, thriving by globalism, what also the EU is, I would be worried. ..."
"... This is a great article. The author's identification of "normality" & "extremism" as Capitalism's go-to concepts for social control is spot on accurate. That these terms can mean anything or nothing & are infinitely flexible is central to their power. ..."
Back in October of 2016, I wrote
a somewhat divisive essay in which I suggested that political dissent is being systematically
pathologized. In fact, this process has been ongoing for decades, but it has been significantly accelerated
since the Brexit referendum and the Rise of Trump (or, rather, the Fall of Hillary Clinton, as it
was Americans' lack of enthusiasm for eight more years of corporatocracy with a sugar coating of
identity politics, and not their enthusiasm for Trump, that mostly put the clown in office.)
In the twelve months since I wrote that piece, we have been subjected to a concerted campaign
of corporate media propaganda for which there is no historical precedent. Virtually every major organ
of the Western media apparatus (the most powerful propaganda machine in the annals of powerful propaganda
machines) has been relentlessly churning out variations on a new official ideological narrative designed
to generate and enforce conformity. The gist of this propaganda campaign is that "Western democracy"
is under attack by a confederacy of Russians and white supremacists, as well as "the terrorists"
and other "extremists" it's been under attack by for the last sixteen years.
I've been writing about this campaign for a year now, so I'm not going to rehash all the details.
Suffice to say we've gone from
Russian operatives hacking the American elections to "Russia-linked" persons "apparently" setting
up "illegitimate" Facebook accounts, "likely operated out of Russia," and publishing ads that are
"indistinguishable from legitimate political speech" on the Internet. This is what the corporate
media is presenting as evidence of
"an unprecedented foreign invasion of American democracy," a handful of political ads on Facebook.
In addition to the Russian hacker propaganda, since August, we have also been treated to relentless
white supremacist hysteria and daily reminders from the corporate media that
"white nationalism is destroying the West." The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been
blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably slouching its way towards the White House to officially
launch the Trumpian Reich.
At the same time, government and corporate entities have been aggressively restricting (and in
many cases eliminating) fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of expression, freedom of the
press, the right of assembly, the right to privacy, and the right to due process under the law. The
justification for this curtailment of rights (which started in earnest in 2001, following the September
11 attacks) is protecting the public from the threat of "terrorism," which apparently shows no signs
of abating. As of now, the United States has been in
a State of Emergency for over sixteen years. The UK is in
a virtual State of Emergency . France is now in the process of enshrining
its permanent State of Emergency into law. Draconian counter-terrorism measures have been
implemented throughout the EU . Not just
the notorious American police but
police
throughout the West have been militarized . Every other day we learn of some
new emergency security measure designed to keep us safe from "the terrorists," the "lone wolf
shooters," and other "extremists."
Conveniently, since the Brexit referendum and unexpected election of Trump (which is when the
capitalist ruling classes first recognized that they had a widespread nationalist backlash on their
hands), the definition of "terrorism" (or, more broadly, "extremism") has been expanded to include
not just Al Qaeda, or ISIS, or whoever we're calling "the terrorists" these days, but anyone else
the ruling classes decide they need to label "extremists." The FBI has designated Black Lives Matter
"Black Identity Extremists." The FBI and the DHS have designated Antifa
"domestic terrorists."
Whatever your opinion of these organizations and "extremist" persons is beside the point. I'm
not a big fan of neo-Nazis, personally, but neither am I a fan of Antifa. I don't have much use for
conspiracy theories, or a lot of the nonsense one finds on the Internet, but I consume a fair amount
of alternative media, and I publish in CounterPunch, The Unz Review, ColdType, and other non-corporate
journals.
I consider myself a leftist, basically, but my political essays are often reposted by right-wing
and, yes, even pro-Russia blogs. I get mail from former Sanders supporters, Trump supporters, anarchists,
socialists, former 1960s radicals, anti-Semites, and other human beings, some of whom I passionately
agree with, others of whom I passionately disagree with. As far as I can tell from the emails, none
of these readers voted for Clinton, or Macron, or supported the TPP, or the debt-enslavement and
looting of Greece, or the ongoing restructuring of the Greater Middle East (and all the lovely knock-on
effects that has brought us), or believe that Trump is a Russian operative, or that Obama is Martin
Luther Jesus-on-a-stick.
What they share, despite their opposing views, is a general awareness that the locus of power
in our post-Cold War age is primarily corporate, or global capitalist, and neoliberal in nature.
They also recognize that they are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign designed to lump
them all together (again, despite their opposing views) into an intentionally vague and undefinable
category comprising anyone and everyone, everywhere, opposing the hegemony of global capitalism,
and its non-ideological ideology (the nature of which I'll get into in a moment).
As I wrote in that essay a year ago, "a line is being drawn in the ideological sand." This line
cuts across both Left and Right, dividing what the capitalist ruling classes designate "normal" from
what they label "extremist." The traditional ideological paradigm, Left versus Right, is disappearing
(except as a kind of minstrel show), and is being replaced, or overwritten, by a pathological
paradigm based upon the concept of "extremism."
* * *
Although the term has been around since the Fifth Century BC, the concept of "extremism" as
we know it today developed in the late Twentieth Century and has come into vogue in the last three
decades. During the Cold War, the preferred exonymics were "subversive," "radical," or just plain
old "communist," all of which terms referred to an actual ideological adversary.
In the early 1990s, as the U.S.S.R. disintegrated, and globalized Western capitalism became the
unrivaled global-hegemonic ideological system that it is today, a new concept was needed to represent
the official enemy and its ideology. The concept of "extremism" does that perfectly, as it connotes,
not an external enemy with a definable ideological goal, but rather, a deviation from the norm. The
nature of the deviation (e.g., right-wing, left-wing, faith-based, and so on) is secondary, almost
incidental. The deviation itself is the point. The "terrorist," the "extremist," the "white supremacist,"
the "religious fanatic," the "violent anarchist" these figures are not rational actors whose ideas
we need to intellectually engage with in order to debate or debunk. They are pathological deviations,
mutant cells within the body of "normality," which we need to identify and eliminate, not for ideological
reasons, but purely in order to maintain "security."
A truly global-hegemonic system like contemporary global capitalism (the first of this kind in
human history), technically, has no ideology. "Normality" is its ideology an ideology which erases
itself and substitutes the concept of what's "normal," or, in other words, "just the way it is."
The specific characteristics of "normality," although not quite arbitrary, are ever-changing. In
the West, for example, thirty years ago, smoking was normal. Now, it's abnormal. Being gay was abnormal.
Now, it's normal. Being transgender is becoming normal, although we're still in the early stages
of the process. Racism has become abnormal. Body hair is currently abnormal. Walking down the street
in a semi-fugue state robotically thumbing the screen of a smartphone that you just finished thumbing
a minute ago is "normal." Capitalism has no qualms with these constant revisions to what is considered
normal, because none of them are threats to capitalism. On the contrary, as far as values are concerned,
the more flexible and commodifiable the better.
See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny,
homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these
values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we
have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't
much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture
or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every
object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will
bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.
Yes, we all want there to be other values, and we pretend there are, but there aren't, not really.
Although we're free to enjoy parochial subcultures based on alternative values (i.e., religious bodies,
the arts, and so on), these subcultures operate within capitalist society, and ultimately conform
to its rules. In the arts, for example, works are either commercial products, like any other commodity,
or they are subsidized by what could be called "the simulated aristocracy," the ivy league-educated
leisure classes (and lower class artists aspiring thereto) who need to pretend that they still have
"culture" in order to feel superior to the masses. In the latter case, this feeling of superiority
is the upscale product being sold. In the former, it is entertainment, distraction from the depressing
realities of living, not in a society at all, but in a marketplace with no real human values. (In
the absence of any real cultural values, there is no qualitative difference between Gerhard
Richter and Adam Sandler, for example. They're both successful capitalist artists. They're just selling
their products in different markets.)
The fact that it has no human values is the evil genius of global capitalist society. Unlike the
despotic societies it replaced, it has no allegiance to any cultural identities, or traditions, or
anything other than money. It can accommodate any form of government, as long as it plays ball with
global capitalism. Thus, the window dressing of "normality" is markedly different from country to
country, but the essence of "normality" remains the same. Even in countries with state religions
(like Iran) or state ideologies (like China), the governments play by the rules of global capitalism
like everyone else. If they don't, they can expect to receive a visit from global capitalism's Regime
Change Department (i.e., the US military and its assorted partners).
Which is why, despite the "Russiagate" hysteria the media have been barraging us with, the
West is not going to war with Russia. Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed
countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies.
The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature
of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global
capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony (which I like to prefer "the Corporatocracy,"
as it sounds more poetic and less post-structural).
We haven't really got our minds around it yet, because we're still in the early stages of it,
but we have entered an epoch in which historical events are primarily being driven, and societies
reshaped, not by sovereign nation states acting in their national interests but by supranational
corporations acting in their corporate interests. Paramount among these corporate interests is the
maintenance and expansion of global capitalism, and the elimination of any impediments thereto. Forget
about the United States (i.e., the actual nation state) for a moment, and look at what's been happening
since the early 1990s. The US military's "disastrous misadventures" in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan,
Syria, and the former Yugoslavia, among other exotic places (which have obviously had nothing to
do with the welfare or security of any actual Americans), begin to make a lot more sense.
Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold
War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies,
mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war,
like any other victorious force, it has been
"clear-and-holding" the
conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map,
and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other "interventions" conducted by the West and
its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you're done with that, consider how, over the last
fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant
surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of "emergency" fostered, and paranoia about "the threat of
extremism" propagated by the corporate media.
I'm not suggesting there's a bunch of capitalists sitting around in a room somewhere in their
shiny black top hats planning all of this. I'm talking about systemic development, which is a little
more complex than that, and much more difficult to intelligently discuss because we're used to perceiving
historico-political events in the context of competing nation states, rather than competing ideological
systems or non-competing ideological systems, for capitalism has no competition . What it
has, instead, is a variety of insurgencies, the faith-based Islamic fundamentalist insurgency and
the neo-nationalist insurgency chief among them. There will certainly be others throughout the near
future as global capitalism consolidates control and restructures societies according to its values.
None of these insurgencies will be successful.
Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know,
violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless
interests. The world will become increasingly "normal." The scourge of "extremism" and "terrorism"
will persist, as will the general atmosphere of "emergency." There will be no more Trumps, Brexit
referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing
a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise
might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology
will be systematically marginalized and pathologized.
This won't happen right away, of course. Things are liable to get ugly first (as if they weren't
ugly enough already), but probably not in the way we're expecting, or being trained to expect by
the corporate media. Look, I'll give you a dollar if it turns out I'm wrong, and the Russians, terrorists,
white supremacists, and other "extremists" do bring down "democracy" and launch their Islamic, white
supremacist, Russo-Nazi Reich, or whatever, but from where I sit it looks pretty clear tomorrow belongs
to the Corporatocracy.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin.
His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut
novel,
ZONE
23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at
cjhopkins.com or
consentfactory.org .
Brilliant Article. But this has been going on for nearly a century or more. New York Jewish bankers
fund the Bolshevik revolution which gets rid of the Romanov dynasty and many of the revolutionaries
are not even Russian. What many people do not know is that many Western companies invested money
in Bolshevik Russia as the Bolsheviks were speeding up the modernising of the country. What many
do not know is that Feminism, destruction of families and traditional societies, homoerotic art
etc . was forced on the new Soviet population in a shock therapy sort of way. The same process
has been implemented in the West by the elites using a much slower 'boiling the frog' method using
Cultural Marxism. The aim of the Soviet Union was to spread Communism around the World and hence
bring about the One World Government as wished by the globalists. Their national anthem was the
'Internationale'. The globalists were funding revolutionary movements throughout Europe and other
parts of the world. One such attempt went extremely wrong and that was in Germany where instead
of the Communists coming in power, the National Socialists come in power which was the most dangerous
challenge faced by the Zio/globalists/elite gang. The Globalists force a war using false flag
events like Pearl Harbour etc and crushed the powers which challenged their rule i.e. Germany,
Japan and Italy. That is why Capitalist USA funded Communist Soviet Union using the land lease
program, which on the surface never makes any sense.
However in Soviet Russia, a power struggle leads to Stalin destroying the old Communist order
of Lenin Trotsky. Trotsky and his supporters leave the Soviet Union. Many of the present Neo Cons
are ex Trotskyites and hence the crazy hatred for Russia even today in American politics. These
Neocons do not have any principles, they will use any ideology such as Communism, Islam, twisted
Western Conservatism anything to attain their global goals.
Now with Stalin coming to power, things actually improved and the war with Hitler's Third Reich
gave Stalin the chance to purge many old school globalist commies and then the Soviet Union went
towards a more nationalist road. Jews slowly started losing their hold on power with Russians
and eventually other Soviets gaining more powerful positions. These folks found the ugly modern
art culture of the early Soviet period revolting and started a new movement where the messages
of Socialism can be delivered with more healthy beautiful art and culture. This process was called
'Social Realism'. So strangely what happened was that the Capitalist Christian West was becoming
more and more less traditional with time (Cultural Marxism/Fabien Socialism via media, education,
Hollywood) while the Eastern block was slowly moving in an opposite direction. The CIA (which
is basically the intelligence agency arm of Wall Street Bankers) was working to stop this 'Social
Realism' movement.
These same globalists also funded Mao and pulled the rug under Chiang Kai Shek who they were
supporting earlier. Yes, Mao was funded by the Rockerfeller/ Rothschild Cabal. Now, even if the
Globalists were not happy with Stalin gaining power in the Soviet Union (they preferred the internationalist
Trotskyites), they still found that they could work out with the Soviet Union. That is why during
the 2nd World war, the USA supports the USSR with money and material, Stalin gets a facelift as
'friendly Uncle Joe' for the Western audience. Many Cossack families who had escaped the Soviet
Union to the West were sent to their deaths after the War to the Soviet Union. Why? Mr. Eden of
Britain who could not stand Hitler wanted a New World Order where they could work with the more
murderous Soviet Union.
Now we have the cold war. What is not known is that behind the scenes at a higher level, the
Americans and the Soviets cooperated with each other exchanging technology, basically the cold
war was quite fake. But the Cold war gave the American government (basically the Globalists) to
take American Tax payers hard earned money to fund many projects such as Star Wars programme etc
All this was not needed, as a gentleman named Keenan had shown in his book that all the Americans
needed to do was to make sure Japan, Germany and Britain did not fall to the Soviets, that's it.
Thus trillions of American tax payer money would be saved. But obviously the Military Industrial
Complex did not like that idea. Both the Soviet and the American governments got the excuse spend
their people's hard money on weapons research as well as exchanging some of that technology in
the back ground. It is during this period that the precursor to the Internet was already developed.
Many of the technology we use today was already invented much earlier by government agencies but
released to the people later.
Then we have the Vietnam war. Now you must realise that the Globalist government of America
uses wars not only to change enemy societies but also the domestic society in the West. So during
the Vietnam War, the US government using the alphabet agencies such as the CIA kick start the
fake opposition hippie movements. The CIA not only drugged the Vietnamese population using drugs
from the Golden Triangle but later released them on the home population in the USA and the West.
This was all part of the Cultural Marxist plan to change or social engineer American/ Western
society. Many institutes like the Travestock Institute were part of this process. For example
one of the main hochos of the Cultural Marxism, a Mr. Aderno was closely related to the Beatles
movement.
Several experiments was done on mind control such as MK Ultra, monarch programming, Edward
Bernay's works etc Their aim was to destroy traditional Western society and the long term goal
is a New World Order. Blacks for example were used as weapons against Whites at the same time
the black social order was destroyed further via the media etc
Now, Nixon going to China was to start a long term (long planned) process to bring about Corporate
Communism. Yes that is going to be economic system in the coming New World Order. China is the
test tube, where the Worst of Communism and the Worst of Crony Capitalism be brought together
as an experiment. As the Soviet Union was going in a direction, the globalist was not happy about
(it was becoming more nationalist), they worked to bring the Soviet Union down and thus the Soviet
experiment ended only to be continued in China.
NATO today is the core military arm of the globalists, a precursor to a One World Military
Force. That explains why after the Warsaw pact was dismantled, NATO was not or why NATO would
interfere in the Middle East which is far away from the Atlantic Ocean.
The coming Cashless society will finally lead to a moneyless or distribution society, in other
words Communism, that is the long term plan.
My point is, many of the geo political events as well as social movements of the last century
(feminism for example) were all planned for a long time and are not accidents. The coming technologies
like the internet of things, 5G technology, Cashless society, biometric identification everywhere
etc are all designed to help bring about the final aim of the globalists. The final aim is a one
world government with Corporate ruled Communism where we, the worker bees will be living in our
shitty inner city like ghetto homes eating GM plastic foods and listening to crappy music. That
is the future they have planned for us. A inner city ghetto like place under Communism ruled by
greedy evil corporates.
"Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know,
violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its
ruthless interests."
That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical
of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting
proles. They've painted themselves into a corner with non-white identity politics combined with
mass immigration. The logical conclusion of where they're going is pogroms and none of the kleptocracy
seem bold enough to try and stop this from happening.
That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical
of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting
proles.
There must be some evidence for your assertions about the long term plans and aims of globalists
and others if there is truth in them. The sort of people you are referring to would often have
kept private diaries and certainly written many hundreds or thousands of letters. Can you give
any references to such evidence of say 80 to 130 years ago?
.. puzzling that the writer feels the need to virtue-signal by saying he "doesn't have much
time for conspiracy theories" while condemning an absolutely massive conspiracy to present establishment
lies as truth.
That is one of the most depressing demonstrations of the success of the ruling creeps that
I have yet come across.
Germany is the last EU member state where an anti EU party entered parliament. In the last
French elections four out of every ten voters voted on anti EU parties. In Austria the anti EU
parties now have a majority. So if I were leading a big corporation, thriving by globalism, what
also the EU is, I would be worried.
"See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny,
homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these
values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which
we have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which
isn't much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of
human culture or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything,
everyone, every object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what
the market will bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value."
This is a great article. The author's identification of "normality" & "extremism" as Capitalism's
go-to concepts for social control is spot on accurate. That these terms can mean anything or nothing
& are infinitely flexible is central to their power.
Mr Hopkins is also correct when he points out that Capitalism has essentially NO values (exchange
value is a value, but also a mechanism). Again, Capitalism stands for nothing: any form of government
is acceptable as long as it bows to neoliberal markets.
However, the author probably goes to far:
"Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies
are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every
developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony
I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony.
Systemic, supranational hegemony".
Capitalism has no values: however the Masters of the capitalist system most certainly do: Capitalism
is a means, the most thorough, profound means yet invented, for the attainment of that value which
has NO exchange value: POWER.
Capitalism is a supranational hegemony – yet the Elites which control it, who will act as one
when presented with any external threats to Capitalism itself, are not unified internally. Indeed,
they will engage in cut throat competition, whether considered as individuals or nations or as
particular industries.
US Imperialism is not imaginary, it is not a mere appearance or mirage of Capitalism, supranational
or not. US Imperialism in essence empowers certain sets of Capitalists over other sets. No, they
may not purposely endanger the System as a whole, however, that still leaves plenty of space for
aggressive competition, up to & including war.
Imperialism is the political corollary to the ultimate economic goal of the individual Capitalist:
Monopoly.
Psychologically daring (being no minstrel to corporatocracy nor irrelevant activism and other
"religions" that endorse the current world global system as the overhead), rationally correct,
relevant, core definition of the larger geo-world and deeper "ideological" grounding( in the case
of capitalism the quite shallow brute forcing of greed as an incentive, as sterile a society as
possible), and adhering to longer timelines of reality of planet earth. Perfectly captures the
"essence" of the dynamics of our times.
The few come to the authors' through-sites by many venue-ways, that's where some of the corporocratic
world, by sheer statistics wind up also. Why do they not get the overhand into molding the shallow
into anything better in the long haul. No world leader, no intellectual within power circles,
even within confined quarters, speaks to the absurdity of the ongoing slugging and maltering of
global human?
The elites of now are too dumb to consider the planet exo-human as a limited resource. Immigration,
migration, is the de facto path to "normalization" in the terms of the author. Reducing the world
population is not "in" the capitalist ideology. A major weakness, or if one prefers the stake
that pinches the concept of capitalism: more instead of quality principles.
The game changers, the possible game changers: eugenics and how they play out as to the elites
( understanding the genome and manipulating it), artificial intelligence ( defining it first,
not the "Elon Musk" definition), and as a far outlier exo-planetary arguments.
Confront the above with the "unexpected", the not-human engineered possible events (astroids
and the like, secondary effects of human induced toxicity, others), and the chances to get to
the author's "dollar" and what it by then might mean is indeed tiny.
As to the content, one of the utmost relevant articles, it is "art" to condense such broad
a world view into a few words, it requires a deep understanding foremost, left to wonder what
can be grasped by most reading above. Some-one try the numbers?, "big data" anyone, they might
turn out in favor of what the author undoubtedly absorbed as the nucleus of twenty-first thinking,
strategy and engineering.
This kind of thinking and "Harvard" conventionality, what a distance.
Great article, spot on. Indeed we are all at the mercy now of a relatively small clique of ruthless
criminals who are served by armies of desensitized, stupid mercenaries: MBAs, politicians, thugs,
college professors, "whorenalists", etc. I am afraid that the best answer to the current and future
dystopia is what the Germans call "innere Emigration," to psychologically detach oneself
from the contemporary world.
Thus, the only way out of this hellhole is through reading and thinking, which every self-respecting
individual should engage in. Shun most contemporary "literature" and instead turn to the classics
of European culture: there you will find all you need.
For an earlier and ever so pertinent analysis of the contemporary desert, I can heartily recommend
Umberto Galimberti's I vizi capitali e i nuovi vizi (Milan, 2003).
And yes, another verbally strong expression of the in your face truth, though for so few to
grasp. The author again has a deep understanding, if one prefers, it points to the venueway of
coming to terms, the empirical pathway as to the understanding.
"Plasticky" society is my preferred term for designating the aberrance that most (within the
elites), the rest who cares (as an historical truth), do not seem to identify as proper cluelessness
in the light of longer timelines. The current global ideology, religion of capitalism-democracy
is the equivalent of opportunistic naval staring of the elites. They are not aware that suffocation
will irreversibly affect oneself. Not enough air is the equivalent of no air in the end.
The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably
slouching its way towards the White House to officially launch the Trumpian Reich.
While the above is true, I hope most folks understand that the basic concept of controlling
people through fear is nothing new. The much vaunted constitution was crammed down our collective
throats by the rich scoundrels of the time in the words of more than one anti-federalist through
the conjuring of quite a set of threats, all bogus.
I address my most fervent prayer to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty
We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated.
- Patrick Henry, Foreign Wars, Civil Wars, and Indian Wars -- Three Bugbears, June 5, 7,
and 9, 1788
Bottom line: Concentrated wealth and power suck.The USA was ruled by a plutoligarchy from its
inception, and the material benefits we still enjoy have occurred not because of it but
despite it.
For today's goofy "right wing" big business "conservatives" who think the US won WW2, I got news
for you. Monopoly capitalism, complete with increasing centralization of the economy and political
forces were given boosts by both world wars.
It was precisely in reaction to their impending defeat at the hands of the competitive storms
of the market tha t business turned, increasingly after the 1900′s, to the federal government
for aid and protection. In short, the intervention by the federal government was designed,
not to curb big business monopoly for the sake of the public weal, but to create monopolies
that big business (as well as trade associations smaller business) had not been able
to establish amidst the competitive gales of the free market. Both Left and Right have been
persistently misled by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish
and anti-business. Hence the mythology of the New-Fair Deal-as-Red that is endemic on the Right.
Both the big businessmen, led by the Morgan interests, and Professor Kolko almost uniquely
in the academic world, have realized that monopoly privilege can only be created by the
State and not as a result of free market operations.
-Murray N. Rothbard, Rothbard Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty, [Originally appeared
in Left and Right, Spring 1965, pp. 4-22.]
It was all about connecting the dots really. Connecting the dots of too many books I have gobe
through and videos I have seen. Too many to list here.
You can get a lot of info from the book 'Tragedy and Hope' by Carroll Quigley though he avoids
mantioning Jews and calls it the Anglo American establishment, Anthony Sutton however I completely
disagree about funding of the Third Reich but he does talk a lot about the secret relationship
between the USA and the USSR, Revilo Oliver etc.. etc Well you could read the Protocols. Now if
you think that the protocols was a forgery, you gotta see this, especially the last part.
Also check this out
Also check out what this Wall Street guy realised in his career.
Also this 911 firefighter, what he found out after some research
Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system. It only
has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't much of a value, at least not in terms
of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture or reverence for the natural
world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every object and sentient
being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will bear no more,
no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.
This looks like the "financialization" of society with Citizens morphing into Consumers.
And it's worth saying that Citizenship and Consumership are completely different concepts:
Citizenship – Dictionary.com
1. – the state of being vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen.
2. – the character of an individual viewed as a member of society;behavior in terms of the
duties, obligations, and functions of a citizen:
an award for good citizenship.
The Consumer – Dictionary.com
1. a person or thing that consumes.
2. Economics. a person or organization that uses a commodity or service.
A good citizen can then define themselves in a rather non-selfish, non-financial way as for
example, someone who respects others, contributes to local decisions (politically active), gains
respect through work and ethical standards etc.
A good consumer on the other hand, seems to be more a self-idea, essentially someone who buys
and consumes a lot (financial idea), has little political interest – and probably defines themselves
(and others) by how they spend money and what they own.
It's clear that US, and global capitalism, prefers active consumers over active citizens, and
maybe it explains why the US has such a worthless and dysfunctional political process.
Some folks are completely unable to connect the dots even when spoon fed the evidence. You'll
note that some, in risible displays of quasi-intellectual arrogance, make virtually impossible
demands for proof, none of which they'll ever accept. Rather, they flock to self aggrandizing
mythology like flies to fresh sewage which the plutoligarchy produces nearly infinitely.
Your observations appear pretty accurate and self justifying I'd say.
