Radicals have never had a sense of humor. They are unbalanced. "In jest, there is truth". --
Roman proverb. Radicals has problems with truth. Therefore, they don't like humor.
"... Monty Python was the pinnacle of contemporary comedy precisely because it drew attention to the absurdity of modern society and it pompous hypocrisy ..."
big female BLM supporter wearing a nappy mask that says "i can't breathe" on it
soccer mom says "well take the stupid mask off"
MartinG , 3 hours ago
How many Wokesters does it take to change a light bulb?
One to complain that the light bulb is white.
One to complain that the light is white.
One to blame boomers for wearing out the old bulb.
One who doesn't know how.
And one Wokester who says there must be change as he changes the bulb.
tardpill , 3 hours ago
the only one that can possibly change the bulb with it out being a racist privilege is not
available because they are too busy burning **** down
DaBard51 , 2 hours ago
You forgot:
--One who complains that there isn't enough diversity in light bulbs.
--One who says "Bulb Lives Matter!"
--One who complains that screwing the bulb is sexist.
--One who can't decide whether the bulb is DC or AC.
When nine hundred years old you become, look this good you will not.
<edit> whoever up-voted, my thanks. Shadow-banned, I am not, now, I see...
Roger Casement , 3 hours ago
They are the joke.
philipat , 2 hours ago
Yes, and that is why humor is so important, especially at the margin. Politicians,
especially Democrat politicians, don't like comedy because it draws attention to the
absurdity of most of what they do.
Monty Python was the pinnacle of contemporary comedy precisely because it drew attention
to the absurdity of modern society and it pompous hypocrisy. It gave me more laughs more
consistently than anything I have come across since. 'God speed John, you stay with what you
believe and ***k the humorless wokesters who need to get a life and lighten up for their own
sake and for that of all the rest of us!
45North1 , 2 hours ago
An Antifa member, a BLM'er and a Proud Boy go into a Bar.....
EvlTheCat , 2 hours ago
"Woke" in itself is a joke and a oxymoron, which if you know the definition makes it
ironic also. Touches all bases John.
On January 8, 2018, former government advisor Edward Luttwak wrote an opinion piece for
Foreign Policy titled "It's Time to Bomb North Korea."
Luttwak's thesis is relatively straightforward. There is a government out there that may
very soon acquire nuclear-weapons capabilities, and this country cannot be trusted to
responsibly handle such a stockpile. The responsibility to protect the world from a rogue
nation cannot be argued with, and we understandably have a duty to ensure the future of
humanity.
However, there is one rogue nation that continues to hold the world ransom with its nuclear
weapons supply. It is decimating non-compliant states left, right, and center. This country
must be stopped dead in its tracks before anyone turns to the issue of North Korea.
In August of 1945, this rogue nation dropped two atomic bombs on civilian targets, not
military targets, completely obliterating between 135,000 and
300,000 Japanese civilians in just these two acts alone. Prior to this event, this country
killed even more civilians in the infamous
firebombing of Tokyo and other areas of Japan, dropping close to 500,000 cylinders of
napalm and petroleum jelly on some of Japan's most densely populated areas.
Recently, historians have become more open to the possibility that dropping the atomic bombs
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not actually necessary to end World War II. This has also been
confirmed by those who actually took part in it. As the Nation
explained:
Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public
address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that 'the atomic bomb played
no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan ' Adm. William
"Bull" Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that 'the first
atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . It was a mistake to ever drop it . [the
scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it
A few months' prior, this rogue country's
invasion of the Japanese island of Okinawa also claimed at least one quarter of Okinawa's
population. The Okinawan people have been protesting this country's military presence ever
since. The most recent ongoing protest
has lasted well over 5,000 days in a row.
This nation's bloodlust continued well after the end of World War II. Barely half a decade
later, this country bombed North Korea into complete oblivion, destroying over 8,700 factories,
5,000 schools, 1,000 hospitals, 600,000 homes, and
eventually killing off as much as 20 percent of the country's population. As the Asia
Pacific Journal has noted, the assaulting country dropped so many bombs that they eventually
ran out of targets to hit, turning to bomb the irrigation systems, instead:
By the fall of 1952, there were no effective targets left for US planes to hit. Every
significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had already been bombed. In the
spring of 1953, the Air Force targeted irrigation dams on the Yalu River, both to destroy the
North Korean rice crop and to pressure the Chinese, who would have to supply more food aid to
the North. Five reservoirs were hit, flooding thousands of acres of farmland, inundating
whole towns and laying waste to the essential food source for millions of North Koreans."