Look up the film director Aaron Russo (recently deceased), discussing how David Rockefeller
tried to bring him over to the dark side. Rockefeller discussed for example the women's movement,
its engineering. Also, there's Aldous Huxley's speech The Ultimate Revolution, on how drugs are
the final solution to rabble troubles–we will think we're happy even in the most appalling societal
conditions.
I can only say Beware of Zinn, best friend of Chomsky, endlessly tauted by shysters like Amy
Goodman and Counterpunch. Like all liberal gatekeepers, he wouldn't touch 911. I saw him speak
not long before he died, and when questioned on this he said, 'That was a long time ago, let's
talk about now.'
This from a professed historian, and it was only 7 years after 911. He seemed to have the same
old Jewish agenda, make Europeans look really bad at all times. He was always on message, like
the shyster Chomsky. Sincerely probing for the truth was not part of his agenda; his truths were
highly selective, and such a colossal event as 911 concerned him not at all, with the ensuing
wars, Patriot Acts, bullshit war on Terror, etc etc
" capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic
values (though it has no problem working with these values when they serve its broader strategic
purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system."
This is a typical Left Lie. Capitalism in its present internationalist phase absolutely requires
Anti-Racism to lubricate sales uh, internationally and domestically. We are all Equal.
Then, the ticking-off of the rest of the bad isms, and labeling them 'despotic' is another
Leftwing and poetic attack on more or less all of us white folks, who have largely invented Capitalism,
from a racialist point of view.
"Poetic" because it is an emotional appeal, not a rational argument. The other 'despotisms'
are not despotic, unless you claim, like I do that racial personalities are more, or less despotic,
with Whites being the least despotic. The Left totalitarian thinks emotional despotism's source
is political or statist. It are not. However, Capitalism has been far less despotic than communism,
etc.
Emotional Despotism is part of who Homo Sapiens is, and this emotional despotism is not racially
equal. Whites are the least despotic, and have organized law and rules to contain such despotism.
Systems arise naturally from the Human Condition, like it or not. The attempt here is to sully
the Capitalist system, and that is all it is. This article itself is despotic propaganda.
Arguably, human nature is despotic, and White civilization has attempted to limit our despotic
nature.
This is another story.
As for elevating capitalism into a 'social system' .this is somewhat true. However, that is
not totally bad, as capitalism delivers the goods, which is the first thing, after getting out
of bed.
The second thing, is having a conformable social environment, and that is where racial accord
enters.
People want familiar and trustworthy people around them and that is just the way human nature
is genetic similarity, etc.
Beyond that, the various Leftie complaints-without-end, are also just the way it is. And yes
they can be addressed and ameliorated to some degree, but human nature is not a System to be manipulated,
even thought the current crop of scientistic lefties talk a good storyline about epigenetics and
other Hopes, false of course, like communist planning which makes its first priority, Social Change
which is always despotic. Society takes care of itself, especially racial society.
As Senator Vail said about the 1924 Immigration Act which held the line against Immigration,
"if there is going to be any changing being done, we will do it and nobody else." That 'we' was
a White we.
Capitalism must be national. International capital is tyranny.
US oil companies make about five cents off a single gallon of gasoline, on the other hand US
Big Government taxes on a single gallon are around seventy-one cents for US states & rising, the
tax is now $1.00 per gallon for CA.
IOW, greedy US governments make fourteen to twenty times what oil companies make, and it is
the oil companies who make & deliver the vital product to the marketplace.
And that is just in the US. Have a look at Europe's taxes. My, my.
Some agendas require the "state sponsored" part to be hidden.
That is part of the reason why the constitutional convention was held in secret as well.
The cunning connivers who ram government down our throats don't like their designs exposed,
and it's an old trick which nearly always works.
Here's Aristophanes on the subject. His play is worth a read. Short and great satire on the
politicians of the day.
SAUSAGE-SELLER
No, Cleon, little you care for his reigning in Arcadia, it's to pillage and impose on the
allies at will that you reckon; y ou wish the war to conceal your rogueries as in a mist,
that Demos may see nothing of them, and harassed by cares, may only depend on yourself for
his bread. But if ever peace is restored to him, if ever he returns to his lands to comfort
himself once more with good cakes, to greet his cherished olives, he will know the blessings
you have kept him out of, even though paying him a salary; and, filled with hatred and rage,
he will rise, burning with desire to vote against you. You know this only too well; it is
for this you rock him to sleep with your lies.
The first loyalty of jews is supposed to be to jews.
Norman Finkelstein is called a traitor by jews, the Dutch jew Hamburger is called a traitor
by Dutch jews, he's the chairman of 'Een ander joodse geluid', best translated by 'another jewish
opinion', the organisation criticises Israel.
Jewish involvement in Sept 11 seems probable, the 'dancing Israelis', the assertion that most
jews working in the Twin Towers at the time were either sick or took a day off, the fact that
the Towers were jewish property, ready for a costly demolition, much abestos in the buildings,
thus the 'terrorist' act brought a great profit.
Can one expect a jew to expose things like this ?
On his book, I did not find inconsistencies with literature I already knew.
The merit of the book is listing many events that affected common people in the USA, and destroying
the myth that 'in the USA who is poor has only himself to blame'.
This nonsense becomes clear even from the diaries of Harold L Ickes, or from Jonathan Raban
Bad Land, 1997.
As for Zinn's criticism of the adored USA constitution, I read that Charles A Beard already
in 1919 resigned because he also criticised this constitution.
Indeed, in our countries about half the national income goes to the governments by taxes, this
is the reason a country like Denmark is the best country to live in.
"... Faced with this mess, the obituarists for neoliberalism are out again. Some I recognise from 2008 - the definition of a left-wing economist being one who has spotted ten out of the last two crises of capitalism. Others have joined them, perhaps spurred on by the Brexit vote, or the rise of Donald Trump or the nice-sounding promises made by Theresa May. ..."
"... This is where, I think, we need to pay close attention to a key dimension of neoliberalism, which I focus on at length in this book, namely competition. One of my central arguments here is that neoliberalism is not simply reducible to 'market fundamentalism', even if there are areas (such as financial markets) where markets have manifestly attained greater reach and power since the mid1970s. Instead, the neoliberal state takes the principle of competition and the ethos of competitiveness (which historically have been found in and around markets), and seeks to reorganise society around them. Quite how competition and competitiveness are defined and politically instituted is a matter for historical and theoretical exploration, which is partly what The Limits of Neoliberalism seeks to do. But at the bare minimum, organising social relations in terms of competition' means that individuals, organisations, cities, regions and nations are to be tested in terms of their capacity to out-do each other. Not only that, but the tests must be considered fair in some way, if the resulting inequalities are to be recognised as legitimate. When applied to individuals, this ideology is often known as 'meritocracy'. ..."
"... Under these neoliberal conditions, remorse becomes directed inwards, producing the depressive psychological effect (or what Freud termed 'melancholia') whereby people search inside themselves for the source of their own unhappiness and imperfect lives (Davies, 2015). Viewed from within the cultural logic of neoliberalism, uncompetitive regions, individuals or communities are not just 'left behind by globalisation', but are discovered to be inferior in comparison to their rivals, just like the contestants ejected from a talent show. Rising household indebtedness compounds this process for those living in financial precarity, by forcing individuals to pay for their own past errors, illness or sheer bad luck ..."
"... Hardship itself doesn't necessarily lead to the hopelessness and fury of which Donald Trump seemingly speaks. But when hardship feels both permanent and undeserved, the psychological appeal of demagogues promising to divert blame elsewhere, be it towards Muslims, 'experts', immigrants, the Chinese, Brussels or wherever, becomes irresistible. Seemingly irrational or even nihilistic popular upheavals make some sense, if understood in terms of the relief they offer for those who have felt trapped by their own impotence for too long, with nobody available to blame but themselves. ..."
"... Statistical studies have shown how societies such as Britain and the United States have become afflicted by often inexplicable rising mortality rates amongst the white working class, connected partly to rising suicide rates, alcohol and drug abuse (Dorling, 2016). The Washington Post identified close geographic correlations between this trend and support for Donald Trump (Guo, 2016). In sum, a moral-economic system aimed at identifying and empowering the most competitive people, institutions and places has become targeted, rationally or otherwise, by the vast number of people, institutions and places that have suffered not only the pain of defeat but the punishment of defeat for far too long. ..."
"... The re-emergence of national borders as obstacles to the flow r of goods, finance, services and above all people, represents at least an interruption in the vision of globalisation that accompanied the heyday of neoliberal policy making between 1989-2008. If events such as Brexit signal the first step towards greater national mercantilism and protectionism, then we may be witnessing far more profound transformations in our model of political economy, the consequences of which could become very ugly. ..."
"... Once governments (and publics) no longer view economics as the best test of optimal policies, then opportunities for post-liberal experimentation expand rapidly, with unpredictable and potentially frightening consequences. It was telling that, when the British Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, suggested in October 2016 that companies be compelled to publicly list their foreign workers, she defended this policy as a 'nudge'. ..."
"... The Limits of Neolibcralism is a piece of interpretive sociology. It starts from the recognition that neoliberalism rests on claims to legitimacy, which it is possible to imagine as valid, even for critics of this system. Inspired by Luc Boltanski, the book assumes that political-economic systems typically need to offer certain limited forms of hope, excitement and fairness in order to survive, and cannot operate via domination and exploitation alone. ..."
"... The attempt to reduce all of human life to economic calculation runs up against limits. A political rationality that fails to recognise politics as a distinctive sphere of human existence was always going to be dumbfounded, once that sphere took on its own extra-economic life. As Bob Dylan sang to Mr Jones, so one might now say to neoliberal intellectuals or technocrats: 'something is happening here, but you don't know what it is'. ..."
The crash has sharpened the central contradiction in neoliberal economics: it has become
purely a system that rewards dead money even while it fails to create new money. No ideology
can survive unless it has something to offer the young and the almost young. You cant keep
winning elections if you cant promise reasonable jobs, wage rises, affordable groceries and
housing. Put another way, you can have neoliberalism but you cant have democratic validity.
This is the contradiction over which mainstream politicians wedded to neoliberalism - both
left and Right - keep stumbling. Where they can, they rely on the old tricks to get by:
operating party machinery, access to big money funders, consulting the manual of TV
presentability. But the formula isn't reliable, as the New Labour generation can tell you. And
where it can deliver majorities it doesn't confer legitimacy, as David Cameron and Hilary
Clinton now know.
Faced with this mess, the obituarists for neoliberalism are out again. Some I recognise
from 2008 - the definition of a left-wing economist being one who has spotted ten out of the
last two crises of capitalism. Others have joined them, perhaps spurred on by the Brexit vote,
or the rise of Donald Trump or the nice-sounding promises made by Theresa May.
I understand the thinking and I certainly get the thinking. But to imagine that an ideology
that has ruled Britain for longer than Yugoslavia was communist will now just fall apart is
sheer fantasy. It is to mistake word for deed, symbolism for policy. In Brexit Britain, not
much has changed yet except for rhetoric. The Treasury continues with its austerity programme;
the government presses on with its privatisations of whatever is left in public hands, from
social housing to the Green Investment Bank; the establishment still hankers after those grand
free-trade deals such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). True, there
is more talk now about those 'left behind' by globalization, but the very phrasing gives away
how shallow the concern is - this is your fault for not keeping up.
Besides, politics is never a simple test of logic. Winning or exercising power is not a
chess game. As Will Davies points out in this book, neoliberalism began as, and largely
remains, an elite project. What four decades of neoliberalism in practice have achieved is the
bulldozing of many sites of dissent. To see what I mean, visit any of the places in Britain
that have done worst out of it - from the North East to South Wales. The regional business
elites have nearly all died or fled to London. The trade unions are a shadow of their former
selves, as are the fierce tenants' associations. The universities are now largely anodyne. The
local newspapers are typically mere repositories of agency copy and local advertisements, while
the regional BBC studios have either shrunk or consolidated elsewhere. Without such civic
institutions there is no hope of building an alternative.
The answer to neoliberalism isn't another ideology. It certainly isn't a Mont Pelerin
Society of the Left, which would surely be as ghastly as it sounds. No, the answer is
democracy. Without that, we will continue with the same bankrupt ideology -- expecting failure,
and not being surprised or even angry' any more when it comes.
Adilya Chakrabortty
Senior Economics Commentator, The Guardian
Introduction
When exploring paradigm shifts in political economy, maybe it makes more sense to identify
how protracted crises were book-ended historically than to seek specific turning points.
Consider the crisis of Keynesianism, which provided the opening for the neoliberal take-over
and overhaul of economic policy, including those Thatcher and Reagan victories. 1968 was a
critical year, not only for the civic unrest that swept the world, but also for the early signs
that the US economy would be unable to sustain its role in the global financial system on which
Keynesian domestic policies depended. A slow-down in US productivity growth that year, combined
with the fiscal costs of an escalation of the Vietnam war, meant that the dollar started to
come under increased strain. The 'Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates, with the dollar
(convertible to gold) at its centre, struggled on for another five years, before being
abandoned under Richard Nixon.
It was a further three years before the final death-knell of Keynesianism was sounded, most
loudly in Britain. In 1976, Britain's Labour government had to turn to the IMF for a loan, and
agreed to adopt a new monetarist, neoliberal strategy for restoring the public finances. That
September, Jim Callaghan, the leader of the Labour Party, famously addressed his party
conference with the words:
... ... ...
In one sense, the 'book-ends' of this recent crisis are the inverse of the ones that killed
Keynesianism. 1968 was a year of political and civic uprisings, under circumstances of rising
prosperity and a still relatively coherent paradigm for economic policy making, albeit one that
was showing early signs of deterioration. It was a public and political crisis, which posed a
threat to a society of rising prosperity and falling inequality. The technical failings of
Keynesianism only really emerged subsequently, before snowballing to the point where the
macroeconomic paradigm could simply not be sustained any longer.
The crisis of neoliberalism has reversed this ordering. 2008 was an implosion of technical
capabilities on the part of banks and financial regulators, which was largely unaccompanied by
any major political or civic eruption, at least until the consequences were felt in terms of
public sector cuts that accelerated after 2010, especially in Southern Europe. The economic
crisis was spookily isolated from any accompanying political crisis, at least in the beginning.
The eruptions of 2016 therefore represented the long-awaited politicisation and publicisation
of a crisis that, until then, had been largely dealt with by the same cadre of experts whose
errors had caused it in the first place.
Faced with these largely unexpected events and the threat of more, politicians and media
pundits have declared that we now need to listen to those people 'left behind by globalisation.
Following the Brexit referendum, in her first speech as Prime Minister, Theresa May made a vow
to the less prosperous members of society, 'we will do everything we can to give you more
control over your lives. When we take the big calls, we'll think not of the powerful, but you.'
This awakening to the demands and voices of marginalised demographics may represent a new
recognition that economic policy cannot be wholly geared around the pursuit of 'national
competitiveness' in the global race', a pursuit that in practice meant seeking to prioritise
the interests of financial services and mobile capital. It signals mainstream political
acceptance that inequality cannot keep rising forever. But it is still rooted in a somewhat
economistic vision of politics, as if those people 'left behind by globalisation' simply want
more material wealth and 'opportunity', plus fewer immigrants competing for jobs. What this
doesn't do is engage with the distinctive political and cultural sociology of events such as
Brexit and Trump, which are fuelled by a spirit of rage, punishment and self-punishment, and
not simply by a desire to get a slightly larger slice of the pie.
This is where, I think, we need to pay close attention to a key dimension of
neoliberalism, which I focus on at length in this book, namely competition. One of my central
arguments here is that neoliberalism is not simply reducible to 'market fundamentalism', even
if there are areas (such as financial markets) where markets have manifestly attained greater
reach and power since the mid1970s. Instead, the neoliberal state takes the principle of
competition and the ethos of competitiveness (which historically have been found in and around
markets), and seeks to reorganise society around them. Quite how competition and
competitiveness are defined and politically instituted is a matter for historical and
theoretical exploration, which is partly what The Limits of Neoliberalism seeks to do. But at
the bare minimum, organising social relations in terms of competition' means that individuals,
organisations, cities, regions and nations are to be tested in terms of their capacity to
out-do each other. Not only that, but the tests must be considered fair in some way, if the
resulting inequalities are to be recognised as legitimate. When applied to individuals, this
ideology is often known as 'meritocracy'.
The appeal of this as a political template for society is that, according to its advocates,
it involves the discovery of brilliant ideas, more efficient business models, naturally
talented individuals, new urban visions, successful national strategies, potent entrepreneurs
and so on. Even if this is correct (and the work of Thomas Piketty on how wealth begets wealth
is enough to cast considerable doubt on it) there is a major defect: it consigns the majority
of people, places, businesses and institutions to the status of'losers'. The normative and
existential conventions of a neoliberal society stipulate that success and prowess are things
that are earned through desire, effort and innate ability, so long as social and economic
institutions are designed in such a way as to facilitate this. But the corollary of this is
that failure and weakness are also earned: when individuals and communities fail to succeed,
this is a reflection of inadequate talent or energy on their part.
This has been critically noted in how 'dependency' and 'welfare' have become matters of
shame since the conservative political ascendency of the 1980s. But this is just one example of
how a culture of obligatory competitiveness exerts a damaging moral psychology, not only in how
people look down on others, but in how they look down on themselves. A culture which valorises
'winning' and 'competitiveness' above all else provides few sources of security or comfort,
even to those doing reasonably well. Everyone could be doing better, and if they're not, they
have themselves to blame. The vision of society as a competitive game also suggests that anyone
could very quickly be doing worse.
Under these neoliberal conditions, remorse becomes directed inwards, producing the
depressive psychological effect (or what Freud termed 'melancholia') whereby people search
inside themselves for the source of their own unhappiness and imperfect lives (Davies, 2015).
Viewed from within the cultural logic of neoliberalism, uncompetitive regions, individuals or
communities are not just 'left behind by globalisation', but are discovered to be inferior in
comparison to their rivals, just like the contestants ejected from a talent show. Rising
household indebtedness compounds this process for those living in financial precarity, by
forcing individuals to pay for their own past errors, illness or sheer bad luck (Davies,
Montgomerie 8t Wallin, 2015).
In order to understand political upheavals such as Brexit, we need to perform some
sociological interpretation. We need to consider that our socio-economic pathologies do not
simply consist in the fact that opportunity and wealth are hoarded by certain industries (such
as finance) or locales (such as London) or individuals (such as the children of the wealthy),
although all of these things are true. We need also to reflect on the cultural and
psychological implications of how this hoarding has been represented and justified over the
past four decades, namely that it reflects something about the underlying moral worth of
different populations and individuals.
Hardship itself doesn't necessarily lead to the hopelessness and fury of which Donald
Trump seemingly speaks. But when hardship feels both permanent and undeserved, the
psychological appeal of demagogues promising to divert blame elsewhere, be it towards Muslims,
'experts', immigrants, the Chinese, Brussels or wherever, becomes irresistible. Seemingly
irrational or even nihilistic popular upheavals make some sense, if understood in terms of the
relief they offer for those who have felt trapped by their own impotence for too long, with
nobody available to blame but themselves.
One psychological effect of this is authoritarian attitudes towards social deviance: Brexit
and Trump supporters both have an above-average tendency to support the death penalty, combined
with a belief that political authorities are too weak to enforce justice (Kaufman, 2016).
However, it is also clear that psychological and physical pain have become far more widespread
in neoliberal societies than has been noticed by most people. Statistical studies have
shown how societies such as Britain and the United States have become afflicted by often
inexplicable rising mortality rates amongst the white working class, connected partly to rising
suicide rates, alcohol and drug abuse (Dorling, 2016). The Washington Post identified close
geographic correlations between this trend and support for Donald Trump (Guo, 2016). In sum, a
moral-economic system aimed at identifying and empowering the most competitive people,
institutions and places has become targeted, rationally or otherwise, by the vast number of
people, institutions and places that have suffered not only the pain of defeat but the
punishment of defeat for far too long.
The question inevitably arises, is this thing called 'neoliberalism' now over? And if not,
when might it be and how would w r e know? In the UK, the prospect of Brexit
combined with the political priority of reducing immigration means that the efficient movement
of capital (together with that of labour) is being consciously impeded in a w r ay
that would have been unthinkable during the 1990s and early 2000s. The re-emergence of
national borders as obstacles to the flow r of goods, finance, services and above
all people, represents at least an interruption in the vision of globalisation that accompanied
the heyday of neoliberal policy making between 1989-2008. If events such as Brexit signal the
first step towards greater national mercantilism and protectionism, then we may be witnessing
far more profound transformations in our model of political economy, the consequences of which
could become very ugly.
Before we reach that point, it is already possible to identify a reorientation of national
economic policy making away from some core tenets of neoliberal doctrine. One of the main case
studies of this book is antitrust law and policy, which has been a preoccupation for neoliberal
intellectuals, reformers and lawyers ever since the 1930s. The rise of the Chicago School view
of competition (which effectively granted far greater legal rights to monopolists, while also
being tougher on cartels) in the American legal establishment from the 1970s onwards, later
repeated in the European Commission, meant that market regulation became a more expert,
esoteric and ostensibly non-political means of power. One of the ideals of neoliberal scholars,
both in the Austrian tradition of Friedrich Hayek and the Chicago School of Milton Friedman,
was that the economic 'rules of the game' be established beyond the reach of democratic
politics, where they might be manipulated to suit particular short-sighted intellectual, social
or political agendas. Independent central banks are one of the more prominent examples of this,
but the establishment of rational, apolitical and European-wide antitrust and state aid rules
would be another.
As I explore in Chapter 5, the banking crisis caused some immediate damage to this vision of
apolitical, permanent rules of competitive economic activity. The need to rescue the financial
system at all costs saw EU state aid rules being overlooked, at least for a few months,
suggesting that neoliberalism entered a state of'exception where the state took rapid executive
decisions, wherever they were deemed necessary. Takeover rules were suspended to allow banks to
buy failing competitors, again on the basis that this was necessary to secure the existential
viability of the economy as such. But as is common in the state of 'exception, this was all
done to preserve the status quo on the basis that an emergency had struck. It wasn't done with
the aim of transforming the economic paradigm.
While anti-trust and state aid are only one small area of European Commission powers, they
are symbolically very important. Competition regulations represent the normative ideal of the
marketplace, which - in the case of post-war Europe - is imagined as an international, even
post-national space of freedom, transcending cultural, linguistic and political differences.
The liberal vision of cosmopolitan Europe becomes realised in economic institutions such as the
single currency, but also the rules that govern market competitors. For these reasons,
Britain's post-Brexit opportunity to withdraw from European anti-trust and state-aid
regulations is symbolic of the new post-liberal or post-neoliberal era that is emerging.
Already, Theresa May has used her first few speeches as UK Prime Minister to push for a more
interventionist state, that seeks to shape economic outcomes around national, political and
social priorities (a reduction of immigration above all else) no doubt mindful of the fact that
the British state will soon have far more discretion to do this, once it is no longer bound by
state aid rules.
At the time of writing, the odds are against Trump becoming President of the United States,
though one lesson of 2016 is not to be too confident regarding political odds. This means that
the prospect of the United States abandoning its
... ... ...
The rise of behavioural economics, for example, represents an attempt to preserve a form of
market rationality in the face of crisis, by incorporating expertise provided by psychologists
and neuroscientists. A form of 'neo-communitarianism' emerges, which takes seriously the role
of relationships, environmental conditioning and empathy in the construction of independent,
responsible subjects. This remains an economists logic, inasmuch as it prepares people to live
efficient, productive, competitive lives. But by bringing culture, community and contingency
within the bounds of neoliberal rationality, one might see things like behavioural economics or
'social neuroscience and so on as early symptoms of a genuinely post-liberal politics. Once
governments (and publics) no longer view economics as the best test of optimal policies, then
opportunities for post-liberal experimentation expand rapidly, with unpredictable and
potentially frightening consequences. It was telling that, when the British Home Secretary,
Amber Rudd, suggested in October 2016 that companies be compelled to publicly list their
foreign workers, she defended this policy as a 'nudge'.
The Limits of Neolibcralism is a piece of interpretive sociology. It starts from the
recognition that neoliberalism rests on claims to legitimacy, which it is possible to imagine
as valid, even for critics of this system. Inspired by Luc Boltanski, the book assumes that
political-economic systems typically need to offer certain limited forms of hope, excitement
and fairness in order to survive, and cannot operate via domination and exploitation
alone.
For similar reasons, we might soon find that we miss some of the normative and political
dimensions of neoliberalism, for example the internationalism that the EU was founded to
promote and the cosmopolitanism that competitive markets sometimes inculcate. There may be some
elements of neoliberalism that critics and activists need to grasp, refashion and defend,
rather than to simply denounce: this books Afterword offers some ideas of what this might mean.
But if the book is to be read in a truly post-neoliberal world, I hope that in its interpretive
aspirations, it helps to explain what was internally and normatively coherent about the
political economy known as 'neoliberalism', but also why the system really had no account of
its own preconditions or how to preserve them adequately.
The attempt to reduce all of human life to economic calculation runs up against limits.
A political rationality that fails to recognise politics as a distinctive sphere of human
existence was always going to be dumbfounded, once that sphere took on its own extra-economic
life. As Bob Dylan sang to Mr Jones, so one might now say to neoliberal intellectuals or
technocrats: 'something is happening here, but you don't know what it is'.
"... Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook. ..."
"... No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that. ..."
"... a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without ..."
"... Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'. ..."
"... A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. ..."
"... "Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories. ..."
Well all right, let's review what happened, or at least the official version of what
happened. Not Hillary Clinton's version of what happened, which Jeffrey St. Clair so
incisively skewered , but the Corporatocracy's version of what happened, which overlaps
with but is even more ridiculous than Clinton's ridiculous version. To do that, we need to
harken back to the peaceful Summer of 2016, (a/k/a the
"Summer of Fear" ), when the United States of America was still a shiny city upon a hill
whose beacon light guided freedom-loving people, the Nazis were still just a bunch of ass
clowns meeting in each other's mother's garages, and Russia was, well Russia was Russia.