This was just the beginning. Having successfully destroyed the future North Korean
state, this country moved on to the rest of East Asia and Indo-China, too. As Rolling Stone's
Matt Taibbi
has explained :
We [this loose cannon of a nation] dumped 20 million gallons of toxic herbicide on Vietnam
from the air, just to make the shooting easier without all those trees, an insane plan to win
'hearts and minds' that has left about a million still disabled from defects and disease
– including about 100,000 children, even decades later, little kids with misshapen
heads, webbed hands and fused eyelids writhing on cots, our real American legacy, well out of
view, of course.
This mass murder led to the deaths of between 1.5 million and 3.8 million people,
according to the Washington Post. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were unleashed
during the entire
conflict in World War II . While this was going on, this same country was also
secretly bombing Laos and Cambodia, too, where there are over 80 million
unexploded bombs still killing people to this day.
This country also decided to bomb Yugoslavia ,
Panama
, and
Grenada before invading Iraq in the early 1990s. Having successfully bombed Iraqi
infrastructure, this country then punished Iraq's entire civilian population with brutal
sanctions. At the time, the U.N.
estimated that approximately 1.7 million Iraqis had died as a result, including
500,000 to 600,000 children . Some years later, a prominent medical journal attempted
to absolve the cause of this infamous history by refuting the statistics involved despite
the fact that, when interviewed during the sanctions-era, Bill Clinton's secretary of state,
Madeleine Albright, intimated that to this rogue government, the
deaths of half a million children were "worth it" as the "price" Iraq needed to pay. In other
words, whether half a million children died or not was irrelevant to this bloodthirsty nation,
which barely blinked while carrying out this murderous policy.
This almighty superpower then invaded Iraq again in 2003 and plunged the entire region
into chaos . At the end of May 2017, the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)
released a study
concluding that the death toll from this violent nation's 2003 invasion of Iraq had led to over
one million deaths and that at least one-third of them were caused directly by the invading
force.
Not to mention this country also invaded Afghanistan prior to the invasion of Iraq (even
though the militants plaguing Afghanistan were
originally trained and financed by this warmongering nation). It then
went on to bomb Yemen, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and the
Philippines .
Libya famously
had one of the highest standards of living in the region. It had state-assisted healthcare,
education, transport, and affordable housing. It is now a lawless war-zone
rife with extremism where slaves are openly traded like commodities
amid the power vacuum created as a direct result of the 2011 invasion.
In 2017, the commander-in-chief of this violent nation took the monumental death and
destruction to a new a level by removing
the restrictions on delivering airstrikes, which resulted in thousands upon
thousands of civilian deaths. Before that, in the first six months of 2017, this country
dropped
over 20,650 bombs , a monumental increase from the year that preceded it.
Despite these statistics, all of the above conquests are mere child's play to this nation.
The real prize lies in some of the more defiant and more powerful states, which this country
has already unleashed a containment strategy upon. This country has deployed its own troops all
across the border
with Russia even though it promised in the early 1990s it
would do no such thing. It also has a specific policy of
containing Russia's close ally, China, all the while threatening China's borders with talks
of direct strikes on North Korea (again, remember it already did so in the 1950s).
This country also elected a president who not only believes it is okay to embrace this rampantly violent
militarism but who openly calls other
countries "shitholes" – the very same term that aptly describes the way this country
has treated the rest of the world for decades on end. This same president also reportedly once
asked three times in a meeting
, "If we have nuclear weapons, why don't we use them?" and shortly after proposed a policy to
remove the constraints protecting the world from his dangerous supply of advanced nuclear
weaponry.
If we have any empathy for humanity, it is clear that this country must be stopped. It
cannot continue to act like this to the detriment of the rest of the planet and the safety and
security of the rest of us. This country
openly talks about using its nuclear weapons, has used them before, and has continued to
use all manner of weapons unabated in the years since while threatening to expand the use of
these weapons to other countries.
Seriously, if North Korea seems like a threat, imagine how the rest of the world feels while
watching one country violently take on the rest of the planet single-handedly, leaving nothing
but destruction in its wake and promising nothing less than a nuclear holocaust in the years to
come.
There is only one country that has done and that continues to do the very things North Korea
is being accused of doing.
Take as much time as you need for that to resonate.
"... Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else. ..."
Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot
is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed
how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive
dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else.
As to the wall, it is one of the silliest projects ever suggested. Maybe that's why it was so easy to sell it to the intellectually
disadvantaged electorate. There are two things that can stop illegal immigration.
First, go for the employers, enact a law that fines them to the tune of $50,000 or more per every illegal they employ. Second,
enact the law that anyone caught residing in the US illegally has no right to enter the US legally, to obtain asylum, permanent
residency, or citizenship for life, and include a provision that marriage to a US citizen does not nullify this ban.
Then enforce both laws. After that illegals would run out of the country, and greedy employers won't hire any more. Naturally,
the wall, even if built, won't change anything: as long as there are employers trying to save on salaries, immigration fees, and
Social Security tax, and people willing to live and work illegally risking nothing, no wall would stem the flow.
Unfortunately, no side is even thinking about real measures, both are just posturing.
Am wondering in which prosperous U.S. Zionist "career" field has John Yoo landed?
He is a distinguished professor at Berkley Law, UC. Here's his bio:
Professor Yoo is the Emanuel Heller Professor of Law and director of the Korea Law
Center, the California Constitution Center, and the Law School's Program in Public Law and
Policy. His most recent books are Striking Power: How Cyber, Robots, and Space Weapons
Change the Rules for War (Encounter 2017) (with Jeremy Rabkin) and Point of Attack:
Preventive War, International Law, and Global Welfare (Oxford University Press, 2014).
Professor Yoo is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a visiting
fellow at the Hoover Institution
From 2001 to 2003, he served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of
Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on issues involving
foreign affairs, national security and the separation of powers.
Notice how they gloss over his diabolical activities as deputy AG for the Bush II
Adminstration "where he worked on issues involving foreign affairs, national security and the
separation of powers."
And, oh, yeah, he cobbled together legal statements that gave the Bush Admin carte blanche
to engage in "enhanced interrogation techniques," more commonly known as "torture." He was
about to be in big dodo for his crimes. but just like the 5 dancing Israelis were rescued by
Chertoff, a guy named David Margolis managed to get Yoo off the hook:
The Office of Professional Responsibilty (OPR) report concluded that Yoo had "committed
'intentional professional misconduct' when he advised the CIA it could proceed with
waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques against Al Qaeda suspects,"
although the recommendation that he be referred to his state bar association for possible
disciplinary proceedings was overruled by David Margolis, another senior Justice department
lawyer.
"... Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else. ..."
Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot
is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed
how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive
dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else.
As to the wall, it is one of the silliest projects ever suggested. Maybe that's why it was so easy to sell it to the intellectually
disadvantaged electorate. There are two things that can stop illegal immigration.
First, go for the employers, enact a law that fines them to the tune of $50,000 or more per every illegal they employ. Second,
enact the law that anyone caught residing in the US illegally has no right to enter the US legally, to obtain asylum, permanent
residency, or citizenship for life, and include a provision that marriage to a US citizen does not nullify this ban.
Then enforce both laws. After that illegals would run out of the country, and greedy employers won't hire any more. Naturally,
the wall, even if built, won't change anything: as long as there are employers trying to save on salaries, immigration fees, and
Social Security tax, and people willing to live and work illegally risking nothing, no wall would stem the flow.
Unfortunately, no side is even thinking about real measures, both are just posturing.
"... According to the narrative fabricated by the intelligence agencies and promoted by the Democratic Party and the corporate media over the past year and a half, Putin and his minions hacked the Democrats and stirred up social divisions and popular grievances to secure the election for Donald Trump, and they have been working ever since to destroy "our institutions." ..."
A central theme of the hysteria over alleged "Russian meddling" in US politics is the
sinister effort supposedly being mounted by Vladimir Putin "to undermine and manipulate our
democracy" (in the words of Democratic Senator Mark Warner).
According to the narrative fabricated by the intelligence agencies and promoted by the
Democratic Party and the corporate media over the past year and a half, Putin and his minions
hacked the Democrats and stirred up social divisions and popular grievances to secure the
election for Donald Trump, and they have been working ever since to destroy "our
institutions."
Their chosen field of battle is the internet, with Russian trolls and bots infecting the
body politic by taking advantage of lax policing of social media by the giant tech companies
such as Google, Facebook and Twitter.
To defend democracy, the argument goes, these companies, working with the state, must
silence oppositional viewpoints -- above all left-wing, anti-war and socialist viewpoints --
which are labeled "fake news," and banish them from the internet. Nothing is said of the fact
that this supposed defense of democracy is a violation of the basic canons of genuine
democracy, guaranteed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution: freedom of speech and
freedom of the press.