Back then, as I'm sure you'll recall, Western democracy, was still primarily being menaced
by the lone
wolf terrorists, for absolutely no conceivable reason, apart from the terrorists' fanatical
desire to brutally murder all non-believers. The global Russo-Nazi Axis had not yet reared its
ugly head. President Obama, who, during his tenure, had single-handedly restored America to the
peaceful, prosperous, progressive paradise it had been before George W. Bush screwed it up, was
on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon slow
jamming home the TPP . The Wall Street banks had risen from the ashes of the 2008 financial
crisis, and were buying back all the foreclosed homes of the people they had fleeced with
subprime mortgages. American workers were enjoying the freedom and flexibility of the new gig
economy. Electioneering in the United States was underway, but it was early days. It was
already clear that Donald Trump was literally
the Second Coming of Hitler , but no one was terribly worried about him yet. The Republican
Party was in a shambles. Neither Trump nor any of the other contenders had any chance of
winning in November. Nor did Sanders, who had been defeated, fair and square, in the Democratic
primaries, mostly because of
his racist statements and crazy, quasi-Communist ideas. Basically, everything was hunky
dory. Yes, it was going to be terribly sad to have to bid farewell to Obama, who had bailed out
all those bankrupt Americans the Wall Street banks had taken to the cleaners, ended all of Bush
and Cheney's wars, closed down Guantanamo, and just generally served as a multicultural messiah
figure to affluent consumers throughout the free world, but Hope-and-Change was going to
continue. The talking heads were all in agreement Hillary Clinton was going to be President,
and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
Little did we know at the time that an epidemic of Russo-Nazism had been festering just
beneath the surface of freedom-loving Western societies like some neo-fascist sebaceous cyst.
Apparently, millions of theretofore more or less normal citizens throughout the West had been
infected with a virulent strain of Russo-Nazi-engineered virus, because they simultaneously
began exhibiting the hallmark symptoms of what we now know as White Supremacist Behavioral
Disorder, or Fascist Oppositional Disorder (the folks who update the DSM are still arguing over
the official name). It started with the Brexit referendum, spread to America with the election
of Trump, and there have been a rash of outbreaks in Europe, like
the one we're currently experiencing in Germany . These fascistic symptoms have mostly
manifest as people refusing to vote as instructed, and expressing oppressive views on the
Internet, but there have also been more serious crimes, including several assaults and murders
perpetrated by white supremacists (which, of course, never happened when Obama was President,
because the Nazis hadn't been "emboldened" yet).
Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or
the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced
with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a
simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is
its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural
values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch
together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook.
No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the
mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following
the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring
the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national
sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world
where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns
completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this
outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical
development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that.
This hypothetical leftist analysis might want to focus on how Capitalism is fundamentally
opposed to Despotism, and is essentially a value-decoding machine which renders everything and
everyone it touches essentially valueless interchangeable commodities whose worth is determined
by market forces, rather than by societies and cultures, or religions, or other despotic
systems (wherein values are established and enforced arbitrarily, by the despot, the church, or
the ruling party, or by a group of people who share an affinity and decide they want to live a
certain way). This is where it would get sort of tricky, because it (i.e., this hypothetical
analysis) would have to delve into the history of Capitalism, and how it evolved out of
medieval Despotism, and how it has been decoding despotic values for something like five
hundred years. This historical delving (which would probably be too long for people to read on
their phones) would demonstrate how Capitalism has been an essentially progressive force in
terms of getting us out of Despotism (which, for most folks, wasn't very much fun) by fomenting
bourgeois revolutions and imposing some semblance of democracy on societies. It would follow
Capitalism's inexorable advance all the way up to the Twentieth Century, in which its final
external ideological adversary, fake Communism, suddenly imploded, delivering us to the world
we now live in a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without
, and where any opposition to that global ideology can only be internal, or insurgent, in
nature (e.g, terrorism, extremism, and so on). Being a hypothetical leftist analysis,
it would, at this point, need to stress that, despite the fact that Capitalism helped deliver
us from Despotism, and improved the state of society generally (compared to most societies that
preceded it), we nonetheless would like to transcend it, or evolve out of it toward some type
of society where people, and everything else, including the biosphere we live in, are not
interchangeable, valueless commodities exchanged by members of a global corporatocracy who have
no essential values, or beliefs, or principles, other than the worship of money. After having
covered all that, we might want to offer more a nuanced view of the current neo-nationalist
reaction to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the rest of the
planet. Not that we would support this reaction, or in any way refrain from calling
neo-nationalism what it is (i.e., reactionary, despotic, and doomed), but this nuanced view
we'd hypothetically offer, by analyzing the larger sociopolitical and historical forces at
play, might help us to see the way forward more clearly, and who knows, maybe eventually
propose some kind of credible leftist alternative to the "global neoliberalism vs.
neo-nationalism" double bind we appear to be hopelessly stuck in at the moment.
Luckily, we don't have to do that (i.e., articulate such a leftist analysis of any such
larger historical forces). Because there is no corporatocracy not really. That's just a fake
word the Russians made up and are spreading around on the Internet to distract us while the
Nazis take over. No, the logical explanation for Trump, Brexit, and anything else that
threatens the expansion of global Capitalism, and the freedom, democracy, and prosperity it
offers, is that millions of people across the world, all at once, for no apparent reason, woke
up one day full-blown fascists and started looking around for repulsive demagogues to swear
fanatical allegiance to. Yes, that makes a lot more sense than all that complicated stuff about
history and hegemonic ideological systems, which is probably just Russian propaganda anyway, in
which case there is absolutely no reason to read any boring year-old pieces, like this one in TheEuropeanFinancialReview , or this report by
Corporate Watch , from way back in the year 2000, about the rise of global corporate
power.
So, apologies for wasting your time with all that pseudo-Marxian gobbledygook. Let's just
pretend this never happened, and get back to more important matters, like statistically proving
that Donald Trump got elected President because of racism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia,
or some other type of behavioral disorder, and pulling down Confederate statues, or kneeling
during the National Anthem, or whatever happens to be trending this week. Oh, yeah, and
debating punching Nazis, or people wearing MAGA hats. We definitely need to sort all that out
before we can move ahead with helping the Corporatocracy remove Trump from office, or at least
ensure he remains surrounded by their loyal generals, CEOs, and Goldman Sachs guys until the
next election. Whatever we do, let's not get distracted by that stuff I just distracted you
with. I know, it's tempting, but, given what's at stake, we need to maintain our laser focus on
issues related to identity politics, or else well, you know, the Nazis win.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Yesterday evening on RT a USA lady, as usual forgot the name, spoke about the USA. In a
matter of fact tone she said things like 'they (Deep State) have got him (Trump) in the
box'.
They, Deep State again, are now wondering if they will continue to try to control the
world, or if they should stop the attempt, and retreat into the USA.
Also as matter of fact she said 'the CIA has always been the instrument of Deep State, from
Kenndy to Nine Eleven'.
Another statement was 'no president ever was in control'.
How USA citizens continue to believe they live in a democracy, I cannot understand.
Yesterday the intentions of the new Dutch government were made public, alas most Dutch
also dot not see that the Netherlands since 2005 no longer is a democracy, just a province of
Brussels.
Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting
stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'.
No doubt many do want their country back, but what concerns me is that all of a sudden we
have the concept of "independence" plastered all over the place. Such concepts don't get
promoted unless the ruling elites see ways to turn those sentiments to their favor.
A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted
and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and
independence movements. (And everything else.)
"Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s),
that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the
US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run
brainwashing factories.
"Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything,
or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and
replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which
is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because
exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their
eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer
brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on
Facebook."
Very impressed with this article, never really paid attention to CJ's articles but that is
now changing!
Chris Hedges, who is doubtless a courageous journalist and an intelligent commentator, suggests
that if we are to discuss the anti-Russia campaign realistically, as baseless in fact, and as
contrived for an effect and to further/protect some particular interests, we can hardly avoid the
question: Who or what interest is served by the anti-Russia campaign?
An interesting observation "The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political
party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid
for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of
the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out."
The other relevant observation is that there is no American left. It was destroyed as a
political movement. The USA is a right wing country.
Notable quotes:
"... This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of color. ..."
"... It is the result of the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation, a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations. It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they have done to the country. ..."
"... The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our economy and our democratic institutions. ..."
"... Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile political theater. ..."
"... These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes. ..."
"... The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and one the paper has never faced. ..."
"... The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself as the "left." ..."
"... Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left -- not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories, that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease. ..."
"... For good measure, they purged the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France. There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon. But here we almost have to begin from scratch. ..."
"... The corporate elites we have to overthrow already hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down. ..."
"... The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique. You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You won't get grants. ..."
"... The elite schools, and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison! ..."
"... Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual, cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these people: traitors. ..."
But the whole idea that the Russians swung the election to Trump is absurd. It's really premised
on the unproven claim that Russia gave the Podesta emails to WikiLeaks, and the release of these
emails turned tens, or hundreds of thousands, of Clinton supporters towards Trump. This doesn't make
any sense. Either that, or, according to the director of national intelligence, RT America, where
I have a show, got everyone to vote for the Green Party.
This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic
Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their
policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of
color. It is the result of disastrous trade agreements like NAFTA that abolished good-paying union
jobs and shipped them to places like Mexico, where workers without benefits are paid $3.00 an hour.
It is the result of the explosion of a system of mass incarceration, begun by Bill Clinton with the
1994 omnibus crime bill, and the tripling and quadrupling of prison sentences. It is the result of
the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation,
a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations.
It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the
right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they
have done to the country.
Police forces have been turned into quasi-military entities that terrorize marginal communities,
where people have been stripped of all of their rights and can be shot with impunity; in fact over
three are killed a day. The state shoots and locks up poor people of color as a form of social control.
They are quite willing to employ the same form of social control on any other segment of the population
that becomes restive.
The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face
its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault
on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our
economy and our democratic institutions.
Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why
they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. Without
Wall Street money, they would not hold political power. The Democratic Party doesn't actually function
as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations
arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or
the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile
political theater.
These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political
process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes.
... ... ...
DN: Let's come back to this question of the Russian hacking news story. You raised the ability
to generate a story, which has absolutely no factual foundation, nothing but assertions by various
intelligence agencies, presented as an assessment that is beyond question. What is your evaluation
of this?
CH: The commercial broadcast networks, and that includes CNN and MSNBC, are not in the business
of journalism. They hardly do any. Their celebrity correspondents are courtiers to the elite. They
speculate about and amplify court gossip, which is all the accusations about Russia, and they repeat
what they are told to repeat. They sacrifice journalism and truth for ratings and profit. These cable
news shows are one of many revenue streams in a corporate structure. They compete against other revenue
streams. The head of CNN, Jeff Zucker, who helped create the fictional persona of Donald Trump on
"Celebrity Apprentice," has turned politics on CNN into a 24-hour reality show. All nuance, ambiguity,
meaning and depth, along with verifiable fact, are sacrificed for salacious entertainment. Lying,
racism, bigotry and conspiracy theories are given platforms and considered newsworthy, often espoused
by people whose sole quality is that they are unhinged. It is news as burlesque.
I was on the investigative team at the New York Times during the lead-up to the Iraq
War. I was based in Paris and covered Al Qaeda in Europe and the Middle East. Lewis Scooter Libby,
Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and maybe somebody in an intelligence agency, would confirm whatever story
the administration was attempting to pitch. Journalistic rules at the Times say you can't
go with a one-source story. But if you have three or four supposedly independent sources confirming
the same narrative, then you can go with it, which is how they did it. The paper did not break any
rules taught at Columbia journalism school, but everything they wrote was a lie.
The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or
Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies
the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and
one the paper has never faced.
DN: The CIA pitches the story, and then the Times gets the verification from those who
pitch it to them.
CH: It's not always pitched. And not much of this came from the CIA The CIA wasn't buying the
"weapons of mass destruction" hysteria.
DN: It goes the other way too?
CH: Sure. Because if you're trying to have access to a senior official, you'll constantly be putting
in requests, and those officials will decide when they want to see you. And when they want to see
you, it's usually because they have something to sell you.
DN: The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself
as the "left."
CH: Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left --
not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories,
that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate
and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the
rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom
of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease.
If you attempt to debate most of those on the supposedly left, they reduce discussion to this
cartoonish vision of politics.
The serious left in this country was decimated. It started with the suppression of radical movements
under Woodrow Wilson, then the "Red Scares" in the 1920s, when they virtually destroyed our labor
movement and our radical press, and then all of the purges in the 1950s. For good measure, they purged
the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated
capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France.
There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon.
But here we almost have to begin from scratch.
I've battled continuously with Antifa and the Black Bloc. I think they're kind of poster children
for what I would consider phenomenal political immaturity. Resistance is not a form of personal catharsis.
We are not fighting the rise of fascism in the 1930s. The corporate elites we have to overthrow already
hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient
organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down.
So Trump's not the problem. But just that sentence alone is going to kill most discussions with
people who consider themselves part of the left.
The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique.
You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You
won't get grants. The New York Times , if they review your book, will turn it over to a
dutiful mandarin like George Packer to trash it -- as he did with my last book. The elite schools,
and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate
the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much
less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly
stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates
of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison!
Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they
run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual,
cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these
people: traitors.
"... 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.
"... Following Frances Fox Piven, "neoliberal economic policies" refers to the set of policies carried out, in the name of individualism and unfettered markets, for "the deregulation of corporations, and particularly of financial institutions; the rollback of public services and benefit programs; curbing labor unions; 'free trade' policies that would pry open foreign markets; and wherever possible the replacement of public programs with private markets" (Piven, 2007: 13). ..."
"... The case of the United States is particularly useful to examine because its elites have projected themselves as "first among equals" of the globalization project ( Bello , 2006), and it is the place of the Global North where the neoliberal project has been pursued most resolutely and has advanced the farthest. In other words, the experiences of American workers illuminate the affects of the neoliberal project in the Global North to the greatest extent, and suggest what will happen to working people in other northern countries should they accept their respective government's adoption of such policies. ..."
"... However, it is believed that the implementation of these neoliberal economic policies and the cultural wars to divert public attention are part of a larger, conscious political program by the elites within this country that is intended to prevent re-emergence of the collective solidarity among the American people that we saw during the late 1960s-early 1970s (see Piven, 2004, 2007) -- of which the internal breakdown of discipline within the US military, in Vietnam and around the world, was arguably the most crucial (see Moser, 1996; Zeiger, 2006) -- that ultimately challenged, however inchoately, the very structure of the established social order, both internationally and in the United States itself. ..."
Most contemporary discussions of globalization, and especially of the impact of neoliberal economic
policies, focus on the countries of the Global South (see, for example, Bond, 2005; Ellner and Hellinger,
eds., 2003; a number of articles in Harris, ed., 2006; Klein, 2007; Monthly Review, 2007;
and, among others, see Scipes, 1999, 2006b). Recent articles arguing that the globalization project
has receded and might be taking different approaches (Bello, 2006; Thornton, 2007) have also focused
on the Global South. What has been somewhat discussed (see Giroux, 2004; Piven, 2004; Aronowitz,
2005) but not systematically addressed, however, is what has been the impact of globalization and
especially related neoliberal economic policies on working people in a northern country?
[i]
This paper specifically addresses this question by looking at the impact of neoliberal economic
policies on working people in the United States . Following Frances Fox Piven, "neoliberal economic
policies" refers to the set of policies carried out, in the name of individualism and unfettered
markets, for "the deregulation of corporations, and particularly of financial institutions; the rollback
of public services and benefit programs; curbing labor unions; 'free trade' policies that would pry
open foreign markets; and wherever possible the replacement of public programs with private markets"
(Piven, 2007: 13).
The case of the United States is particularly useful to examine because its elites have projected
themselves as "first among equals" of the globalization project ( Bello , 2006), and it is the place
of the Global North where the neoliberal project has been pursued most resolutely and has advanced
the farthest. In other words, the experiences of American workers illuminate the affects of the neoliberal
project in the Global North to the greatest extent, and suggest what will happen to working people
in other northern countries should they accept their respective government's adoption of such policies.
However, care must be taken as to how this is understood. While sociologically-focused textbooks
(e.g., Aguirre and Baker, eds., 2008; Hurst, 2007) have joined together some of the most recent thinking
on social inequality -- and have demonstrated that inequality not only exists but is increasing --
this has been generally presented in a national context; in this case, within the United States.
And if they recognize that globalization is part of the reason for increasing inequality, it is generally
included as one of a set of reasons.
This paper argues that we simply cannot understand what is happening unless we put developments
within a global context: the United States effects, and is affected by, global processes.
Thus, while some of the impacts can be understood on a national level, we cannot ask related questions
as to causes -- or future consequences -- by confining our examination to a national level: we absolutely
must approach this from a global perspective (see Nederveen Pieterse, 2004, 2008).
This also must be put in historical perspective as well, although the focus in this piece will
be limited to the post-World War II world. Inequality within what is now the United States today
did not -- obviously -- arise overnight. Unquestionably, it began at least 400 years ago in Jamestown
-- with the terribly unequal and socially stratified society of England's colonial Virginia before
Africans were brought to North America (see Fischer, 1989), much less after their arrival in
1619, before the Pilgrims. Yet, to understand the roots of development of contemporary social
inequality in the US , we must understand the rise of " Europe " in relation to the rest of the world
(see, among others, Rodney, 1972; Nederveen Pieterse, 1989). In short, again, we have to understand
that the development of the United States has been and will always be a global project and, without
recognizing that, we simply cannot begin to understand developments within the United States .
We also have to understand the multiple and changing forms of social stratification and resulting
inequalities in this country. This paper prioritizes economic stratification, although is not limited
to just the resulting inequalities. Nonetheless, it does not focus on racial, gender or any other
type of social stratification. However, this paper is not written from the perspective that economic
stratification is always the most important form of stratification, nor from the perspective
that we can only understand other forms of stratification by understanding economic stratification:
all that is being claimed herein is that economic stratification is one type of social stratification,
arguably one of the most important types yet only one of several, and investigates the issue of economic
stratification in the context of contemporary globalization and the neoliberal economic policies
that have developed to address this phenomenon as it affects the United States.
Once this global-historical perspective is understood and after quickly suggesting in the "prologue"
why the connection between neoliberal economic policies and the affects on working people
in the United States has not been made usually, this paper focuses on several interrelated issues:
(1) it reports the current economic situation for workers in the United States; (2) it provides a
historical overview of US society since World War II; (3) it analyzes the results of US Government
economic policies; and (4) it ties these issues together. From that, it comes to a conclusion about
the affects of neoliberal economic policies on working people in the United States .
Prologue: Origins of neoliberal economic policies in the United States
As stated above, most of the attention directed toward understanding the impact of neoliberal
economic policies on various countries has been confined to the countries of the Global South. However,
these policies have been implemented in the United States as well. This arguably began in 1982, when
the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, launched a vicious attack on inflation -- and
caused the deepest US recession since the Great Depression of the late 1920s-1930s.
However, these neoliberal policies have been implemented in the US perhaps more subtly than in
the Global South. This is said because, when trying to understand changes that continue to take place
in the United States, these economic policies are hidden "under" the various and sundry "cultural
wars" (around issues such as drugs, premarital sex, gun control, abortion, marriages for gays and
lesbians) that have been taking place in this country and, thus, not made obvious: most Americans,
and especially working people, are not aware of the changes detailed below.
[ii]
However, it is believed that the implementation of these neoliberal economic policies and
the cultural wars to divert public attention are part of a larger, conscious political program
by the elites within this country that is intended to prevent re-emergence of the collective solidarity
among the American people that we saw during the late 1960s-early 1970s (see Piven, 2004, 2007) --
of which the internal breakdown of discipline within the US military, in Vietnam and around
the world, was arguably the most crucial (see Moser, 1996; Zeiger, 2006) -- that ultimately challenged,
however inchoately, the very structure of the established social order, both internationally and
in the United States itself. Thus, we see both Democratic and Republican Parties in agreement
to maintain and expand the US Empire (in more neutral political science-ese, a "uni-polar world"),
but the differences that emerge within each party and between each party are generally confined to
how this can best be accomplished. While this paper focuses on the economic and social changes going
on, it should be kept in mind that these changes did not "just happen": conscious political decisions
have been made that produced social results (see Piven, 2004) that make the US experience -- at the
center of a global social order based on an "advanced" capitalist economy -- qualitatively different
from experiences in other more economically-developed countries.
So, what has been the impact of these policies on workers in the US?
1) The current situation for workers and growing economic inequality
Steven Greenhouse of The New York Times published a piece on September 4, 2006, writing
about entry-level workers, young people who were just entering the job market. Mr. Greenhouse noted
changes in the US economy; in fact, there have been substantial changes since early 2000, when the
economy last created many jobs.
Median incomes for families with one parent age 25-34 fell 5.9 per cent between 2000-2005.
It had jumped 12 per cent during the late '90s. (The median annual income for these families today
is $48,405.)
Between 2000-2005, entry-level wages for male college graduates fell by 7.3 per cent (to $19.72/hr)
Entry-level wages for female college graduates fell by 3.5 per cent (to $17.08)
Entry-level wages for male high school graduates fell by 3.3 per cent (to $10.93)
Entry-level wages for female high school graduates fell by 4.9 per cent (to $9.08)
Yet, the percentage drop in wages hides the growing gap between college and high school graduates.
Today, on average, college grads earn 45 per cent more than high school graduates, where the gap
had "only" been 23 per cent in 1979: the gap has doubled in 26 years (Greenhouse, 2006b).
A 2004 story in Business Week found that 24 per cent of all working Americans received
wages below the poverty line ( Business Week , 2004).
[iii] In January 2004, 23.5 million
Americans received free food from food pantries. "The surge for food demand is fueled by several
forces -- job losses, expired unemployment benefits, soaring health-care and housing costs, and the
inability of many people to find jobs that match the income and benefits of the jobs they had." And
43 million people were living in low-income families with children (Jones, 2004).
A 2006 story in Business Week found that US job growth between 2001-2006 was really based
on one industry: health care. Over this five-year period, the health-care sector has added 1.7 million
jobs, while the rest of the private sector has been stagnant. Michael Mandel, the economics editor
of the magazine, writes:
information technology, the great electronic promise of the 1990s, has turned into one of
the greatest job-growth disappointments of all time. Despite the splashy success of companies
such as Google and Yahoo!, businesses at the core of the information economy -- software, semi-conductors,
telecom, and the whole range of Web companies -- have lost more than 1.1 million jobs in the past
five years. These businesses employ fewer Americans today than they did in 1998, when the Internet
frenzy kicked into high gear (Mandel, 2006: 56) .
In fact, "take away health-care hiring in the US, and quicker than you can say cardiac bypass,
the US unemployment rate would be 1 to 2 percentage points higher" (Mandel, 2006: 57).
There has been extensive job loss in manufacturing. Over 3.4 million manufacturing jobs have been
lost since 1998, and 2.9 million of them have been lost since 2001. Additionally, over 40,000 manufacturing
firms have closed since 1999, and 90 per cent have been medium and large shops. In labor-import intensive
industries, 25 per cent of laid-off workers remain unemployed after six months, two-thirds of them
who do find new jobs earn less than on their old job, and one-quarter of those who find new jobs
"suffer wage losses of more than 30 percent" (AFL-CIO, 2006a: 2).
The AFL-CIO details the US job loss by manufacturing sector in the 2001-05 period:
Computer and electronics: 543,000 workers or 29.2 per cent
Semiconductor and electronic components: 260,100 or 36.7 per cent
Electrical equipment and appliances: 152,500 or 26 per cent
Vehicle parts: 153,400 or 18.6 per cent
Machinery: 289,400 or 19.9 per cent
Fabricated metal products: 235,200 or 13.3 per cent
Primary metals: 144,800 or 23.5 per cent
Transportation equipment: 246,300 or 12.1 per cent
Furniture products: 58,500 or 13.4 per cent
Textile mills: 158,500 or 43.1 per cent
Apparel 220,000 or 46.6 per cent
Leather products: 24,700 or 38.3 per cent
Printing: 159,300 or 19.9 per cent
Paper products: 122,600 or 20.4 per cent
Plastics and rubber products: 141,400 or 15 per cent
Chemicals: 94,900 or 9.7 per cent
Aerospace: 46,900 or 9.1 per cent
Textiles and apparel declined by 870,000 jobs 1994-2006, a decline of 65.4 per cent (AFL-CIO,
2006a: 2).
As of the end of 2005, only 10.7 per cent of all US employment was in manufacturing -- down from
21.6 per cent at its height in 1979 -- in raw numbers, manufacturing employment totaled 19.426 million
in 1979, 17.263 million in 2000, and 14.232 million in 2005.
[iv] The number of production workers
in this country at the end of 2005 was 9.378 million.
[v] This was only slightly above
the 9.306 million production workers in 1983, and was considerably below the 11.463 million as recently
as 2000 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006b). As one writer puts it, this is "the biggest long-term
trend in the economy: the decline of manufacturing." He notes that employment in the durable goods
(e.g., cars and cable TV boxes) category of manufacturing has declined from 19 per cent of all employment
in 1965 to 8 per cent in 2005 (Altman, 2006). And at the end of 2006, only 11.7 per cent of all manufacturing
workers were in unions (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007).
In addition, in 2004 and 2005, "the real hourly and weekly wages of US manufacturing workers have
fallen 3 per cent and 2.2 per cent respectively" (AFL-CIO, 2006a: 2).
The minimum wage level went unchanged for nine years: until recently when there was a small increase
-- to $5.85 an hour on July 24, 2007 -- US minimum wage had remained at $5.15 an hour since September
1, 1997 . During that time, the cost of living rose 26 percent. After adjusting for inflation, this
was the lowest level of the minimum wage since 1955. At the same time, the minimum wage was only
31 per cent of the average pay of non-supervisory workers in the private sector, which is the lowest
share since World War II (Bernstein and Shapiro, 2006).
In addition to the drop in wages at all levels, fewer new workers get health care benefits with
their jobs: [vi] in 2005, 64 per
cent of all college grads got health coverage in entry-level jobs, where 71 per cent had gotten it
in 2000 -- a 7 per cent drop in just five years. Over a longer term, we can see what has happened
to high school grads: in 1979, two-thirds of all high school graduates got health care coverage in
entry-level jobs, while only one-third do today (Greenhouse, 2006b). It must be kept in mind that
only about 28 per cent of the US workforce are college graduates -- most of the work force only has
a high school degree, although a growing percentage of them have some college, but not college degrees.
Because things have gotten so bad, many young adults have gotten discouraged and given up. The
unemployment rate is 4.4 per cent for ages 25-34, but 8.2 per cent for workers 20-24. (Greenhouse,
2006b).
Yet things are actually worse than that. In the US , unemployment rates are artificially low.
If a person gets laid off and gets unemployment benefits -- which fewer and fewer workers even get
-- they get a check for six months. If they have not gotten a job by the end of six months -- and
it is taking longer and longer to get a job -- and they have given up searching for work, then not
only do they loose their unemployment benefits, but they are no longer counted as unemployed: one
doesn't even count in the statistics!
A report from April 2004 provides details. According to the then-head of the US Federal Reserve
System, Alan Greenspan, "the average duration of unemployment increased from twelve weeks in September
2000 to twenty weeks in March [2004]" (quoted in Shapiro, 2004: 4). In March 2004, 354,000 jobs workers
had exhausted their unemployment benefits, and were unable to get any additional federal unemployment
assistance: Shapiro (2004: 1) notes, "In no other month on record, with data available back to 1971,
have there been so many 'exhaustees'."
Additionally, although it's rarely reported, unemployment rates vary by racial grouping. No matter
what the unemployment rate is, it really only reflects the rate of whites who are unemployed because
about 78 per cent of the workforce is white. However, since 1954, the unemployment rate of African-Americans
has always been more than twice that of whites, and Latinos are about 1 1/2 times that of whites.
So, for example, if the overall rate is five percent, then it's at least ten per cent for African-Americans
and 7.5 per cent for Latinos.
However, most of the developments presented above -- other than the racial affects of unemployment
-- have been relatively recent. What about longer term? Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning Princeton
University economist who writes for The New York Times, pointed out these longer term affects:
non-supervisory workers make less in real wages today (2006) than they made in 1973! So, after inflation
is taken out, non-supervisory workers are making less today in real terms that their contemporaries
made 33 years ago (Krugman, 2006b). Figures provided by Stephen Franklin -- obtained from the US
Bureau of Statistics, and presented in 1982 dollars -- show that a production worker in January 1973
earned $9.08 an hour -- and $8.19 an hour in December 2005 (Franklin, 2006). Workers in 2005 also
had less long-term job security, fewer benefits, less stable pensions (when they have them), and
rising health care costs. [vii]
In short, the economic situation for "average Americans" is getting worse. A front-page story
in the Chicago Tribune tells about a worker who six years ago was making $29 an hour, working
at a nuclear power plant. He got laid off, and now makes $12.24 an hour, working on the bottom tier
of a two-tiered unionized factory owned by Caterpillar, the multinational earth moving equipment
producer, which is less than half of his old wages. The article pointed out, "Glued to a bare bones
budget, he saved for weeks to buy a five-pack of $7 T-shirts" ( Franklin , 2006).
As Foster and Magdoff point out:
Except for a small rise in the late 1990s, real wages have been sluggish for decades. The
typical (median-income) family has sought to compensate for this by increasing the number of jobs
and working hours per household. Nevertheless, the real (inflation-adjusted) income of the typical
household fell for five years in a row through 2004 (Foster and Magdoff, 2009: 28).
A report by Workers Independent News (WIN) stated that while a majority of metropolitan
areas have regained the 2.6 million jobs lost during the first two years of the Bush Administration,
"the new jobs on average pay $9,000 less than the jobs replaced," a 21 per cent decline from $43,629
to $34,378. However, WIN says that "99 out of the 361 metro areas will not recover jobs before 2007
and could be waiting until 2015 before they reach full recovery" (Russell, 2006).
At the same time, Americans are going deeper and deeper into debt. At the end of 2000, total US
household debt was $7.008 trillion, with home mortgage debt being $4.811 trillion and non-mortgage
debt $1.749 trillion; at the end of 2006, comparable numbers were a total of $12.817 trillion; $9.705
trillion (doubling since 2000); and $2.431 trillion (US Federal Reserve, 2007-rounding by author).
Foster and Magdoff (2009: 29) show that this debt is not only increasing, but based on figures from
the Federal Reserve, that debt as a percentage of disposable income has increased overall from 62%
in 1975 to 96.8% in 2000, and to 127.2% in 2005.
Three polls from mid-2006 found "deep pessimism among American workers, with most saying that
wages were not keeping pace with inflation, and that workers were worse off in many ways than a generation
ago" (Greenhouse, 2006a). And, one might notice, nothing has been said about increasing gas prices,
lower home values, etc. The economic situation for most working people is not looking pretty.
In fact, bankruptcy filings totaled 2.043 million in 2005, up 31.6 per cent from 2004 (Associated
Press, 2006), before gas prices went through the ceiling and housing prices began falling in mid-2006.
Yet in 1998, writers for the Chicago Tribune had written, " the number of personal bankruptcy
filings skyrocketed 19.5 per cent last year, to an all-time high of 1,335,053, compared with 1,117,470
in 1996" (Schmeltzer and Gruber, 1998).
And at the same time, there were 37 million Americans in poverty in 2005, one of out every eight.
Again, the rates vary by racial grouping: while 12.6 per cent of all Americans were in poverty, the
poverty rate for whites was 8.3 percent; for African Americans, 24.9 per cent were in poverty, as
were 21.8 per cent of all Latinos. (What is rarely acknowledged, however, is that 65 per cent of
all people in poverty in the US are white.) And 17.6 per cent of all children were in poverty (US
Census Bureau, 2005).
What about the "other half"? This time, Paul Krugman gives details from a report by two Northwestern
University professors, Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon, titled "Where Did the Productivity Growth
Go?" Krugman writes:
Between 1973 and 2001, the wage and salary income of Americans at the 90th percentile
of the income distribution rose only 34 percent, or about 1 per cent per year. But income at the
99th percentile rose 87 percent; income at the 99.9th percentile rose 181 percent; and income
at the 99.99th percentile rose 497 percent. No, that's not a misprint. Just to give you a sense
of who we're talking about: the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that this year, the 99th
percentile will correspond to an income of $402,306, and the 99.9th percentile to an income of
$1,672,726. The Center doesn't give a number for the 99.99th percentile, but it's probably well
over $6 million a year (Krugman, 2006a) .
But how can we understand what is going on? We need to put take a historical approach to understand
the significance of the changes reported above.
(2) A historical look at the US social order since World War II
When considering the US situation, it makes most sense to look at "recent" US developments, those
since World War II. Just after the War, in 1947, the US population was about six per cent of the
world's total. Nonetheless, this six per cent produced about 48 per cent of all goods and services
in the world! [viii] With Europe
and Japan devastated, the US was the only industrialized economy that had not been laid waste. Everybody
needed what the US produced -- and this country produced the goods, and sent them around the world.
At the same time, the US economy was not only the most productive, but the rise of the industrial
union movement in the 1930s and '40s -- the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) -- meant that
workers had some power to demand a share of the wealth produced. In 1946, just after the war, the
US had the largest strike wave in its history: 116,000,000 production days were lost in early 1946,
as industry-wide strikes in auto, steel, meat packing, and the electrical industry took place across
the United States and Canada , along with smaller strikes in individual firms. Not only that, but
there were general strikes that year in Oakland , California and Stamford , Connecticut . Workers
had been held back during the war, but they demonstrated their power immediately thereafter (Lipsitz,
1994; Murolo and Chitty, 2001). Industry knew that if it wanted the production it could sell, it
had to include unionized workers in on the deal.
It was this combination -- devastated economic markets around the world and great demand for goods
and services, the world's most developed industrial economy, and a militant union movement -- that
combined to create what is now known as the "great American middle class."
[ix]
To understand the economic impact of these factors, changes in income distribution in US society
must be examined. The best way to illuminate this is to assemble family data on income or wealth
[x] -- income data is more available,
so that will be used; arrange it from the smallest amount to the largest; and then to divide the
population into fifths, or quintiles. In other words, arrange every family's annual income from the
lowest to the highest, and divide the total number of family incomes into quintiles or by 20 percents
(i.e., fifths). Then compare changes in the top incomes for each quintile. By doing so, one can then
observe changes in income distribution over specified time periods.
The years between 1947 and 1973 are considered the "golden years" of the US society.
[xi] The values are presented
in 2005 dollars, so that means that inflation has been taken out: these are real dollar values,
and that means these are valid comparisons.
Figure 1: US family income, in US dollars, growth and istribution, by quintile, 1947-1973 compared
to 1973-2001, in 2005 dollars
Source: US Commerce Department, Bureau of the Census (hereafter, US Census Bureau) at
www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f01ar.html
. All dollar values converted to 2005 dollars by US Census Bureau, removing inflation and comparing
real values. Differences and percentages calculated by author. Percentages shown in both rows labeled
"Difference" show the dollar difference as a percentage of the first year of the comparison.
Data for the first period, 1947-1973 -- the data above the grey line -- shows there was
considerable real economic growth for each quintile . Over the 26-year period, there was approximately
100 per cent real economic growth for the incomes at the top of each quintile, which meant incomes
doubled after inflation was removed; thus, there was significant economic growth in the society.
And importantly, this real economic growth was distributed fairly evenly . The data in
the fourth line (in parentheses) is the percentage relationship between the difference between 1947-1973
real income when compared to the 1947 real income, with 100 per cent representing a doubling of real
income: i.e., the difference for the bottom quintile between 1947 and 1973 was an increase
of $11,386, which is 97 per cent more than $11,758 that the top of the quintile had in 1947. As can
be seen, other quintiles also saw increases of roughly comparable amounts: in ascending order, 100
percent, 107 percent, 101 percent, and 91 percent. In other words, the rate of growth by quintile
was very similar across all five quintiles of the population.
When looking at the figures for 1973-2001, something vastly different can be observed. This is
the section below the grey line. What can be seen? First, economic growth has slowed considerably:
the highest rate of growth for any quintile was that of 58 per cent for those who topped the
fifth quintile, and this was far below the "lagger" of 91 per cent of the earlier period.
Second, of what growth there was, it was distributed extremely unequally . And the growth
rates for those in lower quintiles were generally lower than for those above them: for the bottom
quintile, their real income grew only 14 per cent over the 1973-2001 period; for the second quintile,
19 percent; for the third, 29 percent; for the fourth, 42 percent; and for the 80-95 percent, 58
percent: loosely speaking, the rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer.
Why the change? I think two things in particular. First, as industrialized countries recovered
from World War II, corporations based in these countries could again compete with those from the
US -- first in their own home countries, and then through importing into the US , and then ultimately
when they invested in the United States . Think of Toyota : they began importing into the US in the
early 1970s, and with their investments here in the early '80s and forward, they now are the largest
domestic US auto producer.
Second cause for the change has been the deterioration of the American labor movement: from 35.3
per cent of the non-agricultural workforce in unions in 1954, to only 12.0 per cent of all American
workers in unions in 2006 -- and only 7.4 per cent of all private industry workers are unionized,
which is less than in 1930!
This decline in unionization has a number of reasons. Part of this deterioration has been the
result of government policies -- everything from the crushing of the air traffic controllers when
they went on strike by the Reagan Administration in 1981, to reform of labor law, to reactionary
appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees administration of labor law. Certainly
a key government policy, signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, has been the North American
Free Trade Act or NAFTA. One analyst came straight to the point:
Since [NAFTA] was signed in 1993, the rise in the US trade deficit with Canada and Mexico
through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 US jobs. Most of
these lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is
just the most visible tip of NAFTA's impact on the US economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed
to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers' collective
bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits (Scott, 2003:
1).
These attacks by elected officials have been joined by the affects due to the restructuring of
the economy. There has been a shift from manufacturing to services. However, within manufacturing,
which has long been a union stronghold, there has been significant job loss: between July 2000 and
January 2004, the US lost three million manufacturing jobs, or 17.5 percent, and 5.2 million since
the historical peak in 1979, so that "Employment in manufacturing [in January 2004] was its lowest
since July 1950" (CBO, 2004). This is due to both outsourcing labor-intensive production overseas
and, more importantly, technological displacement as new technology has enabled greater production
at higher quality with fewer workers in capital-intensive production (see Fisher, 2004). Others have
blamed burgeoning trade deficits for the rise: " an increasing share of domestic demand for manufacturing
output is satisfied by foreign rather than domestic producers" (Bivens, 2005).
[xiii] Others have even attributed
it to changes in consumer preferences (Schweitzer and Zaman, 2006). Whatever the reason, of the 50
states, only five (Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming) did not see any job loss in manufacturing
between 1993-2003, yet 37 lost between 5.6 and 35.9 per cent of their manufacturing jobs during this
period (Public Policy Institute, 2004).
However, part of the credit for deterioration of the labor movement must be given to the labor
movement itself: the leadership has been simply unable to confront these changes and, at the same
time, they have consistently worked against any independent action by rank-and-file members.
[xiv]
However, it must be asked: are the changes in the economy presented herein merely statistical
manipulations, or is this indicating something real?
This point can be illustrated another way: by using CAGR, the Compound Annual Growth Rate. This
is a single number that is computed, based on compounded amounts, across a range of years, to come
up with an average number to represent the rate of increase or decrease each year across the entire
period. This looks pretty complex, but it is based on the same idea as compound interest used in
our savings accounts: you put in $10 today and (this is obviously not a real example) because you
get ten per cent interest, so you have $11 the next year. Well, the following year, interest is not
computed off the original $10, but is computed on the $11. So, by the third year, from your $10,
you now have $12.10. Etc. And this is what is meant by the Compound Annual Growth Rate: this is average
compound growth by year across a designated period.
Based on the numbers presented above in Figure 1, the author calculated the Compound Annual Growth
Rate by quintiles (Figure 2). The annual growth rate has been calculated for the first period, 1947-1973,
the years known as the "golden years" of US society. What has happened since then? Compare results
from the 1947-73 period to the annual growth rate across the second period, 1973-2001, again calculated
by the author.
Figure 2: Annual percentage of family income growth, by quintile, 1947-1973 compared to 1973-2001
What we can see here is that while everyone's income was growing at about the same rate in the
first period -- between 2.51 and 2.84 per cent annually -- by the second period, not only had growth
slowed down across the board, but it grew by very different rates: what we see here, again,
is that the rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer.
If these figures are correct, a change over time in the percentage of income received by each
quintile should be observable. Ideally, if the society were egalitarian, each 20 per cent of the
population would get 20 per cent of the income in any one year. In reality, it differs. To understand
Figure 3, below, one must not only look at the percentage of income held by a quintile across the
chart, comparing selected year by selected year, but one needs to look to see whether a quintile's
share of income is moving toward or away from the ideal 20 percent.
Figure 3: Percentage of family income distribution by quintile, 1947, 1973, 2001.
Population by quintiles
1947
1973
2001
Top fifth (lower limit of top 5percent, or 95th Percentile)-- $184,500
[xv]
Unfortunately, much of the data available publicly ended in 2001. However, in the summer of 2007,
after years of not releasing data any later than 2001, the Census Bureau released income data up
to 2005. It allows us to examine what has taken place regarding family income inequality during the
first four years of the Bush Administration.
Figure 4: US family income, in US dollars, growth and distribution, by quintile,
2001-2005, 2005 US dollars
Lowest 20%
Second 20%
Middle 20%
Fourth 20%
Lowest level of top 5%
2001
$26,467
$45,855
$68,925
$103,828
$180,973
2005
$25,616
$45,021
$68,304
$103,100
$184,500
Difference
(4 years)
-$851
(-3.2%)
-$834
(-1.8%)
-$621
(-.01%)
-$728
(-.007%)
$3,527
(1.94%)
Source: US Census Bureau at
www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f01ar.html
. (Over time, the Census Bureau refigures these amounts, so they have subsequently converted
amounts to 2006 dollar values. These values are from their 2005 dollar values, and were calculated
by the Census Bureau.) Differences and percentages calculated by author.
Thus, what we've seen under the first four years of the Bush Administration is that for at most
Americans, their economic situation has worsened: not only has over all economic growth for any quintile
slowed to a minuscule 1.94 per cent at the most, but that the bottom 80 per cent actually lost income;
losing money (an absolute loss), rather than growing a little but falling further behind the top
quintile (a relative loss). Further, the decrease across the bottom four quintiles has been suffered
disproportionately by those in the lowest 40 per cent of the society.
This can perhaps be seen more clearly by examining CAGR rates by period.
We can now add the results of the 2001-2005 period share of income by quintile to our earlier
chart:
Figure 5: Percentage of income growth per year by percentile, 1947-2005
As can be seen, the percentage of family income at each of the four bottom quintiles is less in
2005 than in 1947; the only place there has been improvement over this 58-year period is at the 95th
percentile (and above).
Figure 6: Percentage of family income distribution by quintile, 1947, 1973, 2001, 2005.
Population by quintiles
1947
1973
2001
2005
Top fifth (lower limit of top 5percent, or 95th Percentile)-- $184,500
What has been presented so far, regarding changes in income distribution, has been at the group
level; in this case, quintile by quintile. It is time now to see how this has affected the society
overall.
Sociologists and economists use a number called the Gini index to measure inequality. Family income
data has been used so far, and we will continue using it. A Gini index is fairly simple to use. It
measures inequality in a society. A Gini index is generally reported in a range between 0.000 and
1.000, and is written in thousandths, just like a winning percentage mark: three digits after the
decimal. And the higher the Gini score, the greater the inequality.
Looking at the Gini index, we can see two periods since 1947, when the US Government began computing
the Gini index for the country. From 1947-1968, with yearly change greater or smaller, the trend
is downward, indicating reduced inequality: from .376 in 1947 to .378 in 1950, but then downward
to .348 in 1968. So, again, over the first period, the trend is downward.
What has happened since then? From the low point in 1968 of .348, the trend has been upward. In
1982, the Gini index hit .380, which was higher than any single year between 1947-1968, and the US
has never gone below .380 since then. By 1992, it hit .403, and we've never gone back below .400.
In 2001, the US hit .435. But the score for 2005 has only recently been published: .440 (source:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f04.html
). So, the trend is getting worse, and with the policies established under George W. Bush, I
see them only continuing to increase in the forthcoming period. [And by the way, this increasing
trend has continued under both the Republicans and the Democrats, but since the Republicans have
controlled the presidency for 18 of the last 26 years (since 1981), they get most of the credit --
but let's not forget that the Democrats have controlled Congress across many of those years, so they,
too, have been an equal opportunity destroyer!]
However, one more question must be asked: how does this income inequality in the US, compare to
other countries around the world? Is the level of income inequality comparable to other "developed"
societies, or is it comparable to "developing" countries?
We must turn to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for our data. The CIA computes Gini scores
for family income on most of the countries around the world, and the last time checked in 2007 (August
1), they had data on 122 countries on their web page and these numbers had last been updated on July
19, 2007 (US Central Intelligence Agency, 2007). With each country listed, there is a Gini score
provided. Now, the CIA doesn't compute Gini scores yearly, but they give the last year it was computed,
so these are not exactly equivalent but they are suggestive enough to use. However, when they do
assemble these Gini scores in one place, they list them alphabetically, which is not of much comparative
use (US Central Intelligence Agency, 2007).
However, the World Bank categorizes countries, which means they can be compared within category
and across categories. The World Bank, which does not provide Gini scores, puts 208 countries into
one of four categories based on Gross National Income per capita -- that's total value of goods and
services sold in the market in a year, divided by population size. This is a useful statistic, because
it allows us to compare societies with economies of vastly different size: per capita income removes
the size differences between countries.
The World Bank locates each country into one of four categories: lower income, lower middle income,
upper middle income, and high income (World Bank, 2007a). Basically, those in the lower three categories
are "developing" or what we used to call "third world" countries, while the high income countries
are all of the so-called developed countries.
The countries listed by the CIA with their respective Gini scores were placed into the specific
World Bank categories in which the World Bank had previously located them (World Bank, 2007b). Once
grouped in their categories, median Gini scores were computed for each group. When trying to get
one number to represent a group of numbers, median is considered more accurate than an average, so
the median was used, which means half of the scores are higher, half are lower -- in other words,
the data is at the 50th percentile for each category.
The Gini score for countries, by Gross National Income per capita, categorized by the World Bank:
Figure 7: Median Gini Scores by World Bank income categories (countries selected by US Central
Intelligence Agency were placed in categories developed by the World Bank) and compared to 2004 US
Gini score as calculated by US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Income category
Median Gini score
Gini score, US (2004)
Low income countries (less than $875/person/year)
.406
.450
Lower-middle income countries (between $876-3,465/person/year)
.414
.450
Upper-middle income countries (between $3,466-10,725/person/year
.370
.450
Upper-income countries (over $10,726/person/year
.316
.450
As can be seen, with the (CIA-calculated) Gini score of .450, the US family income is more
unequal than the medians for each category, and is more unequal than some of the poorest countries
on earth, such as Bangladesh (.318 -- calculated in 2000), Cambodia (.400, 2004 est.), Laos (.370-1997),
Mozambique (.396, 1996-97), Uganda (.430-1999) and Vietnam (.361, 1998). This same finding also holds
true using the more conservative Census Bureau-calculated Gini score of .440.
Thus, the US has not only become more unequal over the 35 years, as has been demonstrated above,
but has attained a level of inequality that is much more comparable to those of developing countries
in general and, in fact, is more unequal today than some of the poorest countries on Earth. There
is nothing suggesting that this increasing inequality will lessen anytime soon. And since this increasing
income inequality has taken place under the leadership of both major political parties, there is
nothing on the horizon that suggests either will resolutely address this issue in the foreseeable
future regardless of campaign promises made.
However, to move beyond discussion of whether President Obama is likely to address these and related
issues, some consideration of governmental economic policies is required. Thus, he will be constrained
by decisions made by previous administrations, as well as by the ideological blinders worn by those
he has chosen to serve at the top levels of his administration.
3) Governmental economic policies
There are two key points that are especially important for our consideration: the US Budget and
the US National Debt. They are similar, but different -- and consideration of each of them enhances
understanding.
A) US budget. Every year, the US Government passes a budget, whereby governmental officials
estimate beforehand how much money needs to be taken in to cover all expenses. If the government
actually takes in more money than it spends, the budget is said to have a surplus; if it takes in
less than it spends, the budget is said to be in deficit.
Since 1970, when Richard Nixon was President, the US budget has been in deficit every year
except for the last four years under Clinton (1998-2001), where there was a surplus. But this
surplus began declining under Clinton -- it was $236.2 billion in 2000, and only $128.2 billion in
2001, Clinton 's last budget. Under Bush, the US has gone drastically into deficit: -$157.8 billion
in 2002; -$377.6 billion in 2003; -$412.7 billion in 2004; -$318.3 billion in 2005; and "only"-$248.2
billion in 2006 (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-78).
Now, that is just yearly surpluses and deficits. They get combined with all the other surpluses
and deficits since the US became a country in 1789 to create to create a cumulative amount, what
is called the National Debt.
B) US national debt. Between 1789 and1980 -- from Presidents Washington through
Carter -- the accumulated US National Debt was $909 billion or, to put it another way, $.909 trillion.
During Ronald Reagan's presidency (1981-89), the National Debt tripled, from $.9 trillion to $2.868
trillion. It has continued to rise. As of the end of 2006, 17 years later and after a four-year period
of surpluses where the debt was somewhat reduced, National Debt (or Gross Federal Debt) was $8.451
trillion (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-78).
To put it into context: the US economy, the most productive in the world, had a Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) of $13.061 trillion in 2006, but the National Debt was $8.451 trillion -- 64.7 per
cent of GDP -- and growing (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-1).
In April 2006, one investor reported that "the US Treasury has a hair under $8.4 trillion in outstanding
debt. How much is that? He put it into this context: " if you deposited one million dollars into
a bank account every day, starting 2006 years ago, that you would not even have ONE trillion dollars
in that account" (Van Eeden, 2006).
Let's return to the budget deficit: like a family budget, when one spends more than one brings
in, they can do basically one of three things: (a) they can cut spending; (b) they can increase taxes
(or obviously a combination of the two); or (c) they can take what I call the "Wimpy" approach.
For those who might not know this, Wimpy was a cartoon character, a partner of "Popeye the Sailor,"
a Saturday morning cartoon that was played for over 30 years in the United States . Wimpy had a great
love for hamburgers. And his approach to life was summed up in his rap: "I'll gladly give you two
hamburgers on Tuesday, for a hamburger today."
What is argued is that the US Government has been taking what I call the Wimpy approach to its
budgetary problems: it does not reduce spending, it does not raise taxes to pay for the increased
expenditures -- in fact, President Bush has cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans
[xvi] -- but instead it sells
US Government securities, often known as Treasuries, to rich investors, private corporations or,
increasingly, to other countries to cover the budget deficit. In a set number of years, the US Government
agrees to pay off each bond -- and the difference between what the purchaser bought them for and
the increased amount the US Government pays to redeem them is the cost of financing the Treasuries,
a certain percentage of the total value. By buying US Treasuries, other countries have helped keep
US interest rates low, helping to keep the US economy in as good of shape as it has been (thus, keeping
the US market flourishing for them), while allowing the US Government not to have to confront its
annual deficits. At the end of 2006, the total value of outstanding Treasuries -- to all investors,
not just other countries -- was $8.507 trillion (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-87).
It turns out that at in December 2004, foreigners owned approximately 61 per cent of all outstanding
US Treasuries. Of that, seven per cent was held by China ; these were valued at $223 billion (Gundzik,
2005).
The percentage of foreign and international investors' purchases of the total US public debt since
1996 has never been less than 17.7 percent, and it has reached a high of 25.08 per cent in September
2006. In September 2006, foreigners purchased $2.134 trillion of Treasuries; these were 25.08 per
cent of all purchases, and 52.4 per cent of all privately-owned purchases (Economic Report of the
President, 2007: Table B-89). [xvii]
Altogether, "the world now holds financial claims amounting to $3.5 trillion against the United
States , or 26 per cent of our GDP" (Humpage and Shenk, 2007: 4).
Since the US Government continues to run deficits, because the Bush Administration has refused
to address this problem, the United States has become dependent on other countries buying Treasuries.
Like a junky on heroin, the US must get other investors (increasingly countries) to finance
its budgetary deficits.
To keep the money flowing in, the US must keep interest rates high -- basically, interest rates
are the price that must be paid to borrow money. Over the past year or so, the Federal Reserve has
not raised interest rates, but prior to that, for 15 straight quarterly meetings, they did. And,
as known, the higher the interest rate, the mostly costly it is to borrow money domestically, which
means increasingly likelihood of recession -- if not worse. In other words, dependence on foreigners
to finance the substantial US budget deficits means that the US must be prepared to raise interests
rates which, at some point, will choke off domestic borrowing and consumption, throwing the US economy
into recession. [xviii]
Yet this threat is not just to the United States -- according to the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), it is a threat to the global economy. A story about a then-recently issued report by the IMF
begins, "With its rising budget deficit and ballooning trade imbalance, the United States is running
up a foreign debt of such record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial stability of
the global economy ." The report suggested that net financial obligations of the US to the rest of
the world could equal 40 per cent of its total economy if nothing was done about it in a few years,
"an unprecedented level of external debt for a larger industrial country" according to the report.
What was perhaps even more shocking than what the report said was which institution said it: "The
IMF has often been accused of being an adjunct of the United States , its largest shareholder" (Becker
and Andrews, 2004).
Other analysts go further. After discussing the increasingly risky nature of global investing,
and noting that "The investor managers of private equity funds and major banks have displaced national
banks and international bodies such as the IMF," Gabriel Kolko (2007) quotes Stephen Roach, Morgan
Stanley's chief economist, on April 24, 2007: "a major financial crisis seemed imminent and that
the global institutions that could forestall it, including the IMF, the World Bank and other mechanisms
of the international financial architecture, were utterly inadequate." Kolko recognizes that things
may not collapse immediately, and that analysts could be wrong, but still concludes, "the transformation
of the global financial system will sooner or later lead to dire results" (Kolko, 2007: 5).
What might happen if investors decided to take their money out of US Treasuries and, say, invest
in Euro-based bonds? The US would be in big trouble, would be forced to raise its interest
rates even higher than it wants -- leading to possibly a severe recession -- and if investors really
shifted their money, the US could be observably bankrupt; the curtain hiding the "little man" would
be opened, and he would be observable to all.
Why would investors rather shift their investment money into Euro-bonds instead of US Treasuries?
Well, obviously, one measure is the perceived strength of the US economy. To get a good idea of how
solid a country's economy is, one looks at things such as budget deficits, but perhaps even more
importantly balance of trade: how well is this economy doing in comparison with other countries?
The US international balance of trade is in the red and is worsening: -$717 billion in
2005. In 1991, it was -$31 billion. Since 1998, the US trade balance has set a new record for being
in the hole every year, except during 2001, and then breaking the all time high the very next
year! -$165 B in 1998; -$263 B in 1999; -$378 B in 2000; only -$362 B in 2001; -$421 B in 2002;
-$494 B in 2003; -$617 B in 2004; and - $717 B in 2005 (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table
B-103). According to the Census Department, the balance of trade in 2006 was -$759 billion (US Census
Bureau, 2007).
And the US current account balance, the broadest measure of a country's international financial
situation -- which includes investment inside and outside the US in addition to balance of trade
-- is even worse: it was -$805 B in 2005, or 6.4 per cent of national income. "The bottom line is
that a current account deficit of this unparalleled magnitude is unsustainable and there is no hope
of it being painlessly resolved through higher exports alone," according to one analyst (quoted in
Swann, 2006). Scott notes that the current account deficit in 2006 was -$857 billion (Scott, 2007a:
8, fn. 1). "In effect, the United States is living beyond its means and selling off national assets
to pay its bills" (Scott, 2007b: 1).
[xix]
In addition, during mid-2007, there was a bursting of a domestic "housing bubble," which has threatened
domestic economic well-being but that ultimately threatens the well-being of global financial markets.
There had been a tremendous run-up in US housing values since 1995 -- with an increase of more than
70 per cent after adjusting for the rate of inflation -- and this had created "more than $8 trillion
in housing wealth compared with a scenario in which house prices had continued to rise at the same
rate of inflation," which they had done for over 100 years, between 1890 and 1995 (Baker, 2007: 8).
This led to a massive oversupply of housing, accompanied with falling house prices: according
to Dean Baker, "the peak inventory of unsold new homes of 573,000 in July 2006 was more than 50 per
cent higher than the previous peak of 377,000 in May of 1989" (Baker, 2007: 12-13). This caused massive
problems in the sub-prime housing market -- estimates are that almost $2 trillion in sub-prime loans
were made during 2005-06, and that about $325 billion of these loans will default, with more than
1 million people losing their homes (Liedtke, 2007) -- but these problems are not confined to the
sub-prime loan category: because sub-prime and "Alt-A" mortgages (the category immediately above
sub-prime) financed 40 per cent of the housing market in 2006, "it is almost inevitable that the
problems will spill over into the rest of the market" (Baker, 2007: 15). And Business Week
agrees: "Subprime woes have moved far beyond the mortgage industry." It notes that at least five
hedge funds have gone out of business, corporate loans and junk bonds have been hurt, and the leveraged
buyout market has been hurt (Goldstein and Henry, 2007).
David Leonhardt (2007) agrees with the continuing threat to the financial industry. Discussing
"adjustable rate mortgages" -- where interest rates start out low, but reset to higher rates, resulting
in higher mortgage payments to the borrower -- he points out that about $50 billion of mortgages
will reset during October 2007, and that this amount of resetting will remain over $30 billion monthly
through September 2008. "In all," he writes," the interest rates on about $1 trillion worth of mortgages
or 12 per cent of the nation's total, will reset for the first time this year or next."
Why all of this is so important is because bankers have gotten incredibly "creative" in creating
new mortgages, which they sell to home buyers. Then they bundle these obligations and sell to other
financial institutions and which, in turn, create new securities (called derivatives) based on these
questionable new mortgages. Yes, it is basically a legal ponzi scheme, but it requires the continuous
selling and buying of these derivatives to keep working: in early August 2007, however, liquidity
-- especially "financial instruments backed by home mortgages" -- dried up, as no one wanted to buy
these instruments (Krugman, 2007). The US Federal Research and the European Central Bank felt it
necessary to pump over $100 billion into the financial markets in mid-August 2007 to keep the international
economy solvent (Norris, 2007).
So, economically, this country is in terrible shape -- with no solution in sight.
On top of this -- as if all of this is not bad enough -- the Bush Administration is asking for
another $481.4 billion for the Pentagon's base budget, which it notes is "a 62 per cent increase
over 2001." Further, the Administration seeks an additional $93.4 billion in supplemental funds for
2007 and another $141.7 billion for 2008 to help fund the "Global War on Terror" and US operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan (US Government, 2007). According to Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute (SIPRI), in 2006, the US "defense" spending was equivalent to 46 per cent of all military
spending in the world, meaning that almost more money is provided for the US military in one year
than is spent by the militaries of all the other countries in the world combined (SIPRI, 2007).
And SIPRI's accounting doesn't include the $500 billion spent so far, approximately, on wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq .
In short, not only have things gotten worse for American working people since 1973 -- and especially
after 1982, with the imposition of neoliberal economic policies by institutions of the US Government
-- but on-going Federal budget deficits, the escalating National Debt, the need to attract foreign
money into US Treasuries, the financial market "meltdown" as well as the massive amounts of money
being channeled to continue the Empire, all suggest that not only will intensifying social problems
not be addressed, but will get worse for the foreseeable future.
4) Synopsis
This analysis provides an extensive look at the impact of neoliberal economic policies enacted
in the United States on American working people. These neoliberal economic policies have been enacted
as a conscious strategy by US corporate leaders and their governmental allies in both major political
parties as a way to address intensifying globalization while seeking to maintain US dominance over
the global political economy.
While it will be a while before anyone can determine success or failure overall of this elite
strategy but, because of is global-historical perspective, sufficient evidence is already available
to evaluate the affects of these policies on American working people. For the non-elites of this
country, these policies have had a deleterious impact and they are getting worse. Employment data
in manufacturing, worsening since 1979 but especially since 2000 (see Aronowitz, 2005), has been
horrific -- and since this has been the traditional path for non-college educated workers to be able
to support themselves and their families, and provide for their children, this data suggests social
catastrophe for many -- see Rubin (1995), Barnes (2005), and Bageant (2007), and accounts in Finnegan
(1998) and Lipper (2004) that support this -- because comparable jobs available to these workers
are not being created. Thus, the problem is not just that people are losing previously stable, good-paying
jobs -- as bad as that is -- but that there is nothing being created to replace these lost jobs,
and there is not even a social safety net in many cases that can generally cushion the blow (see
Wilson, 1996; Appelbaum, Bernhardt, and Murnane, eds., 2003).
Yet the impact of these social changes has not been limited to only blue-collar workers, although
the impact has been arguably greatest upon them. The overall economic growth of the society has been
so limited since 1973, and the results increasingly being unequally distributed since then, that
the entire society is becoming more and more unequal: each of the four bottom quintiles -- the bottom
80 per cent of families -- has seen a decrease in the amount of family income available to each quintile
between 2001-05. This not only increases inequality and resulting resentments -- including criminal
behaviors -- but it also produces deleterious affects on individual and social health (Kawachi, Kennedy
and Wilkinson, eds., 1999; Eitzen and Eitzen Smith, 2003). And, as shown above, this level of inequality
is much more comparable internationally to "developing" countries rather than "developed" ones.
When this material is joined with material on the US budget, and especially the US National Debt,
it is clear that these "problems" are not the product of individual failure, but of a social order
that is increasingly unsustainable. While we have no idea of what it will take before the US economy
will implode, all indications are that US elites are speeding up a run-away train of debt combined
with job-destroying technology and off-shoring production, creating a worsening balance of trade
with the rest of the world and a worsening current account, with an unstable housing market and intensifying
militarism and an increasingly antagonistic foreign policy: it is like they are building a bridge
over an abyss, with a train increasingly speeding up as it travels toward the bridge, and crucial
indicators suggest that the bridge cannot be completed in time.
Whether the American public will notice and demand a radical change in time is not certain --
it will not be enough to simply slow the train down, but it must turn down an alternative track (see
Albert, 2003; Woodin and Lucas, 2004; Starr, 2005) -- but it is almost certain that foreign investors
will. Should they not be able to get the interest rates here available elsewhere in the "developed"
parts of the world, investors will shift their investments, causing more damage to working people
in the United States .
And when this economic-focused analysis is joined with an environmental one -- George Monbiot
(2007) reports that the best science available argues that industrialized countries have to reduce
their carbon dioxide emissions by 90 per cent by the year 2030 if we are to have a chance to stop
global warming -- then it is clear that US society is facing a period of serious social instability.
5) Conclusion
This article has argued that the situation for working people in the United States, propelled
by the general governmental adoption of neoliberal economic policies, is getting worse -- and there
is no end in sight. The current situation and historical change have been presented and discussed.
Further, an examination and analysis of directly relevant US economic policies have been presented,
and there has been nothing in this analysis that suggests a radical, but necessary, change by US
elected officials is in sight. In other words, working people in this country are in bad shape generally
-- and it is worse for workers of color than for white workers -- and there is nothing within the
established social order that suggests needed changes will be effected.
The neoliberal economic policies enacted by US corporate and government leaders has been a social
disaster for increasing numbers of families in the United States .
Globalization for profit -- or what could be better claimed to be "globalization from above" --
and its resulting neoliberal economic policies have long-been recognized as being a disaster for
most countries in the Global South. This study argues that this top-down globalization and the accompanying
neoliberal economic policies has been a disaster for working people in northern countries as well,
and most particularly in the United States .
The political implications from these findings remains to be seen. Surely, one argument is not
only that another world is possible, but that it is essential.
[Kim Scipes is assistant professor of sociology , Purdue University, North Central, Westville
, IN 46391. The author's web site is at
http://faculty.pnc.edu/kscipes .This paper was given at the 2009 Annual Conference of the United
Association for Labor Education at the National Labor College in Silver Spring , MD. It has been
posted at Links International Journal of Socialist
Renewal with Kim Scipes' permission.]
* * *
Note to labor educators: This is a very different approach than you usually take. While
presenting a "big picture," this does not suggest what you are doing is "wrong" or "bad." What it
suggests, however, is that the traditional labor education approach is too limited: this suggests
that your work is valuable but that you need to put it into a much larger context than is generally
done, and that it is in the interaction between your work and this that we each can think out the
ways to go forward. This is presented in the spirit of respect for the important work that each of
you do on a daily basis.
I think the key to collapse of Soviet society and its satellites was the victory of
neoliberal ideology over communism. It was pure luck for neoliberalism was that its triumphal
march over the globe coincide with deep crisis of both communist ideology and the Soviet elite
(nomenklatura) in the USSR. Hapless, mediocre Gorbachov, a third rate politician who became the
leader of the USSR is a telling example here. Propaganda, especially "big troika" (BBC,
Deutsche Welle and
Voice of America), also played a very important role in this. Especially in Baltic countries and
Ukraine.
Domestic fake new industry always has huge advantage over foreign one in the USA and other
Western countries, because of general cultural dominance of the West.
The loss of effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda now is the same as the reason for loss of
effectiveness of communist propaganda since 60th. In the first case it was the crisis of
communist ideology, in the second is the crisis of neoliberal ideology. Everybody now understands
that the neoliberal promises were fake, and "bait and switch" manuver that enriched the tiny
percentage of population (top 1% and even more 0.01%).
When the society experience the crisis of ideology it became inoculated toward official
propaganda -- it simply loses its bite.
Notable quotes:
"... As the The Economist notes, a 2015 survey of the top 94 cable channels in America by the research firm Nielsen found that RT did not even make it into the rankings, capturing only 0.04 percent of viewers, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Board. ..."
"... RT has claimed dominance on YouTube, an assertion that apparently caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence community, which noted that RT videos get 1 million views a day, far surpassing other outlets. ..."
"... Or as media-effects theorists explain the communication process, the intentions of the producer (Soviet Union) and the conventions of the content (communist propaganda) were interwoven in a strategy aimed at influencing the receiver (the American audience). But the majority of Americans, with the exception of a few hard-core ideologues, interpreted the content of the message as pitiful Soviet propaganda, assuming they even paid attention to it. ..."
"... There is no doubt that Moscow, which regarded President Harry Truman as its leading American political nemesis, was hoping that Progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace would win the 1948 election -- and had tailored its propaganda effort in accordance with that goal. That pro-Wallace campaign took place at a time when the American Communist Party still maintained some influence in the United States, where many Americans still sympathized with the former World War II ally and a large number of Soviet spies were operating in the country. But then Wallace's Progressives ended up winning 2.5 percent of the vote, less than Strom Thurmond's Southern segregationist ticket. ..."
"... Yet we are supposed to believe that by employing RT, Sputnik, Facebook, Twitter, and a bunch of hackers, the Russians could help their American candidate "steal" the 2016 presidential election. Is there any evidence that those white blue-collar workers and rural voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan -- the people who provided Trump with his margin of victory -- were even exposed to the reports distributed by RT and Sputnik, or by the memes constructed by Russian trolls or their posts on Facebook? ("Hey, did you watch RT last night?") ..."
"... Yet the assertion that a "silver bullet shot from a media gun" in the form of Russian propaganda was able "to penetrate a hapless audience" in the United States has been gaining more adherents in Washington and elsewhere. This conspiracy seems to correlate the intent of the Russian government and the content of their messages with the voting behavior of Americans. ..."
"... In a strange irony, those who are promoting this fallacious assertion may -- unlike their Russian scapegoat -- actually succeed in penetrating a hapless American audience. ..."
The Russians can dish it out, but don't expect Americans to swallow everything.
During the Cold War, it became an article of faith among Western policymakers and
journalists: One of the most effective ways to discredit the leaders of Communist countries
would be to provide their citizens with information from the West. It was a view that was
shared by Soviet Bloc regimes who were worried that listening to the Voice of America (VOA) or
watching Western television shows would induce their people to take political action against
the rulers.
So it was not surprising that government officials in East Germany, anxious that many TV
stations from West Germany could be viewed by their citizens, employed numerous means!such as
jamming the airwaves and even damaging TV antennas that were pointing west!in order to prevent
the so-called "subversive" western broadcasts from reaching audiences over the wall.
After the Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989, communication researchers studying public attitudes
in former East German areas assumed that they would discover that those who had access to West
German television!and were therefore exposed to the West's political freedom and economic
prosperity!were more politically energized and willing to challenge the communist regime than
those who couldn't watch Western television.
But as Evgeny Morozov recalled in his Net Delusion: The
Dark Side of Internet Freedom , a study conducted between 1966 and 1990 about incipient
protests in the so-called "Valley of the Clueless"!an area in East Germany where the government
successfully blocked Western television signals!raised questions about this conventional
wisdom.
As it turns out, having access to West German television actually made life in East Germany
more endurable. Far from radicalizing its citizens, it seemed to have made them more
politically compliant. As one East German dissident quoted by Morozov lamented, "The whole
people could leave the country and move to the West as a man at 8pm, via television."
Meanwhile, East German citizens who did not have access to Western German television were
actually more critical of their regime, and more politically restless.
The study concluded that "in an ironic twist for Marxism, capitalist television seems to
have performed the same narcotizing function in communist East Germany that Karl Marx had
attributed to religious beliefs in capitalist society when he condemned religion as the 'opium
of the people.'"
Morozov refers to the results of these and other studies to raise an interesting idea:
Western politicians and pundits have predicted that the rise of the Internet, which provides
free access to information to residents of the global village, would galvanize citizens in
Russia and other countries to challenge their authoritarian regimes. In reality, Morozov
contends that exposure to the Internet may have distracted Russian users from their political
problems. The young men who should be leading the revolution are instead staying at home and
watching online pornography. Trotsky, as we know, didn't tweet.
Yet the assumption that the content of the message is a "silver bullet shot from a media gun
to penetrate a hapless audience," as communication theorists James Arthur Anderson and Timothy
P. Meyer put it, remains popular among politicians and pundits today, despite ample evidence to
the contrary.
Hence the common assertion that a presidential candidate who has raised a lots of money and
can spend it on buying a lots of television commercials, has a clear advantage over rivals who
cannot afford to dominate the media environment. But the loser in the 2016 presidential race
spent about $141.7 million on ads, compared with $58.8 million for winner's campaign, according
to NBC News . Candidate Trump also spent a fraction of what his Republican rivals had
during the Republican primaries that he won.
Communication researchers like Anderson and Meyers are not suggesting that media messages
don't have any effect on target audiences, but that it is quite difficult to sell ice to
Eskimos. To put it in simple terms, media audiences are not hapless and passive. Although you
can flood them with messages that are in line with your views and interests, audiences actively
participate in the communication process. They will construct their own meaning from the
content they consume, and in some cases they might actually disregard your message.
Imagine a multi-billionaire who decides to produce thousands of commercials celebrating the
legacy of ISIS, runs them on primetime American television, and floods social media with
messages praising the murderous terrorist group. If that happened, would Americans be rallying
behind the flag of ISIS? One can imagine that the response from audiences would range from
anger to dismissal to laughter.
In 2013 Al Jazeera Media Network
purchased Current
TV , which was once partially owned by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, and launched
an American news channel. Critics expressed concerns that the network, which is owned by the
government of Qatar and has been critical of U.S. policies in the Middle East, would try to
manipulate American audiences with their anti-Washington message.
Three years later, after hiring many star journalists and producing mostly straight news
shows, Al Jazeera America CEO Al Anstey announced that the network would cease
operations. Anstey cited the "economic landscape" which was another way of saying that its
ratings were distressingly low. The relatively small number of viewers who watched Al
Jazeera America 's programs considered them not anti-American but just, well, boring.
You don't have to be a marketing genius to figure out that in the age of the 24/7 media
environment, foreign networks face prohibitive competition from American cable news networks
like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, social media, not to mention Netflix and yes, those online porno
sites. Thus the chances that a foreign news organization would be able to attract large
American audiences, and have any serious impact on their political views, remain very low.
That, indeed, has been the experience of not only the defunct Al Jazeera America ,
but also of other foreign news outlets that have tried to imitate the Qatar-based network by
launching operations targeting American audiences. These networks have included CGTN (China
Global Television Network), the English-language news channel run by Chinese state broadcaster
China Central
Television ; PressTV, a 24-hour English language news and documentary network affiliated
with Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting ; or RT (formerly Russia Today), a Russian international television network funded by the
Russian
government that operates cable and satellitetelevision channels directed to
audiences outside of Russia.
After all, unless you are getting to paid to watch CTGN, PressTV, or RT -- or you are a news
junkie with a lot of time on your hands -- why in the world would you be spending even one hour of
the day watching these foreign networks?
Yet if you have been following the coverage and public debate over the alleged Russian
interference in the 2016 presidential election, you get the impression that RT and another
Russian media outlet, Sputnik (a news agency and radio broadcast service established by the
Russian
government-controlled news agency Rossiya Segodnya ), were central players
in a conspiracy between the Trump presidential campaign and the Kremlin to deny the presidency
to Hillary Clinton.
In fact, more than half of the much-cited January report on the Russian electoral
interference released by U.S. intelligence agencies was devoted to warning of RT's growing
influence in the United States and across the world, referring to the "rapid expansion" of the
network's operations and budget to about $300 million a year, and citing the supposedly
impressive audience numbers listed on the RT website.
According to America's spooks, the coordinated activities of RT and the online-media
properties and social-media accounts that made up "Russia's state-run propaganda machine" have
been employed by the Russian government to "undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic
order."
And in a long cover story in TheNew York Times Magazine this month, with the
headline, "
RT, Sputnik and Russia's New Theory of War, " Jim Rutenberg suggested that the Kremlin has
"built one of the most powerful information weapons of the 21st century" and that it "may be
impossible to stop."
But as the British Economist magazine reported early this year, while RT claims to
reach 550 million people worldwide, with America and Britain supposedly being its most
successful markets, its "audience" of 550 million refers to "the number of people who can
access its channel, not those who actually watch it."
As the The Economist notes, a 2015 survey of the top 94 cable channels in America by
the research firm Nielsen found that RT did not even make it into the rankings, capturing only
0.04 percent of viewers, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Board.
The Times' s Rutenberg argues that the RT's ratings "are almost beside the point." RT
might not have amassed an audience that remotely rivals CNN's in conventional terms, "but in
the new, 'democratized' media landscape, it doesn't need to" since "the network has come to
form the hub of a new kind of state media operation: one that travels through the same diffuse
online channels, chasing the same viral hits and memes, as the rest of the
Twitter-and-Facebook-age media."
Traveling "through the same diffuse online channels" and "chasing the same viral hits and
memes" sounds quite impressive. Indeed, RT has claimed dominance on YouTube, an assertion that
apparently caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence community, which noted that RT videos
get 1 million views a day, far surpassing other outlets.
But as The Economist points out, when it comes to Twitter and Facebook, RT's reach is
narrower than that of other news networks. Its claim of YouTube success is mostly down to the
network's practice of buying the rights to sensational footage -- for instance, Japan's 2011
tsunami -- and repackaging it with the company logo. It's not clear, however, how the
dissemination of a footage of a natural disaster or of a dog playing the piano helps efforts to
"undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."
It is obvious that the Russian leaders have been investing a lot of resources in RT,
Sputnik, and other media outlets, and that they employ them as propaganda tools aimed at
promoting their government's viewpoints and interests around the world. From that perspective,
these Russian media executives are heirs to the communist officials who had been in charge of
the propaganda empire of the Soviet Union and its satellites during much of the 20th
Century.
The worldwide communist propaganda machine did prove to be quite effective during the Great
Depression and World War II, when it succeeded in tapping into the economic and social
anxieties and anti-Nazi sentiments in the West and helped strengthen the power of the communist
parties in Europe and, to some extent, in the United States.
But in the same way that Western German television programs failed to politically energize
East Germans during the Cold War, much of the Soviet propaganda distributed by the Soviet Union
at that time had very little impact on the American public and its political attitudes, as
symbolized by the shrinking membership of the American Communist Party.
Or as media-effects theorists explain the communication process, the intentions of the
producer (Soviet Union) and the conventions of the content (communist propaganda) were
interwoven in a strategy aimed at influencing the receiver (the American audience). But the
majority of Americans, with the exception of a few hard-core ideologues, interpreted the
content of the message as pitiful Soviet propaganda, assuming they even paid attention to
it.
Soviet propaganda may have scored limited success during the Cold War when it came to
members of the large communist parties in France, Italy, and Japan, as well as exploited
anti-American sentiments in some third-world countries. In these cases, the intentions of the
producer and the convention of the message seemed to be in line with the interpretations of the
receivers.
There is no doubt that Moscow, which regarded President Harry Truman as its leading American
political nemesis, was hoping that Progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace would win
the 1948 election -- and had tailored its propaganda effort in accordance with that goal. That
pro-Wallace campaign took place at a time when the American Communist Party still maintained
some influence in the United States, where many Americans still sympathized with the former
World War II ally and a large number of Soviet spies were operating in the country. But then
Wallace's Progressives ended up winning 2.5 percent of the vote, less than Strom Thurmond's
Southern segregationist ticket.
Yet we are supposed to believe that by employing RT, Sputnik, Facebook, Twitter, and a bunch
of hackers, the Russians could help their American candidate "steal" the 2016 presidential
election. Is there any evidence that those white blue-collar workers and rural voters in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan -- the people who provided Trump with his margin of victory -- were
even exposed to the reports distributed by RT and Sputnik, or by the memes constructed by
Russian trolls or their posts on Facebook? ("Hey, did you watch RT last night?")
Yet the assertion that a "silver bullet shot from a media gun" in the form of Russian
propaganda was able "to penetrate a hapless audience" in the United States has been gaining
more adherents in Washington and elsewhere. This conspiracy seems to correlate the intent of
the Russian government and the content of their messages with the voting behavior of
Americans.
In a strange irony, those who are promoting this fallacious assertion may -- unlike their
Russian scapegoat -- actually succeed in penetrating a hapless American audience.
Leon Hadar is a writer and author of the books Quagmire: America in the Middle East and
Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East. His articles have appeared in the New York Times,
The Washington Post, Washington Times, The Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy,
and the National Interest.
For an example of the success of propaganda, look at Breitbart. The messages online during
the 2016 election were pervasive and insidious. I think this post underestimates the threat
by focusing on traditional media instead of social interaction.
RT covered Assange during the election better than other outlets.
It's easy to see everything from a personal perspective and forget that we are very
diverse. We don't live in an ABC, CBS, and NBC world anymore, with information controlled.
Changes in thought and belief happen online now, in many, many different venues.
A government that has confidence in its own support doesn't need to fight foreign
information. In the '30s and '40s the US government encouraged shortwave listening, and
manufacturers made money by adding SW bands to their radios. We were going through a
depression and then a war, but our government was CONFIDENT enough to encourage us to
understand the world.
Since 1950 the government has been narrowing the focus of external input because it knows
that it no longer has the natural consent of the governed. TV and the Web are intentional
forms of jamming, filling our eyes and ears with internally produced nonsense to crowd out
the external info.
The ones you have to worry about are those much closer to home – "inside the tent".
Friends in the UK, Canada, and Europe are appalled at the distorting effect Israeli
propaganda has on American news sources, and how unaware of it typical Americans seem to
be.
Indeed, it is odd and more than a little worrying that all the concern about "foreign
meddling" has so far failed to engage with Israel, which is hands down the best funded, most
sophisticated and successful foreign meddler.
The FBI annually reports that Israel spies on us at the same level as Russia and China.
But we have yet to fully register that Israeli spying includes systematic efforts to
influence American elections and policies, efforts that dwarf those of Putin's Russia both in
scale and impact.
I think that the corporate masters of propaganda media and politics in these United States,
have, in the words of Edward G. Robinson's Rico in Little Caesar, "gotten to where you can
dish it out, but you can't take it anymore."
It's counterfactual to conflate Soviet propaganda with the perspective of Russians today,
unless Communism never really was the real point. In fact, it's our own leaders in media and
politics who now increasingly issue dogmatic and insulting derogatory language, sounding more
and more like late Soviet propagandists themselves.
So what? What's wrong with people being exposed to a broad array of points of view, trying
to better understand the world and constantly challenging, refining, and reshaping their
worldview in the process?
You're coming perilously close to suggesting that Americans who are critical of their
government are dupes of hostile foreign powers ! an unfair, unhelpful, and undemocratic
assertion.
The problem with Russian trolls is that people don't know they are Russian trolls. They think
they are their fellow Americans and neighbors on Facebook. The influence of foreign
propaganda on Americans is not due to transparent media like Al Jazeera. It's due to
propaganda disguised as your neighbor's opinion.
this conversation cant be taken serious without a serious discussion on Israel, who by the
way provides the perfect case and point of how effective foreign propaganda can be. They work
through our media, school systems and even our churches. Just look at what happened to McGraw
Hill for daring to show before and after maps of the Palestine over the years.
Garrett 's book
The People's Pottage The Revolution Was-Ex America-Rise of Empire i ncludes a timeless quote on U.S. foreign policy. "You are imperialistic
all the same, whether you realize it or not... You are trying to make the kind of world you want. You are trying to impose the American
way of life on other people, whether they want it or not." The "Rise of Empire" opens with the sentence "We have crossed the boundary
between Republic and Empire." It contains a critical view of President Truman's usurpation of Congress' power to declare war. Some of
the "distinguishing marks" of an empire taken from history were "Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy" and " A system
of satellite nations". I think most of us are would be familiar with those two in modern context. His labeling of this policy as the
"Empire of the Bottomless Purse" was historically accurate.
The book was printed in 1953. What's amazing is how little some political ideology has changed since then. Take this quote; "And
the mere thought of 'America First', associated as that term is with 'isolationism', has become a liability so extreme that politicians
feel obliged to deny ever having entertained it." Think back to Ron Paul's 2008 campaign and how he was labeled an "isolationist" for
similar views of nationalism.
Notable quotes:
"... These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order. ..."
"... Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself. ..."
"... That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it becomes a "prisoner of history" in a trap of its own making. He writes, "A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power." ..."
"... Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire -- imprisonment -- comes directly after the two components of "a system of satellite nations" and, "a complex of vaunting and fear." ..."
"... An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America's modern system of satellites. "We must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid -- though that is vital -- it also means real programs of economic and technical assistance." ..."
"... Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere of fear -- real or created -- drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those policies. ..."
"... Empire has "'less control over its own fate than a republic,' he [Garrett] commented because it was a 'prisoner of history', ruled by fear. Fear of what? 'Fear of the barbarian.'" ..."
"... It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy's savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties, police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each other. ..."
"... The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also "vaunting." Vaunting means boasting about or praising something excessively -- for example, to laud and exaggerate America's role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest; vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that "there is soon a point from which there is no turning back .The argument for going on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, 'Shall we break the heart of the world?' So now many are saying, 'We cannot let the free world down'. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like." ..."
The Roman Empire never doubted that it was the defender of civilization. Its good intentions were peace, law and order. The Spanish
Empire added salvation. The British Empire added the noble myth of the white man's burden. We have added freedom and democracy.
-- Garet Garrett, Rise of Empire
The first step in creating Empire is to morally justify the invasion and occupation of another nation even if it poses no credible
or substantial threat. But if that's the entering strategy, what is the exit one?
One approach to answering is to explore how Empire has arisen through history and whether the process can be reversed. Another
is to conclude that no exit is possible; an Empire inevitably self-destructs under the increasing weight of what it is -- a nation
exercising ultimate authority over an array of satellite states. Empires are vulnerable to overreach, rebellion, war, domestic turmoil,
financial exhaustion, and competition for dominance.
In his monograph Rise of Empire, the libertarian journalist Garet Garrett (1878–1954), lays out a blueprint for how Empire could
possibly be reversed as well as the reason he believes reversal would not occur. Garrett was in a unique position to comment insightfully
on the American empire because he'd had a front-row seat to events that cemented its status: World War II and the Cold War. World
War II America already had a history of conquest and occupation, of course, but, during the mid to late 20th century, the nation
became a self-consciously and unapologetic empire with a self-granted mandate to spread its ideology around the world.
A path to reversing Empire
Garrett identifies the first five components of Empire:
The dominance of executive power: the White House reigns over Congress and the judiciary.
The subordination of domestic concerns to foreign policy: civil and economic liberties give way to military needs.
The rise of a military mentality: aggressive patriotism and obedience are exalted.
A system of satellite nations (vassals) in the name of collective security ;
A zeitgeist of both zealous patriotism and fear : bellicosity is mixed with and sustained by panic.
These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that
an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order.
Garrett did not directly address the strategy of undoing Empire, but his description of its creation can be used to good advantage.
The first step is to break down each component of Empire into more manageable chunks. For example, the executive branch accumulates
power in various ways. They include:
By delegation -- Congress transfers its constitutional powers to the president.
By reinterpretation of the Constitution by a sympathetic Supreme Court.
Through innovation by which the president assumes powers that are not constitutionally forbidden because the Framers never
considered them.
By administrative agencies that issue regulations with the force of law.
Through usurpation -- the president confronts Congress with a fait accompli that cannot easily be repudiated.Entanglement
in foreign affairs makes presidential power swell because, both by tradition and the Constitution, foreign affairs are his
authority.
Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process
presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself.
A sixth component of Empire
But in Rise of Empire, Garet Garrett offers a chilling assessment based on his sixth component of Empire. There is no path out.
A judgment that renders prevention all the more essential.
That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it
becomes a "prisoner of history" in a trap of its own making. He writes, "A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that
will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act
upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power."
In his book For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard expands on Garrett's point: "[The] United States, like previous empires, feel[s]
itself to be 'a prisoner of history.' For beyond fear lies 'collective security,' and the playing of the supposedly destined American
role upon the world stage."
Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire --
imprisonment -- comes directly after the two components of "a system of satellite nations" and, "a complex of vaunting and fear."
Satellite nations
"We speak of our own satellites as allies and friends or as freedom loving nations," Garrett wrote. "Nevertheless, satellite is
the right word. The meaning of it is the hired guard." Why hired? Although men of Empire speak of losing China [or] Europe [how]
could we lose China or Europe, since they never belonged to us? What they mean is that we may lose a following of dependent people
who act as an outer guard."
An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial
and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to
satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America's modern system of satellites. "We
must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security
and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid -- though that is vital -- it also means real programs of
economic and technical assistance."
In contrast to a Republic, Empire is both a master and a servant because foreign pressure cements it into the military and economic
support of satellite nations around the globe, all of which have their own agendas.
Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere
of fear -- real or created -- drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those
policies. In his introduction to Garrett's book Ex America, Bruce Ramsey addresses Garrett's point. Ramsey writes, Empire
has "'less control over its own fate than a republic,' he [Garrett] commented because it was a 'prisoner of history', ruled by fear.
Fear of what? 'Fear of the barbarian.'"
It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy's
savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties,
police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each
other.
The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also "vaunting." Vaunting means boasting about or praising something
excessively -- for example, to laud and exaggerate America's role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest;
vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of
power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that
the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that "there is soon a point from which there is no turning back .The argument for going
on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, 'Shall we break the heart of the world?' So now many are saying, 'We cannot let the
free world down'. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like."
Conclusion
In this manner, Garrett believed, Empire imprisons itself in the trap of a perpetual war for peace and stability, which are always
stated goals. Yet, as Garrett concluded, the reality is war and instability.
It is not clear whether he was correct that Empire could not be reversed. Whether or not he was, it is at its creation that Empire
is best opposed.
It looks like Trump initially has a four point platform that was anti-neoliberal in its essence:
Non-interventionism. End the wars for the expansion of American neoliberal empire.
Détente was Russia. Abolishing NATO and saving money on this. Let European defend themselves.
Etc.
No to neoliberal globalization. Abolishing of transnational treaties that favor large
multinationals such as TPP, NAFTA, etc. Tariffs and other means of punishing corporations who
move production overseas. Repatriation of foreign profits to the USA and closing of tax holes
which allow to keep profits in tax heavens without paying a dime to the US government.
No to neoliberal "transnational job market" -- free movement of labor. Criminal prosecution
and deportation of illegal immigrants. Cutting intake of refugees. Curtailing legal immigration,
especially fake and abused programs like H1B. Making it more difficult for people from countries
with substantial terrorist risk to enter the USA including temporary prohibition of issuing visas
from certain (pretty populous) Muslim countries.
No to the multiculturalism. Stress on "Christian past" and "white heritage" of American
society and the role of whites in building the country. Rejection of advertising "special rights"
of minorities such as black population, LGBT, etc. Promotion them as "identity wedges" in elections
was the trick so dear to DemoRats and, especially Hillary and Obama.
That means that Trump election platform on an intuitive level has caught several important problem
that were created in the US society by dismantling of the "New Deal" and rampant neoliberalism practiced
since Reagan ("Greed is good" mantra).
Of cause, after election he decided to practice the same "bait and switch" maneuver as Obama.
Generally he folded in less then 100 days. Not without help from DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats)
which created a witch hunt over "Russian ties" with their dreams of the second Watergate.
But in any case, this platform still provides a path to election victory in any forthcoming election,
as problems listed are real , are not solved, and are extremely important for lower 90% of Americans.
Tulsi Gabbard so far is that only democratic politician that IMHO qualifies. Sanders is way too old
and somewhat inconsistent on No.1.
Frank was the first to note this "revolutionary" part of Tramp platform:
Last week, I decided to watch several hours of Trump speeches for myself. I saw the man ramble
and boast and threaten and even seem to gloat when protesters were ejected from the arenas in
which he spoke. I was disgusted by these things, as I have been disgusted by Trump for 20 years.
But I also noticed something surprising. In each of the speeches I watched, Trump spent a good
part of his time talking about an entirely legitimate issue, one that could even be called left-wing.
Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about
it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build
a wall along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame.
He did it again during the debate on 3 March: asked about his political excommunication by
Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about trade.
It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies
that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those
companies' CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US.
"... Now however that very same technological advancement is hollowing out blue collar jobs and even white collar jobs. ..."
"... I suspect the rich will depend more and more on robots plus a few servants to serve their needs, hence the masses of workers and consumers will no longer be needed. ..."
"... The coup that transformed the relationship between British politics and journalism began at a quiet Sunday lunch at Chequers, the official country retreat of the prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. She was trailing in the polls, caught in a recession she had inherited, eager for an assured cheerleader at a difficult time. Her guest had an agenda too. He was Rupert Murdoch, eager to secure her help in acquiring control of nearly 40% of the British press. ..."
"... the unregulated nature of neo liberalism and unrestrained greed bordering on psychopathy that rules the corporate world inexorably led to a system that is rigged and corrupt to the core. ..."
"... Politicians and the media are owned by the same corporations that set the narrative and bend the rules. How else would it be possible, in the era of ultimate access to information, in two of the most advanced countries in the world, to have election results that favor the exact parties who had no arguments and no facts on their side? ..."
"... There is no center left in the US and the UK, as far as I can tell. There hasn't been for decades. You cannot give all the tools of power (politicians that make the legislation, and media to promote the narrative) to a very tiny minority and be anything other than center right at least. Take Obama, for example, which is painted as center left, or liberal, by the US mainstream media, which is just laughable. Even if he promoted his "socialist" Obamacare (which is way less progressive than what Nixon had in mind), he's been actively promoting the same rigged system where lobbyists and corporations for big pharma can force the politicians, through the legal bribery that is the current electoral process, to ignore the will of the majority of people and abolish the ACA, as if it were never in place. Same with gun control - 90% of Americans are in favour of some sort of background checks? Eff them, the NRA lobbyists, their money and propaganda tools are easily making sure that whatever the will of the majority is, it will never get into any piece of legislation. ..."
"... Hayek was woefully ignorant to human nature. He didn't account for inherited wealth or class systems. Until these things are dismantled, it's impossible to have a genuinely free market with a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is the ideology of children who didn't get their needs met or suffered abuse or neglect. The more adverse child experiences one suffers, the greater the danger they pose to everyone else, and they seem to gravitate to warped belief systems where compassion or relying on others is deemed deeply shameful ..."
"... For a long time, people on the (real?) left who were denouncing the effects of ultra liberalism were seen as dangerous idealists, plain commies or immature kids. The tide seems to be slowly shifting but it will probably get worse before it gets better. ..."
"... An interesting point of view but probably too late. Trump will never dismantle neoliberalism. His rhetoric is hot air and he has no answers to the complex problems of the 21st century. ..."
"... No Trump does not have the answers that are needed to address neoliberalism. A sharp short economic collapse will not change the pathway we are all on. If we look back to the Great Depression, Hoover followed by Roosevelt shows us what is likely to transpire, there would have to be something else in the mix to bring about real change. ..."
"... In anycase Hayek's philosophies are really just an extension of what was going on during the Great Depression, the pathway to neoliberalism had it's seeds going back before this period. ..."
"... neoliberal innovation generally its also about disempowerment and ultimately rent capitalism based neo-feudal enslavement. ..."
"... Those of is who've been warning of the failure of neoliberalism in both economic and civic terms don't need convincing, and it's increasingly obvious that by defensively ignoring dissenting voices the political consensus was sowing the seeds of its own demise. Now, instead of having to work with social democrats to reinvest, to responsibly regulate, to strengthen social bonds, they have to pander to a brew breed of fascists, who they have created. ..."
"... It's not one or the other. Both globalisation and automation have taken jobs away. We exported a large amount of our manufacturing to where labour was cheaper ( far east , china etc). ..."
"... To describe Clinton as liberal, in the American tradition, is realistic, but to describe her as 'left', apart from as an opposite to far-right, makes as much sense as calling John Major or Ted Heath Marxists. ..."
Neo-liberalism has had the advantage that technological advancements have lifted the standard
of living for all up to this point. They can claim that as their win since capitalism and competition
have driven at least the retail products, distribution and take up.
Now however that very same technological advancement is hollowing out blue collar jobs
and even white collar jobs.
What to do with all those people who aren't PhD material and don't have employment and a resulting
claim of the wealth? What will be the result if there is no social democratic solution to the
dilemma?
I suspect the rich will depend more and more on robots plus a few servants to serve their
needs, hence the masses of workers and consumers will no longer be needed. Wars and famines
will be useful in reducing the population but the ruling class may have to resort to death camps
to eliminate the surplus. Violent revolution could be a response.
"We found out last Tuesday." A result more like chopping off one's collective nose to spite your
face? The difference is between looking into a sewer and out of rage jumping into it.
The coup that transformed the relationship between British politics and journalism began
at a quiet Sunday lunch at Chequers, the official country retreat of the prime minister, Margaret
Thatcher. She was trailing in the polls, caught in a recession she had inherited, eager for an
assured cheerleader at a difficult time. Her guest had an agenda too. He was Rupert Murdoch, eager
to secure her help in acquiring control of nearly 40% of the British press.
The usual tiresome drivel where anyone you disagree with is a neoliberal. Just with monbiot it's
dressed up better because he's a good writer. Just a couple of the obvious flaws:
Hayek is summarised briefly and painted as bad, so clearly everything he believed in must be
bad. There's no attempt to justify why say, free trade is bad. It's just taken as a given
Despite this, the us election was the most protectionist since the war. Clinton is owing to
populism when she knows trade is good, but trump was just a straightforward appeal to populist
anger. What this has to do with neoliberalism is anyone's guess
The climate change bit is just hilarious. Having painted the entire Clinton and Blair legacy
as neo liberal, he then claims it is neo liberals who will assault all that is decent starting
with climate change. The fact that they have constantly accepted climate change and supported
all the efforts to curb it (including Paris) is just ignored
In summary, this is the same kind of boring assault on anyone who disagrees with the article
self appointed progressive left that led to 'red tories' and other lazy labels. Trump and brexit
are populist in nature, propelled by ignorance. It doesn't make the centre left neo liberal just
because they accept the basic premise of a free market
"Hayek is summarised briefly and painted as bad, so clearly everything he believed in must
be bad. "
Must've missed that in the article. Anyway, I agree with Monbiot in what I think is the core
of the article: the unregulated nature of neo liberalism and unrestrained greed bordering
on psychopathy that rules the corporate world inexorably led to a system that is rigged and corrupt
to the core.
Politicians and the media are owned by the same corporations that set the narrative and
bend the rules. How else would it be possible, in the era of ultimate access to information, in
two of the most advanced countries in the world, to have election results that favor the exact
parties who had no arguments and no facts on their side?
How is it possible that a lot, if not a majority of Americans, think that universal healthcare
and education are bad things? How on Earth can people living in countries where the system is
so skewed that the people responsible for the 2008 depression never spent a day in jail, think
that the root of all their ills are a Mexican and a Polish chaps? How can one complain about poor
people or immigrants taking advantage of the public funding, their "hard earned money", and being
proud to support someone who admits publicly of not paying taxes for years?
How can so many people be capable of this type of mental gymnastics if the winners of this
greed contest wouldn't have twisted the system and imposed the narrative for many years?
"It doesn't make the centre left neo liberal just because they accept the basic premise of
a free market"
There is no center left in the US and the UK, as far as I can tell. There hasn't been for
decades. You cannot give all the tools of power (politicians that make the legislation, and media
to promote the narrative) to a very tiny minority and be anything other than center right at least.
Take Obama, for example, which is painted as center left, or liberal, by the US mainstream media,
which is just laughable. Even if he promoted his "socialist" Obamacare (which is way less progressive
than what Nixon had in mind), he's been actively promoting the same rigged system where lobbyists
and corporations for big pharma can force the politicians, through the legal bribery that is the
current electoral process, to ignore the will of the majority of people and abolish the ACA, as
if it were never in place. Same with gun control - 90% of Americans are in favour of some sort
of background checks? Eff them, the NRA lobbyists, their money and propaganda tools are easily
making sure that whatever the will of the majority is, it will never get into any piece of legislation.
In a summary of my own: yes, if you put in place the tools that allow a bunch of plutocrats
to corrupt a system so it always works in their favour, and most of the times against the popular
will, you ARE a red tory or a DINO.
George, Margaret Thatcher was one of your lot, wasn't she? She was one of the world's first national
leaders to stress the need for action on climate change and fight the war on coal. Here are some
extracts from her speech to the UN delivered in November 1989. It reads a lot like some of your
articles. You didn't ghost write it, did you? If not, clearly, you and Maggie drew your inspiration
from some of the same sources.
We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere.
The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial
Revolution still remains in the atmosphere.
At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale
of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air.
Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed.
At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests
in the humid tropical zones.[fo 3]
The consequences of this become clearer when one remembers that tropical forests fix
more than ten times as much carbon as do forests in the temperate zones.
We now know, too, that great damage is being done to the Ozone Layer by the production
of halons and chlorofluorocarbons. But at least we have recognised that reducing and eventually
stopping the emission of CFCs is one positive thing we can do about the menacing accumulation
of greenhouse gases.
It is of course true that none of us would be here but for the greenhouse effect. It
gives us the moist atmosphere which sustains life on earth. We need the greenhouse effect!but
only in the right proportions.
More than anything, our environment is threatened by the sheer numbers of people and
the plants and animals which go with them. When I was born the world's population was some
2 billion people. My [ Michael Thatcher] grandson will grow up in a world of more than 6 billion
people.
Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people,
and their activities: The land they cultivate ever more intensively; The forests they cut down
and burn; The mountain sides they lay bare; The fossil fuels they burn; The rivers and the
seas they pollute.....
Let me quote from a letter I received only two weeks ago, from a British scientist on
board a ship in the Antarctic Ocean: he wrote, "In the Polar Regions today, we are seeing what
may be early signs of man-induced climatic change. Data coming in from Halley Bay and from
instruments aboard the ship on which I am sailing show that we are entering a Spring Ozone
depletion which is as deep as, if not deeper, than the depletion in the worst year to date.
It completely reverses the recovery observed in 1988. The lowest recording aboard this ship
is only 150 Dobson units for Ozone total content during September, compared with 300 for the
same season in a normal year." That of course is a very severe depletion.
He also reports on a significant thinning of the sea ice, and he writes that, in the
Antarctic, "Our data confirm that the first-year ice, which forms the bulk of sea ice cover,
is remarkably thin and so is probably unable to sustain significant atmospheric warming without
melting. Sea ice, separates the ocean from the atmosphere over an area of more than 30 million
square kilometres. It reflects most of the solar radiation falling on it, helping to cool the
earth's surface. If this area were reduced, the warming of earth would be accelerated due to
the extra absorption of radiation by the ocean."
"The lesson of these Polar processes," he goes on, "is that an environmental or climatic
change produced by man may take on a self-sustaining or 'runaway' quality ... and may be irreversible."
That is from the scientists who are doing work on the ship that is presently considering these
matters.
These are sobering indications of what may happen and they led my correspondent to put
forward the interesting idea of a World Polar Watch, amongst other initiatives, which will
observe the world's climate system and allow us to understand how it works.
Brilliant comment Tamlin thanks for posting. I didn't realise the 'blonde beast' had such solid
environmental insights. You only have to peep over the channel to France to see Hayek and Thatcher
were on the mark, whilst Mitterrand and other statist socialists were so horribly wrong. If only
there were more politicians today that were as committed, hard working and wise as Thatcher.
Current ideas put human self-interest at dead centre but neglected to take into account how all
systems are rigged to benefit those that put them in place.
Loading the dice:
1) Capitalism. The Aristocracy were there during the transition from Feudalism
to Capitalism and barely noticed the difference as their life of luxury and leisure continued
as before. Capitalism contains a welfare state for the idle rich.
2) The monetary system. Banks create money out of nothing for loans and collect interest
on this money they magic out of thin air. Governments borrow money off private banks and taxation
has to be used to pay back the interest. The monetary system is a levy on all taxpayers.
3) The legal system. Expensive barristers provide the mechanism for the rich to increase
their chance of winning the case.
4) The education system. A two tier, private and state, education system ensures the
wealthy can give their children a better start in life.
The system is fully loaded. If we tell them it's a meritocracy and it is the best that get
to the top hopefully they will believe it. What would a meritocracy really look like?
1) In a meritocracy everyone succeeds on their own merit. This is obvious, but to succeed
on your own merit, we need to do away the traditional mechanisms that socially stratify society
due to wealth flowing down the generations. Anything that comes from your parents has nothing
to do with your own effort.
2) There is no un-earned wealth or power, e.g inheritance, trust funds, hereditary titles
In a meritocracy we need equal opportunity for all. We can't have the current two tier education
system with its fast track of private schools for people with wealthy parents.
3) There is a uniform schools system for everyone with no private schools. As
the children of the wealthy wouldn't be able to succeed on a level playing field we can't have
one.
Even when the system was fully loaded already the wealthy work tirelessly and relentlessly
to bias the system even more, they couldn't believe their luck when the ideas of neoliberalism
appeared.
The system is now so biased the IMF is worried about global aggregate demand as the global
consumer has been impoverished. The debt that papered over the cracks is maxing out and the system
is collapsing.
Any system will be biased by those that put it in place.
Left to their own devices they will carry on biasing the system until it eventually fails.
"The Marxian capitalist has infinite shrewdness and cunning on everything except matters
pertaining to his own ultimate survival. On these, he is not subject to education. He continues
wilfully and reliably down the path to his own destruction"
Seconded as a good post But I don't like the, "in a meritocracy we need equal opportunity for
all" as it too strongly suggests direct assistance and so implies idleness or entitlement. I would
prefer that: in a meritocracy no one is actively suppressed, that is everyone is given the opportunity
to try to succeed without discrimination, prejudice, funny handshakes, unmerited (not means tested)
backhanders/benefits.
Hayek was woefully ignorant to human nature. He didn't account for inherited wealth or class
systems. Until these things are dismantled, it's impossible to have a genuinely free market with
a natural hierarchy of winners and losers.
"The key task now is to tell a new story of what it is to be a human in the 21st century."
People's despair has been hijacked by demagogues and they elected the gravedigger to get them
out of a pit. As it happened so often in history. Both here and in the US, and the picture of
the unelected, private, political non-entity Farage to stage a grin-fest with Trump is unbearable.
We need to learn that we are part of something bigger which is worth preserving and we have
to come together to do this. We have to establish a circular economy where ideologies such as
captalism have no place. This goes past politics and left-right. Otherwise we have to learn this
the hard way. Our planet will force us. When the last drop of oil is pumped out of the ground,
when all the water has been polluted, when the number of wild species is reduced to rats, cockroaches,
ants and humans, when the heat is unbearable and the oceans are full of acid: Then we will learn
how to work together to preserve our species.
If we haven't blown each other up in the meantime in a fight for resources .
I worry for our children.
My sister is a generous donor to the Catholic Church. She prays for me constantly, not least because
of my libertarian leanings -- and because I am as gay as a goose, queer as an ... um, er ... Canadian
goose. Now my sister is very defensive about the Jesuit pope, who shuns Trump but embraces Castro
and Maduro. Because of culture, the words of the Ave Maria and the Credo come to me in Latin.
Hayek makes sense, but mostly because of his interplay with Keynes.
Hayek obviously made sense to Margaret Thatcher too, daughter of a shop keeper and raised a Methodist.
She was once interviewed for a job as a chemist with the company I used to work for but was rejected,
rumour had it for not being assertive enough. A talented girl with a good upbringing who became
a prisoner and ultimately victim of the establishment.
Simple dichotomies never make sense.. The oversimplification of complex issues is typical of the
self-interested media manipulation resulting from a neoliberal and uncontrolled gutter press.
Hence "Brexonomics" - a creed fueled by irrationality.
Really sorry but disagree that humans are remarkably unselfish. There are many decent , caring,
striving to help individuals. But they are vastly out numbered by those who are otherwise. Every
time somebody buys a motor vehicle they are being selfish. Almost nowhere do they need it. They
want for convenience, laziness, self- grandisemnet, something to spend their money on. But they
do not need and yet its existence and use despoils and degrades.
Every time they buy cheap fashion with clothers made essentially to be thrown away they are
selfish. Every time they copulate, without using contraception and without wanting the resulting
baby they are selfsih. Even if they want the baby, after the first two, why? They are being selfish.
Every time they invade somewhere, for oil or to impose an ideology whether capitalism or religion,
they are selfish.
That is not to say that Hayek, and acolytes Reagan, Thatcher and the endlessly greedy "people"
who propagate variations of their ideas should not have been burned at the stake. The problem
is those who are greedy and selfish are almost always more ruthless than those who are not.
I see your point and agree with it. Why should one person drastically reduce their enjoyment of
life to try to reduce global warming when their actions will have, essentially, no impact on total
CO2 emissions. But here's what can be done. Collective action where everyone agrees to limit
fossil fuel emissions. That's what national governments are for and that is what the UN was created
for - to find solutions for world wide problems.
Neoliberalism is the ideology of children who didn't get their needs met or suffered abuse
or neglect. The more adverse child experiences one suffers, the greater the danger they pose to
everyone else, and they seem to gravitate to warped belief systems where compassion or relying
on others is deemed deeply shameful
I am no psychologist, but it must be evident to most that, at the micro level, childhood trauma
and mental, physical and sexual abuse experienced at a young age within the family unit can lead
to the child intending to rebalance and repay the power imbalance in adult life, with invariably
adverse consequences for their environment and those around them.
Looking at the world today it is not hard to see the culmination of the sins of the father
over the centuries in the form of decent, hard-working people with no power struggles to redress
being subjected to endless and downright cruel, even vindictive actions and policies enshrined
into law and played out across the world stage by those who have abused power to make it to the
top.
And it is the socially disadvantaged and most vulnerable in society who have invariably suffered
the most, hence the vast inequality in wealth distribution which has gathered momentum in recent
years.
Brexit and Trump are a symptom, a reaction and a backlash to the traumatized child reclaiming
and abusing their power on a macro level.
Dogs are very social animals........and there are examples of unselfish behaviour in the dog world
with the likes of Greyfriars Bobby, Lassie etc etc....my little dog would defend me to the death
!.....rats of course are very different !!...
Kind of counter to sort of arguments I'd want to make on the subject but Grey Friars Bobby kept
visiting that graveyard because they didn't bury the paupers all that deep and the hungry wee
dog could get hold of a lot of juicy bones. Which I suppose is neo-liberalism summed up: the poorest
left so hungry they'll end up competing over the bones of the dead. Hopefully that last sentence
is metaphorical.
For a long time, people on the (real?) left who were denouncing the effects of ultra liberalism
were seen as dangerous idealists, plain commies or immature kids. The tide seems to be slowly
shifting but it will probably get worse before it gets better.
An interesting point of view but probably too late. Trump will never dismantle neoliberalism.
His rhetoric is hot air and he has no answers to the complex problems of the 21st century.
The only thing that will save us will be a short sharp economic collapse. It was narrowly
avoided in 2008 but all the seeds for another are there. If it happens on Trump or Mays watch
new voices can be heard and social democracy can regain the ascendency it had after 1945. There
needs to be pain before that and it wont be long before it arrives.
I suspect you're right. People are talking about Trump as thought this is endgame, we've hit the
bottom of the barrel and it can't get much worse. I think there's still a ways to go though before
people stop accepting that a change of management isn't enough anymore, and an economic crisis
worse than anything in living memory will most likely be the catalyst for change.
Sadly history tells us that as the political class gets more desperate, they'll start pointing
fingers of blame at just about everyone before they accept any responsibility, which means a lot
of unhappiness misdirected at a handful of tiny groups of people who are totally unconnected to
anything that they're being accused of.
No Trump does not have the answers that are needed to address neoliberalism. A sharp short
economic collapse will not change the pathway we are all on. If we look back to the Great Depression,
Hoover followed by Roosevelt shows us what is likely to transpire, there would have to be something
else in the mix to bring about real change.
In anycase Hayek's philosophies are really just an extension of what was going on during
the Great Depression, the pathway to neoliberalism had it's seeds going back before this period.
The most likely game changer at present is more than likely global warming, I see nothing else
on the horizon.
If you want to see a nefarious extension of neoliberal rentier debt economics George can I suggest
you have a close look at a new emerging threat in sheets clothing - the Circular Economy. This
isnt just about cuddly saving the planet. Like neoliberal innovation generally its also about
disempowerment and ultimately rent capitalism based neo-feudal enslavement.
The issue is how the political class which is currently being unseated can respond to this new
reality, how they are able to change or if they are able to. And subsequent to that, whether the
public will allow them to play any part. This is a non trivial issue: most politicians have grown
up with a dogmatic belief in this failed system, and our electorate are not in a forgiving mood.
Those of is who've been warning of the failure of neoliberalism in both economic and civic
terms don't need convincing, and it's increasingly obvious that by defensively ignoring dissenting
voices the political consensus was sowing the seeds of its own demise. Now, instead of having
to work with social democrats to reinvest, to responsibly regulate, to strengthen social bonds,
they have to pander to a brew breed of fascists, who they have created.
The political class is not being unseated though, is it? Its becoming more entrenched and with
a lot more power. There will be no checks and balances on "the God Emperor" Trump (as the American
Nazis are calling him).
Trump is not from the political class. He is from something much worse - the class of extreme
narcissist, hugely wealthy populists - but has minimal connections with the machinery of government.
For me the core problem, as ever, is that the messengers (the corporate owned media) tell the
majority that neoliberalism is just fine and the problem is with anyone who challenges this narrative.
This is why the anger gets twisted around with the masses voting for Brexit or Trump.
Globalisation resulted in the loss of jobs for many of the 99% and today May promises that
as a result of Brexit we will be going even more for globilisation. Things can only get worse
as the minority who understand the issue will be too few to overturn a Tory majority in a FPTP
system with opposition divided.
It is not globalisation that takes away the jobs but automation. Many of the jobs lost from America's
rust belt moved to other more highly automated factories in other States.
It's not one or the other. Both globalisation and automation have taken jobs away. We exported
a large amount of our manufacturing to where labour was cheaper ( far east , china etc).
Honestly, we are a few more elections away before the punters realize that no peaceful political
solutions are possible; expect armed insurrection in the USA by 2030 at most......
Trump insulted his opponents into defeat and humiliation. This is him from day one and his TV
series. At 70 dont expect this dog to learn new tricks. In fact he's proved time and again his
inability to learn.
No, fancy theories about neo-liberalism will not help us understand or predict his behaviour...
all we need to know is the pattern of the psychology of bullying and intimidation. One can only
hope he will drown in his own virulence
I think you are focusing on the wrong candidate. Clinton lost because we are fed up with the patronising
liberal left, who do not actually care about the people they purport to represent.
Granted, but the alternative we got is not the solution... its only a wild gamble with the Tarot
cards of Armageddon. Oh well, ours is not to reason why.. etc
To describe Clinton as liberal, in the American tradition, is realistic, but to describe her
as 'left', apart from as an opposite to far-right, makes as much sense as calling John Major or
Ted Heath Marxists.
Good article, and goes some way to explaining the economics but it doesn't quite explain the huge
ideological shift of the traditional working classes away from the political Left. I'm afraid
Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens as well as mainstream media, particularly Ch 4 and the BBC, suppressed
any criticism of multi-culturalism and immigration while blatantly ignoring, disregarding and,
far worse, actually disparaging the "white working classes." If you went into any school in this
country, the walls were/ are covered with positive images of black, Asian and ethnic minorities
and lessons encourage "sharing" and positive imagery of those cultures' faiths, food, celebrations,
all good stuff!!
Except that white working class culture has been too often excluded or portrayed
super negatively and stereotypically as fish and chip eating, white van driving, boxing, football,
racist epsilons... is it a surprise that white working class kids are now performing worse than
any other? And look at any Ch 4 programme about this cohort of society: "Benefits Street"... or
news items about Brexit supporters full of imagery of toothless people, many with obvious addiction
problems and/ or special needs and mobility scooters... I remember black people used to be horrifically
subjected to the same stereotypes. So here we have the root of the problem, which is a complete
imbalance in terms of who is officially approved and encouraged in this country and who is excluded
and degraded. The "divisiveness" is owned by the Left. The lid is now off the pot but the Left
can only blame themselves!!
The thing is that the so called "white working class" is as diverse, if not more diverse ethnically
and culturally, than any other!!
It is however, portrayed as an homogenous lump (my mum is white
working class and my dad Punjabi Muslim and most where I come from highly diverse and mixed communities)
by the political class and media to feed and agenda, which is about blaming. The "white working
class" is blamed for every perceived threat ideologically and economically - they are branded
on the one hand as inherently racist, intolerant and blaming immigrants for everything; on the
other, for being inherently lazy, uneducated and low skilled and so this narrative justifies importing
300, 000 annually from overseas... people held up against the latter "highly educated and skilled"
and "hardworking"!!
Both perspectives are in fact highly propagandist and play to stereotypes- the heroic immigrant
labourer upholding our NHS and economy vs. the lazy, stupid Brit (always white and working class)
who would prevent our country and economy progressing.
One of the side-effects of these periodic moral panics that sweep through
American society --
Trayvon ,
Ferguson , Charlottesville -- is that they unmask people -- bring
out their inner nature.
Well, two weeks ago on the podcast
I said some kind words , or at least not un -kind words, about
TV talking head Charles Krauthammer. I said that while I'd written him off for
years as a, quote, "cucky neocon Israel-first GOP establishment front man,"
more recently I've been warming to him because of the mostly sensible things
he's said on Tucker Carlson's show.
Well, I'm biting my tongue. Last Tuesday on Fox News Krauthammer reverted
to cucky type, acting scandalized that Trump dared suggest there is anything
wrong with masked anarchists throwing rocks at citizens lawfully demonstrating.
Fortunately Laura Ingraham was there to counter him. I have,
as I have often noted , a very soft spot for Ms. Ingraham. Not to be shy
about it, I would walk over hot coals for her, leap the ice floes of a swollen
river for her, wrestle alligators for her.
So OK, I yield. I got Krauthammer right the first time: cucky neocon
shill.
"Shill"? A shill is a bogus competitor employed by a casino to promote
interest in the blackjack tables. Krauthammer isn't a shill.
He's had a certain political trajectory over the years: from mainline
Democrat to dissenting Democrat to mainline Republican (a trajectory traversed
over the period running from about 1979 to 1995). There is no indication
he's ever advocated anything but what he thinks or that he favors the party
he's not formally affiliated with; his antagonism to Trump is an indicator
of the crevasse which separates starboard opinion journalists from starboard
voters.
A real shill would be someone employed by the media to play a Republican.
The WaPoo hired David Weigel to do this, but the act wasn't credible after
his private correspondence was published in the Journ-O-List scandal.
Tyler Cowen, whose public writings suggest he's consumed with anxiety
about status considerations in faculty settings, might be seen as a manifestation
of libertarian pseudo-opposition on the George Mason payroll (since he never
critiques any progtrasn sacred cows). Bruce Bartlett, the Republican whose
signature is attacking other Republicans, might be considered a shill or
a poseur depending on who is paying his bills.
And, of course, 'neocon' is a nonsense term.
Krauthammer is a Canadian-reared scion of a very prosperous family. He's
lived pretty much all his life in New York, Montreal, Boston, and Washington.
His brother spent his adult life in Los Angeles. His son lives in the Bay
Area, his niece and her husband in Washington.
Between them, his parents lived in a half-dozen countries during the
course of their lives before landing in Quebec. He does not have any natural
affinity for the Trump constituency.
The best he can do is to attempt to appreciate it, and at that he is
very hit-and-miss.
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
"... Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better. ..."
"... Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'. ..."
"... It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia. ..."
"... "The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin. ..."
"... Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch. ..."
Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about
Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better.
Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'.
Ahh, the power of the apt phrase.
It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and
being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia.
Last night he was the featured guest on the most watched news show in the country, being cheered on by the host, who has him on
as a regular. And Cohen isn't remotely a conservative. He is a contributing editor at the arch-liberal Nation magazine, of which
his wife is the editor. It doesn't really get pinker than that.
Some choice quotes here, but the whole thing is worth a listen:
"The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian
President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in
this bashing of Trump and Putin.
As a historian let me tell you the headline I would write instead:
"What we witnessed today in Hamburg was a potentially historic new detente. an anti-cold-war partnership begun by Trump and
Putin but meanwhile attempts to sabotage it escalate." I've seen a lot of summits between American and Russian presidents, ...
and I think what we saw today was potentially the most fateful meeting ... since the Cold War.
The reason is, is that the relationship with Russia is so dangerous and we have a president who might have been crippled or
cowed by these Russiagate attacks ... yet he was not. He was politically courageous. It went well. They got important things done.
I think maybe today we witnessed president Trump emerging as an American statesman."
Cohen goes on to say that the US should ally with Assad, Iran, and Russia to crush ISIS, with Carlson bobbing his head up and
down in emphatic agreement.
Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring
- 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and
their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't
say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch.
Things are getting better in the US media, but we aren't quite able to call a spade a spade in the land of the free and the home
of the brave.
"... Until elites stand down and stop the brutal squeeze , expect more after painful more of this. It's what happens when societies come apart. Unless elites (of both parties) stop the push for "profit before people," policies that dominate the whole of the Neoliberal Era , there are only two outcomes for a nation on this track, each worse than the other. There are only two directions for an increasingly chaotic state to go, chaotic collapse or sufficiently militarized "order" to entirely suppress it. ..."
"... Mes petits sous, mon petit cri de coeur. ..."
"... But the elite aren't going to stand down, whatever that might mean. The elite aren't really the "elite", they are owners and controllers of certain flows of economic activity. We need to call it what it is and actively organize against it. Publius's essay seems too passive at points, too passive voice. (Yes, it's a cry from the heart in a prophetic mode, and on that level, I'm with it.) ..."
"... American Psycho ..."
"... The college students I deal with have internalized a lot of this. In their minds, TINA is reality. Everything balances for the individual on a razor's edge of failure of will or knowledge or hacktivity. It's all personal, almost never collective - it's a failure toward parents or peers or, even more grandly, what success means in America. ..."
"... unions don't matter in our TINA. Corporations do. ..."
"... our system promotes specialists and disregards generalists this leads to a population of individualists who can't see the big picture. ..."
"... That social contract is hard to pin down and define – probably has different meanings to all of us, but you are right, it is breaking down. We no longer feel that our governments are working for us. ..."
"... Increasing population, decreasing resources, increasingly expensive remaining resources on a per unit basis, unresolved trashing of the environment and an political economy that forces people to do more with less all the time (productivity improvement is mandatory, not optional, to handle the exponential function) much pain will happen even if everyone is equal. ..."
"... "Social contract:" nice Enlightment construct, out of University by City. Not a real thing, just a very incomplete shorthand to attempt to fiddle the masses and give a name to meta-livability. ..."
"... Always with the "contract" meme, as if there are no more durable and substantive notions of how humans in small and large groups might organize and interact Or maybe the notion is the best that can be achieved? ..."
"... JTMcFee, you have provided the most important aspect to this mirage of 'social contract'. The "remedies" clearly available to lawless legislation rest outside the realm of a contract which has never existed. ..."
"... Unconscionable clauses are now separately initialed in an "I dare you to sue me" shaming gambit. Meanwhile the mythical Social Contract has been atomized into 7 1/2 billion personal contracts with unstated, shifting remedies wholly tied to the depths of pockets. ..."
"... Here in oh-so-individualistic Chicago, I have been noting the fraying for some time: It isn't just the massacres in the highly segregated black neighborhoods, some of which are now in terminal decline as the inhabitants, justifiably, flee. The typical Chicagoan wanders the streets connected to a phone, so as to avoid eye contact, all the while dressed in what look like castoffs. Meanwhile, Midwesterners, who tend to be heavy, are advertisements for the obesity epidemic: Yet obesity has a metaphorical meaning as the coat of lipids that a person wears to keep the world away. ..."
"... My middle / upper-middle neighborhood is covered with a layer of upper-middle trash: Think Starbucks cups and artisanal beer bottles. ..."
"... The class war continues, and the upper class has won. As commenter relstprof notes, any kind of concerted action is now nearly impossible. Instead of the term "social contract," I might substitute "solidarity." Is there solidarity? No, solidarity was destroyed as a policy of the Reagan administration, as well as by fantasies that Americans are individualistic, and here we are, 40 years later, dealing with the rubble of the Obama administration and the Trump administration. ..."
"... The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population views the public space/environment as a shared, common good. Thus, streets, parks and public space might be soiled by litter that nobody cares to put away in trash bins properly, while simultaneously the interior of houses/apartments, and attached gardens if any, are kept meticulously clean. ..."
"... The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population views the public space/environment as a shared, common good. ..."
"... There *is* no public space anymore. Every public good, every public space is now fair game for commercial exploitation. ..."
"... The importance of the end of solidarity – that is, of the almost-murderous impulses by the upper classes to destroy any kind of solidarity. ..."
"... "Conditions will only deteriorate for anyone not in the "1%", with no sight of improvement or relief." ..."
"... "Four Futures" ..."
"... Reminds me of that one quip I saw from a guy who, why he always had to have two pigs to eat up his garbage, said that if he had only one pig, it will eat only when it wants to, but if there were two pigs, each one would eat so the other pig won't get to it first. Our current economic system in a nutshell – pigs eating crap so deny it to others first. "Greed is good". ..."
"... Don't know that the two avenues Gaius mentioned are the only two roads our society can travel. In support of this view, I recall a visit to a secondary city in Russia for a few weeks in the early 1990s after the collapse of the USSR. Those were difficult times economically and psychologically for ordinary citizens of that country. Alcoholism was rampant, emotional illness and suicide rates among men of working age were high, mortality rates generally were rising sharply, and birth rates were falling. Yet the glue of common culture, sovereign currency, language, community, and thoughtful and educated citizens held despite corrupt political leadership, the rise of an oligarchic class, and the related emergence of organized criminal networks. There was also adequate food, and critical public infrastructure was maintained, keeping in mind this was shortly after the Chernobyl disaster. ..."
Yves here. I have been saying for some years that I did not think we would see a revolution, but
more and more individuals acting out violently. That's partly the result of how community and social
bonds have weakened as a result of neoliberalism but also because the officialdom has effective ways
of blocking protests. With the overwhelming majority of people using smartphones, they are constantly
surveilled. And the coordinated 17-city paramilitary crackdown on Occupy Wall Street shows how the
officialdom moved against non-violent protests. Police have gotten only more military surplus toys
since then, and crowd-dispersion technology like sound cannons only continues to advance. The only
way a rebellion could succeed would be for it to be truly mass scale (as in over a million people
in a single city) or by targeting crucial infrastructure.
By Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to
DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius ,
Tumblr and
Facebook . GP article archive
here . Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
"[T]he super-rich are absconding with our wealth, and the plague of inequality continues
to grow. An
analysis of
2016 data found that the poorest five deciles of the world population own about $410 billion
in total wealth. As of
June 8,
2017 , the world's richest five men owned over $400 billion in wealth. Thus, on average,
each man owns nearly as much as 750 million people."
-Paul Buchheit,
Alternet
"Congressman Steve Scalise, Three Others Shot at Alexandria, Virginia, Baseball Field"
-NBC News,
June 14, 2017
"4 killed, including gunman, in shooting at UPS facility in San Francisco"
-ABC7News,
June 14, 2017
"Seriously? Another multiple shooting? So many guns. So many nut-bars. So many angry
nut-bars with guns."
-MarianneW via
Twitter
"We live in a world where "multiple dead" in San Francisco shooting can't cut through
the news of another shooting in the same day."
-SamT via
Twitter
"If the rich are determined to extract the last drop of blood, expect the victims to
put up a fuss. And don't expect that fuss to be pretty. I'm not arguing for social war; I'm
arguing for justice and peace."
-
Yours truly
When the social contract breaks from above, it breaks from below as well.
Until elites stand down and stop the
brutal squeeze , expect more after painful more of this. It's what happens when societies come
apart. Unless elites (of both parties) stop the push for "profit before people," policies that dominate
the whole of the
Neoliberal
Era , there are only two outcomes for a nation on this track, each worse than the other. There
are only two directions for an increasingly chaotic state to go, chaotic collapse or sufficiently
militarized "order" to entirely suppress it.
As with the climate, I'm concerned about the short term for sure - the storm that kills this year,
the hurricane that kills the next - but I'm also concerned about the longer term as well. If the
beatings
from "our betters" won't stop until our acceptance of their "serve the rich" policies improves,
the beatings will never stop, and both sides will take up the cudgel.
Then where will we be?
America's Most Abundant Manufactured Product May Be Pain
I look out the window and see more and more homeless people, noticeably more than last year and
the year before. And they're noticeably scruffier, less "kemp," if that makes sense to you (it does
if you live, as I do, in a community that includes a number of them as neighbors).
The squeeze hasn't let up, and those getting squeezed out of society have nowhere to drain to
but down - physically, economically, emotionally. The
Case-Deaton study speaks volumes to this point. The less fortunate economically are already dying
of drugs and despair. If people are killing themselves in increasing numbers, isn't it just
remotely maybe possible they'll also aim their anger out as well?
The pot isn't boiling yet - these shootings are random, individualized - but they seem to be piling
on top of each other. A hard-boiling, over-flowing pot may not be far behind. That's concerning as
well, much moreso than even the random horrid events we recoil at today.
Many More Ways Than One to Be a Denier
My comparison above to the climate problem was deliberate. It's not just the occasional storms
we see that matter. It's also that, seen over time, those storms are increasing, marking a trend
that matters even more. As with climate, the whole can indeed be greater than its parts. There's
more than one way in which to be a denier of change.
These are not just metaphors. The country is already in a
pre-revolutionary state ; that's one huge reason people chose Trump over Clinton, and would have
chosen Sanders over Trump. The Big Squeeze has to stop, or this will be just the beginning of a long
and painful path. We're on a track that nations we have watched - tightly "ordered" states, highly
chaotic ones - have trod already. While we look at them in pity, their example stares back at us.
But the elite aren't going to stand down, whatever that might mean. The elite aren't really
the "elite", they are owners and controllers of certain flows of economic activity. We need to
call it what it is and actively organize against it. Publius's essay seems too passive at points,
too passive voice. (Yes, it's a cry from the heart in a prophetic mode, and on that level, I'm
with it.)
"If people are killing themselves in increasing numbers, isn't it just remotely maybe possible
they'll also aim their anger out as well?"
Not necessarily. What Lacan called the "Big Other" is quite powerful. We internalize a lot
of socio-economic junk from our cultural inheritance, especially as it's been configured over
the last 40 years - our values, our body images, our criteria for judgment, our sense of what
material well-being consists, etc. Ellis's American Psycho is the great satire of our
time, and this time is not quite over yet. Dismemberment reigns.
The college students I deal with have internalized a lot of this. In their minds, TINA
is reality. Everything balances for the individual on a razor's edge of failure of will or knowledge
or hacktivity. It's all personal, almost never collective - it's a failure toward parents or peers
or, even more grandly, what success means in America.
The idea that agency could be a collective action of a union for a strike isn't even on the
horizon. And at the same time, these same students don't bat an eye at socialism. They're willing
to listen.
But unions don't matter in our TINA. Corporations do.
Most of the elite do not understand the money system. They do not understand how different
sectors have benefitted from policies and/or subsidies that increased the money flows into these.
So they think they deserve their money more than those who toiled in sectors with less support.
Furthermore, our system promotes specialists and disregards generalists this leads to a population
of individualists who can't see the big picture.
Thank you Gaius, a thoughtful post. That social contract is hard to pin down and define – probably
has different meanings to all of us, but you are right, it is breaking down. We no longer feel
that our governments are working for us.
Of tangential interest, Turnbull has just announced another gun amnesty targeting guns that
people no longer need and a tightening of some of the ownership laws.
One problem is the use of the term "social contract", implying that there is some kind of agreement
( = consensus) on what that is. I don't remember signing any "contract".
I fear for my friends, I fear for my family.
They do not know how ravenous the hounds behind nor ahead are. For myself? I imagine myself the same in a Mad Max world. It will be more clear, and perception shattering, to most whose lives allow the ignoring of
gradual chokeholds, be them political or economic, but those of us who struggle daily, yearly,
decadely with both, will only say Welcome to the party, pals.
Increasing population, decreasing resources, increasingly expensive remaining resources on
a per unit basis, unresolved trashing of the environment and an political economy that forces
people to do more with less all the time (productivity improvement is mandatory, not optional,
to handle the exponential function) much pain will happen even if everyone is equal.
Each person
does what is right in their own eyes, but the net effect is impoverishment and destruction. Life
is unfair, indeed. A social contract is a mutual suicide pact, whether you renegotiate it or not.
This is Fight Club. The first rule of Fight Club, is we don't speak of Fight Club. Go to the gym,
toughen up, while you still can.
"Social contract:" nice Enlightment construct, out of University by City. Not a real thing,
just a very incomplete shorthand to attempt to fiddle the masses and give a name to meta-livability.
Always with the "contract" meme, as if there are no more durable and substantive notions of
how humans in small and large groups might organize and interact Or maybe the notion is the best
that can be achieved? Recalling that as my Contracts professor in law school emphasized over and
over, in "contracts" there are no rights in the absence of effective remedies. It being a Boston
law school, the notion was echoed in Torts, and in Commercial Paper and Sales and, tellingly,
in Constitutional Law and Federal Jurisdiction, and even in Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure.
No remedy, no right. What remedies are there in "the system," for the "other halves" of the "social
contract," the "have-naught" halves?
When honest "remedies under law" become nugatory, there's always the recourse to direct action
of course with zero guarantee of redress
"What remedies are there in "the system," for the "other halves" of the "social contract,"
the "have-naught" halves?"
Ah yes the ultimate remedy is outright rebellion against the highest authorities .with as you
say, " zero guarantee of redress."
But, history teaches us that that path will be taken ..the streets. It doesn't (didn't) take a
genius to see what was coming back in the late 1960's on .regarding the beginnings of the revolt(s)
by big money against organized labor. Having been very involved in observing, studying and actually
active in certain groups back then, the US was acting out in other countries particularly in the
Southern Hemisphere, against any social progression, repressing, arresting (thru its surrogates)
torturing, killing any individuals or groups that opposed that infamous theory of "free market
capitalism". It had a very definite "creep" effect, northwards to the mainstream US because so
many of our major corporations were deeply involved with our covert intelligence operatives and
objectives (along with USAID and NED). I used to tell my friends about what was happening and
they would look at me as if I was a lunatic. The agency for change would be "organized labor",
but now, today that agency has been trashed enough where so many of the young have no clue as
to what it all means. The ultimate agenda along with "globalization" is the complete repression
of any opposition to the " spread of money markets" around the world". The US intends to lead;
whether the US citizenry does is another matter. Hence the streets.
JTMcFee, you have provided the most important aspect to this mirage of 'social contract'. The
"remedies" clearly available to lawless legislation rest outside the realm of a contract which
has never existed.
The Social Contract, ephemeral, reflects perfectly what contracts have become. Older rulings
frequently labeled clauses unconscionable - a tacit recognition that so few of the darn things
are actually agreed upon. Rather, a party with resources, options and security imposes the agreement
on a party in some form of crisis (nowadays the ever present crisis of paycheck to paycheck living
– or worse). Never mind informational asymmetries, necessity drives us into crappy rental agreements
and debt promises with eyes wide open. And suddenly we're all agents of the state.
Unconscionable clauses are now separately initialed in an "I dare you to sue me" shaming gambit.
Meanwhile the mythical Social Contract has been atomized into 7 1/2 billion personal contracts
with unstated, shifting remedies wholly tied to the depths of pockets.
Solidarity, of course. Hard when Identity politics lubricate a labor market that insists on
specialization, and talented children of privilege somehow manage to navigate the new entrepreneurism
while talented others look on in frustration. The resistance insists on being leaderless (fueled
in part IMHO by the uncomfortable fact that effective leaders are regularly killed or co-opted).
And the overriding message of resistance is negative: "Stop it!"
But that's where we are. Again, just my opinion: but the pivotal step away from the jackpot
is to convince or coerce our wealthiest not to cash in. Stop making and saving so much stinking
money, y'all.
and there's the Karma bec. even now we see a private banking system synthesizing an economy
to maintain asset values and profits and they have the nerve to blame it on social spending.
I think Giaus's term 'Denier' is perfect for all those vested practitioners of profit-capitalism
at any cost. They've already failed miserably. For the most part they're just too proud to admit
it and, naturally, they wanna hang on to "their" money. I don't think it will take a revolution
– in fact it would be better if no chaos ensued – just let these arrogant goofballs stew in their
own juice a while longer. They are killing themselves.
When I hear so much impatient and irritable complaint, so much readiness to replace what we
have by guardians for us all, those supermen, evoked somewhere from the clouds, whom none have
seen and none are ready to name, I lapse into a dream, as it were. I see children playing on the
grass; their voices are shrill and discordant as children's are; they are restive and quarrelsome;
they cannot agree to any common plan; their play annoys them; it goes poorly. And one says, let
us make Jack the master; Jack knows all about it; Jack will tell us what each is to do and we
shall all agree. But Jack is like all the rest; Helen is discontented with her part and Henry
with his, and soon they fall again into their old state. No, the children must learn to play by
themselves; there is no Jack the master. And in the end slowly and with infinite disappointment
they do learn a little; they learn to forbear, to reckon with another, accept a little where they
wanted much, to live and let live, to yield when they must yield; perhaps, we may hope, not to
take all they can. But the condition is that they shall be willing at least to listen to one another,
to get the habit of pooling their wishes. Somehow or other they must do this, if the play is to
go on; maybe it will not, but there is no Jack, in or out of the box, who can come to straighten
the game. -Learned Hand
Here in oh-so-individualistic Chicago, I have been noting the fraying for some time: It isn't
just the massacres in the highly segregated black neighborhoods, some of which are now in terminal
decline as the inhabitants, justifiably, flee. The typical Chicagoan wanders the streets connected
to a phone, so as to avoid eye contact, all the while dressed in what look like castoffs. Meanwhile,
Midwesterners, who tend to be heavy, are advertisements for the obesity epidemic: Yet obesity
has a metaphorical meaning as the coat of lipids that a person wears to keep the world away.
My middle / upper-middle neighborhood is covered with a layer of upper-middle trash: Think
Starbucks cups and artisanal beer bottles. Some trash is carefully posed: Cups with straws on windsills, awaiting the Paris Agreement Pixie, who will clean up after these oh-so-earnest environmentalists.
Meanwhile, I just got a message from my car-share service: They are cutting back on the number
of cars on offer. Too much vandalism.
Are these things caused by pressure from above? Yes, in part: The class war continues, and
the upper class has won. As commenter relstprof notes, any kind of concerted action is now nearly
impossible. Instead of the term "social contract," I might substitute "solidarity." Is there solidarity?
No, solidarity was destroyed as a policy of the Reagan administration, as well as by fantasies
that Americans are individualistic, and here we are, 40 years later, dealing with the rubble of
the Obama administration and the Trump administration.
DJG: My middle / upper-middle neighborhood is covered with a layer of upper-middle trash:
Think Starbucks cups and artisanal beer bottles. Some trash is carefully posed: Cups with straws
on windsills, awaiting the Paris Agreement Pixie, who will clean up after these oh-so-earnest
environmentalists.
Yes, the trash bit is hard to understand. What does it stand for? Does it mean, We can infinitely
disregard our surroundings by throwing away plastic, cardboard, metal and paper and nothing will
happen? Does it mean, There is more where that came from! Does it mean, I don't care a fig for
the earth? Does it mean, Human beings are stupid and, unlike pigs, mess up their immediate environment
and move on? Does it mean, Nothing–that we are just nihilists waiting to die? I am so fed up with
the garbage strewn on the roads and in the woods where I live; I used to pick it up and could
collect as much as 9 garbage bags of junk in 9 days during a 4 kilometer walk. I don't pick up
any more because I am 77 and cannot keep doing it.
However, I am certain that strewn garbage will surely be the last national flag waving in the
breeze as the anthem plays junk music and we all succumb to our terrible future.
Related to this, I thought one day of who probably NEVER gets any appreciation but strives
to make things nicer, anyone planning or planting the highway strips (government workers maybe
although it could be convicts also unfortunately, I'm not sure). Yes highways are ugly, yes they
will destroy the world, but some of the planting strips are sometimes genuinely nice. So they
add some niceness to the ugly and people still litter of course.
The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population views the
public space/environment as a shared, common good. Thus, streets, parks and public space might be soiled by litter that nobody cares to put away
in trash bins properly, while simultaneously the interior of houses/apartments, and attached gardens
if any, are kept meticulously clean.
Basically, the world people care about stops outside their dwellings, because they do not feel
it is "theirs" or that they participate in its possession in a genuine way. It belongs to the
"town administration", or to a "private corporation", or to the "government" - and if they feel
they have no say in the ownership, management, regulation and benefits thereof, why should they
care? Let the town administration/government/corporation do the clean-up - we already pay enough
taxes/fees/tolls, and "they" are always putting up more restrictions on how to use everything,
so
In conclusion: the phenomenon of litter/trash is another manifestation of a fraying social
contract.
The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population
views the public space/environment as a shared, common good.
There *is* no public space anymore. Every public good, every public space is now fair game
for commercial exploitation.
I live in NYC, and just yesterday as I attempted to refill my MetroCard, the machine told me
it was expired and I had to replace it. The replacement card doesn't look at all like a MetroCard
with the familiar yellow and black graphic saying "MetroCard". Instead? It's an ad. For a fucking
insurance company. And so now, every single time that I go somewhere on the subway, I have to
see an ad from Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
The importance of the end of solidarity – that is, of the almost-murderous impulses by the upper
classes to destroy any kind of solidarity. From Yves's posting of Yanis Varoufakis's analysis
of the newest terms of the continuing destruction of Greece:
With regard to labour market reforms, the Eurogroup welcomes the adopted legislation safeguarding
previous reforms on collective bargaining and bringing collective dismissals in line with best
EU practices.
I see! "Safeguarding previous reforms on collective bargaining" refers, of course, to the 2012
removal of the right to collective bargaining and the end to trades union representation for each
and every Greek worker. Our government was elected in January 2015 with an express mandate to
restore these workers' and trades unions' rights. Prime Minister Tsipras has repeatedly pledged
to do so, even after our falling out and my resignation in July 2015. Now, yesterday, his government
consented to this piece of Eurogroup triumphalism that celebrates the 'safeguarding' of the 2012
'reforms'. In short, the SYRIZA government has capitulated on this issue too: Workers' and trades'
unions' rights will not be restored. And, as if that were not bad enough, "collective dismissals"
will be brought "in line with best EU practices". What this means is that the last remaining constraints
on corporations, i.e. a restriction on what percentage of workers can be fired each month, is
relaxed. Make no mistake: The Eurogroup is telling us that, now that employers are guaranteed
the absence of trades unions, and the right to fire more workers, growth enhancement will follow
suit! Let's not hold our breath!
The so-called "Elites"? Stand down? Right.
Every year I look up the cardinal topics discussed at the larger economic forums and conferences
(mainly Davos and G8), and some variation of "The consequences of rising inequality" is a recurring
one. Despite this, nothing ever comes out if them. I imagine they go something like this:
"-Oh hi Mark. Racism is bad.
-Definitely. So is inequality, right, Tim?
-Sure, wish we could do something about it. HEY GUYS, HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT MY NEW SCHEME TO BUY
OUT NEW AND UPCOMING COMPANIES TO MAKE MORE MONEY?"
A wet dream come true, both for an AnCap and a communist conspiracy theorist. I'm by no means
either. However, I think capitalism has already failed and can't go on for much longer. Conditions
will only deteriorate for anyone not in the "1%", with no sight of improvement or relief.
"Conditions will only deteriorate for anyone not in the "1%", with no sight of improvement
or relief." Frase's Quadrant Four. Hierarchy + Scarcity = Exterminism (From "Four Futures" )
Reminds me of that one quip I saw from a guy who, why he always had to have two pigs to eat
up his garbage, said that if he had only one pig, it will eat only when it wants to, but if there
were two pigs, each one would eat so the other pig won't get to it first. Our current economic system in a nutshell – pigs eating crap so deny it to others first.
"Greed is good".
Don't know that the two avenues Gaius mentioned are the only two roads our society can travel.
In support of this view, I recall a visit to a secondary city in Russia for a few weeks in the
early 1990s after the collapse of the USSR. Those were difficult times economically and psychologically
for ordinary citizens of that country. Alcoholism was rampant, emotional illness and suicide rates
among men of working age were high, mortality rates generally were rising sharply, and birth rates
were falling. Yet the glue of common culture, sovereign currency, language, community, and thoughtful
and educated citizens held despite corrupt political leadership, the rise of an oligarchic class,
and the related emergence of organized criminal networks. There was also adequate food, and critical
public infrastructure was maintained, keeping in mind this was shortly after the Chernobyl disaster.
Here in the US the New Deal and other legislation helped preserve social order in the 1930s.
Yves also raises an important point in her preface that can provide support for the center by
those who are able to do so under the current economic framework. That glue is to participate
in one's community; whether it is volunteering at a school, the local food bank, community-oriented
social clubs, or in a multitude of other ways; regardless of whether your community is a small
town or a large city.
" Yet the glue of common culture, sovereign currency, language, community, and thoughtful and
educated citizens held despite corrupt political leadership, the rise of an oligarchic class,
and the related emergence of organized criminal networks."
None of which applies to the Imperium, of course. There's glue, all right, but it's the kind
that is used for flooring in Roach Motels (TM), and those horrific rat and mouse traps that stick
the rodent to a large rectangle of plastic, where they die eventually of exhaustion and dehydration
and starvation The rat can gnaw off a leg that's glued down, but then it tips over and gets glued
down by the chest or face or butt
I have to note that several people I know are fastidious about picking up trash other people
"throw away." I do it, when I'm up to bending over. I used to be rude about it - one young attractive
woman dumped a McDonald's bag and her ashtray out the window of her car at one of our very long
Florida traffic lights. I got out of my car, used the mouth of the McDonald's bag to scoop up
most of the lipsticked butts, and threw them back into her car. Speaking of mouths, that woman
with the artfully painted lips sure had one on her
"... [Neo]liberalism that needs monsters to destroy can never politically engage with its enemies. It can never understand those enemies as political actors, making calculations, taking advantage of opportunities, and responding to constraints. It can never see in those enemies anything other than a black hole of motivation, a cesspool where reason goes to die. ..."
"... Hence the refusal of empathy for Trump's supporters. Insofar as it marks a demand that we not abandon antiracist principle and practice for the sake of winning over a mythicized white working class, the refusal is unimpeachable. ..."
"... Such a [neo]liberalism becomes dependent on the very thing it opposes, with a tepid mix of neoliberal markets and multicultural morals getting much-needed spice from a terrifying right. Hillary Clinton ran hard on the threat of Trump, as if his presence were enough to authorize her presidency. ..."
"... Clinton waged this campaign on the belief that her neoliberalism of fear could defeat the ethnonationalism of the right. ..."
"... In the novel, what begins as a struggle against inherited privilege results in the consolidation of a new ruling class that derives its legitimacy from superior merit. This class becomes, within a few generations, a hereditary aristocracy in its own right. Sequestered within elite institutions, people of high intelligence marry among themselves, passing along their high social position and superior genes to their progeny. Terminal inequality is the result. The gradual shift from inheritance to merit, Young writes, made "nonsense of all their loose talk of the equality of man": ..."
"... Losing every young person of promise to the meritocracy had deprived the working class of its prospective leaders, rendering it unable to coordinate a movement to manifest its political will. ..."
"... A policy of benign neglect of immigration laws invites into our country a casualized workforce without any leverage, one that competes with the native-born and destroys whatever leverage the latter have to negotiate better terms for themselves. The policy is a subsidy to American agribusiness, meatpacking plants, restaurants, bars, and construction companies, and to American families who would not otherwise be able to afford the outsourcing of childcare and domestic labor that the postfeminist, dual-income family requires. At the same time, a policy of free trade pits native-born workers against foreign ones content to earn pennies on the dollar of their American counterparts. ..."
"... Four decades of neoliberal globalization have cleaved our country into two hostile classes, and the line cuts across the race divide. On one side, college students credential themselves for meritocratic success. On the other, the white working class increasingly comes to resemble the black underclass in indices of social disorganization. On one side of the divide, much energy is expended on the eradication of subtler inequalities; on the other side, an equality of immiseration increasingly obtains. ..."
[Neo]liberalism that needs monsters to destroy can never politically engage with its enemies.
It can never understand those enemies as political actors, making calculations, taking advantage
of opportunities, and responding to constraints. It can never see in those enemies anything other
than a black hole of motivation, a cesspool where reason goes to die.
Hence the refusal of empathy for Trump's supporters. Insofar as it marks a demand that we
not abandon antiracist principle and practice for the sake of winning over a mythicized white working
class, the refusal is unimpeachable. But like the know-nothing disavowal of knowledge after
9/11, when explanations of terrorism were construed as exonerations of terrorism, the refusal of
empathy since 11/9 is a will to ignorance. Far simpler to imagine Trump voters as possessed by a
kind of demonic intelligence, or anti-intelligence, transcending all the rules of the established
order. Rather than treat Trump as the outgrowth of normal politics and traditional institutions -
it is the Electoral College, after all, not some beating heart of darkness, that sent Trump to the
White House - there is a disabling insistence that he and his forces are like no political formation
we've seen. By encouraging us to see only novelty in his monstrosity, analyses of this kind may prove
as crippling as the neocons' assessment of Saddam's regime. That, too, was held to be like no tyranny
we'd seen, a despotism where the ordinary rules of politics didn't apply and knowledge of the subject
was therefore useless.
Such a [neo]liberalism becomes dependent on the very thing it opposes, with a tepid mix of
neoliberal markets and multicultural morals getting much-needed spice from a terrifying right. Hillary
Clinton ran hard on the threat of Trump, as if his presence were enough to authorize her presidency.
Where Sanders promised to change the conversation, to make the battlefield a contest between a
multicultural neoliberalism and a multiracial social democracy, Clinton sought to keep the battlefield
as it has been for the past quarter-century. In this single respect, she can claim a substantial
victory. It's no accident that one of the most spectacular confrontations since the election pitted
the actors of Hamilton against the tweets of Trump. These fixed, frozen positions - high
on rhetoric, low on action - offer an almost perfect tableau of our ongoing gridlock of recrimination.
Clinton waged this campaign on the belief that her neoliberalism of fear could defeat the
ethnonationalism of the right. Let us not make the same mistake twice. Let us not be addicted
to "the drug of danger," as Athena says in the Oresteia, to "the dream of the enemy that
has to be crushed, like a herb, before [we] can smell freedom."
The term "meritocracy" became shorthand for a desirable societal ideal soon after it was coined
by the British socialist Sir Michael Young. But Young had originally used it to describe a dystopian
future. His 1958 satirical novel, The Rise of the Meritocracy, imagines the creation and growth of
a national system of intelligence testing, which identifies talented young people from every stratum
of society in order to install them in special schools, where they are groomed to make the best use
possible of their innate advantages.
In the novel, what begins as a struggle against inherited privilege results in the consolidation
of a new ruling class that derives its legitimacy from superior merit. This class becomes, within
a few generations, a hereditary aristocracy in its own right. Sequestered within elite institutions,
people of high intelligence marry among themselves, passing along their high social position and
superior genes to their progeny. Terminal inequality is the result. The gradual shift from inheritance
to merit, Young writes, made "nonsense of all their loose talk of the equality of man":
Men, after all, are notable not for the equality, but for the inequality, of their endowment.
Once all the geniuses are amongst the elite, and all the morons are amongst the workers, what meaning
can equality have? What ideal can be upheld except the principle of equal status for equal intelligence?
What is the purpose of abolishing inequalities in nurture except to reveal and make more pronounced
the inescapable inequalities of Nature?
I thought about this book often in the years before the crack-up of November 2016. In early 2015,
the Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam published a book that seemed to tell as history the same story
that Young had written as prophecy. Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis opens with an evocation
of the small town of Port Clinton, Ohio, where Putnam grew up in the 1950s - a "passable embodiment
of the American Dream, a place that offered decent opportunity for all the kids in town, whatever
their background." Port Clinton was, as Putnam is quick to concede, a nearly all-white town in a
pre-feminist and pre-civil-rights America, and it was marked by the unequal distribution of power
that spurred those movements into being. Yet it was also a place of high employment, strong unions,
widespread homeownership, relative class equality, and generally intact two-parent families. Everyone
knew one another by their first names and almost everyone was headed toward a better future; nearly
three quarters of all the classmates Putnam surveyed fifty years later had surpassed their parents
in both educational attainment and wealth.
When he revisited it in 2013, the town had become a kind of American nightmare. In the 1970s,
the industrial base entered a terminal decline, and the town's economy declined with it. Downtown
shops closed. Crime, delinquency, and drug use skyrocketed. In 1993, the factory that had offered
high-wage blue-collar employment finally shuttered for good. By 2010, the rate of births to unwed
mothers had risen to 40 percent. Two years later, the average worker in the county "was paid roughly
16 percent less in inflation-adjusted dollars than his or her grandfather in the early 1970s."
Young's novel ends with an editorial note informing readers that the fictional author of the text
had been killed in a riot that was part of a violent populist insurrection against the meritocracy,
an insurrection that the author had been insisting would pose no lasting threat to the social order.
Losing every young person of promise to the meritocracy had deprived the working class of its
prospective leaders, rendering it unable to coordinate a movement to manifest its political will.
"Without intelligence in their heads," he wrote, "the lower classes are never more menacing
than a rabble."
We are in the midst of a global insurrection against ruling elites. In the wake of the most destructive
of the blows recently delivered, a furious debate arose over whether those who supported Donald Trump
deserve empathy or scorn. The answer, of course, is that they deserve scorn for resorting to so depraved
and false a solution to their predicament - and empathy for the predicament itself. (And not just
because advances in technology are likely to make their predicament far more widely shared.) What
is owed to them is not the lachrymose pity reserved for victims (though they have suffered greatly)
but rather a practical appreciation of how their antagonism to the policies that determined the course
of this campaign - mass immigration and free trade - was a fully political antagonism that was disregarded
for decades, to our collective detriment.
A policy of benign neglect of immigration laws invites into our country a casualized workforce
without any leverage, one that competes with the native-born and destroys whatever leverage the latter
have to negotiate better terms for themselves. The policy is a subsidy to American agribusiness,
meatpacking plants, restaurants, bars, and construction companies, and to American families who would
not otherwise be able to afford the outsourcing of childcare and domestic labor that the postfeminist,
dual-income family requires. At the same time, a policy of free trade pits native-born workers against
foreign ones content to earn pennies on the dollar of their American counterparts.
In lieu of the social-democratic provision of childcare and other services of domestic support,
we have built a privatized, ad hoc system of subsidies based on loose border enforcement - in effect,
the nation cutting a deal with itself at the expense of the life chances of its native-born working
class. In lieu of an industrial policy that would preserve intact the economic foundation of their
lives, we rapidly dismantled our industrial base in pursuit of maximal aggregate economic growth,
with no concern for the uneven distribution of the harms and the benefits. Some were enriched hugely
by these policies: the college-educated bankers, accountants, consultants, technologists, lawyers,
economists, and corporate executives who built a supply chain that reached to the countries where
we shipped the jobs. Eventually, of course, many of these workers learned that both political parties
regarded them as fungible factors of production, readily discarded in favor of a machine or a migrant
willing to bunk eight to a room.
Four decades of neoliberal globalization have cleaved our country into two hostile classes,
and the line cuts across the race divide. On one side, college students credential themselves for
meritocratic success. On the other, the white working class increasingly comes to resemble the black
underclass in indices of social disorganization. On one side of the divide, much energy is expended
on the eradication of subtler inequalities; on the other side, an equality of immiseration increasingly
obtains.
Even before the ruling elite sent the proletariat off to fight a misbegotten war, even before
it wrecked the world economy through heedless lending, even before its politicians rescued those
responsible for the crisis while allowing working-class victims of all colors to sink, the working
class knew that it had been sacrificed to the interests of those sitting atop the meritocratic ladder.
The hostility was never just about differing patterns in taste and consumption. It was also about
one class prospering off the suffering of another. We learned this year that political interests
that go neglected for decades invariably summon up demagogues who exploit them for their own gain.
The demagogues will go on to betray their supporters and do enormous harm to others.
If we are to arrest the global descent into barbarism, we will have to understand the political
antagonism at the heart of the meritocratic project and seek a new kind of politics. If we choose
to neglect the valid interests of the working class, Trump will prove in retrospect to have been
a pale harbinger of even darker nightmares to come.
Ms No PREMIUM 2 hours ago
odb 2 hours ago
FILE PHOTOS. © Reuters / Kevin Lamarque ; Reuters / Christian Hartmann 88 Follow RT on
CNN head Jeff Zucker appears to have offered Donald Trump a "weekly show" on the network in 2016, also giving tips for a presidential debate, arguing Trump could not win the race without his outlet's support, leaked audio reveals.
FILE PHOTO © REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst 15 Follow RT on
Bullet2354 Avery Bierce • 20 hours ago
,
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo © Getty Images / Alex Wong 182 1 Follow RT on
70,877
Ian MacDonald Independent Conservative, Free Thinker, America First Proponent.
FILE PHOTO. © Getty Images/Chesnot ; REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque 7 Follow RT on
Live: Watch NASA astronauts splash down near Florida in a SpaceX Crew Ground beef recall 2020: JBS Food Canada recalls more than 38,000 pounds of meat
Pompeo: Trump taking action on Chinese software firms 'in coming days'
© Greg Nash Pompeo: Trump taking action on Chinese software firms 'in coming days'
Robert Bridge
![]({"default":{"load":"defer","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB176Kck.img?h=140&w=140&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=t&l=f"},"dpi":1.4})
Live: Watch NASA astronauts splash down near Florida in a SpaceX Crew
Ground beef recall 2020: JBS Food Canada recalls more than 38,000 pounds of meat ![Mike Pompeo wearing a suit and tie: Pompeo: Trump taking action on Chinese software firms 'in coming days']({"default":{"load":"default","w":"80","h":"45","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17nA3A.img?h=630&w=1119&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=294&y=253"},"dpi":1.4,"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17nA3A.img?h=491&w=874&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=294&y=253"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17nA3A.img?h=491&w=874&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=294&y=253"}})
© Greg Nash Pompeo: Trump taking action on Chinese software firms 'in coming days'