But what is this much vaunted "American democracy?" Let's take a closer look.
The
two-party monopoly
In a vast and complex country with a population of 328 million people, consisting of many
different nationalities, native tongues, religions and other demographics, spanning six time
zones and thousands of miles, two political parties totally dominate the political
system.
The ruling corporate-financial oligarchy controls both parties and maintains its rule by
alternating control of the political institutions -- the White House, Congress, state houses,
etc. -- between them. The general population, consisting overwhelmingly of working people, is
given the opportunity every two or four years to go to the polls and vote for one or the
other of these capitalist parties. This is what is called "democracy."
The monopoly of the two big business parties is further entrenched by the absence of
proportional representation, which it makes it impossible for third parties or independent
candidates to obtain significant representation in Congress.
The role of corporate
money
The entire political process -- the selection of candidates, elections, the formulation of
domestic and foreign policies -- is dominated by corporate money. No one can seriously bid
for high office unless he or she has the backing of sponsors from the ranks of the richest 1
percent -- or 0.01 percent -- of the population. The buying of elections and politicians is
brazen and shameless.
Last month's midterm elections set a record for campaign spending in a non-presidential
year -- $5.2 billion -- a 35 percent increase over 2014 and triple the amount spent 20 years
ago, in 1998. The bulk of this flood of cash came from corporations and multi-millionaire
donors.
In the vast majority of contests, the winner was determined by the size of his or her
campaign war chest. Eighty-nine percent of House races and 84 percent of Senate races were
won by the biggest spender.
Democratic candidates had a huge spending advantage over their Republican opponents,
exposing the fraud of their attempt to posture as a party of the people. The securities and
investment industry -- Wall Street -- favored Democrats over Republicans by a margin of 52
percent to 46 percent.
Elections are anything but a forum to openly and honestly discuss and debate the great
issues facing the voters. The real issues -- the preparation for new wars, deeper austerity
and further attacks on democratic rights -- are concealed behind a miasma of attack ads and
mudslinging. The research firm PQ Media estimates that total political ad spending will reach
$6.75 billion this year. In last month's elections, the number of congressional and
gubernatorial ads rose 59 percent over the previous, 2014, midterm.
The setting of policy and passage of legislation is helped along by corporate bribes,
euphemistically termed lobbying. In 2017 alone, corporations spent $3 billion to lobby the
government.
Ballot access restrictions
A welter of arcane, arbitrary and anti-democratic requirements for gaining ballot status,
which vary from state to state, block third parties from challenging the domination of the
Democrats and Republicans. These include filing fees and nominating petition signature
requirements in the tens of thousands in many states. Democratic officials routinely
challenge the petitions of socialist and left-wing candidates who are likely to find support
among young people and workers.
Media blackout of third party candidates
The corporate media systematically blacks out the campaigns of third party and independent
candidates, especially left-wing and socialist candidates. The exception is candidates who
are either themselves rich or who have the backing of wealthy patrons.
Third party candidates are generally excluded from nationally televised candidates'
debates.
In last month's election, the Socialist Equality Party candidate for Congress in
Michigan's 12th Congressional District, Niles Niemuth, won broad support among workers, young
people and students for his socialist program, but received virtually no press
coverage.
Voting restrictions
Since the stolen election of 2000, when the Supreme Court shut down the counting of votes
in Florida in order to hand the White House to the loser of the popular vote, George W. Bush,
with virtually no opposition from the Democrats or the media, attacks on the right of workers
and poor people to vote have mounted.
Thirty-three states have implemented voter identification laws, which, studies show, bar
up to 6 percent of the population from voting. States have cut back early voting and absentee
voting and shut down voting precincts in working class neighborhoods. A number of states
impose a lifetime ban on voting by felons, even after they have done their time. In 2013, the
Supreme Court gutted the enforcement mechanism of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, with no real
opposition from the Democrats. The United States is one of the few countries that hold
elections on a work day, making it more difficult for workers to cast a
ballot.
Government of, by and for the rich
The two corporate parties have overseen a social counterrevolution, resulting in a
staggering growth of social inequality. In tandem with this process, the oligarchic structure
of society has increasingly found open expression in the political forms of rule. Alongside
the erection of the infrastructure of a police state -- mass surveillance, indefinite
detention, the militarization of the police, Gestapo raids on workplaces and attacks on
immigrants, the ascendancy of the military in political affairs, internet censorship -- the
personnel of government have increasingly been recruited from the rich and the
super-rich.
More than half of the members of Congress are millionaires, as compared to just 1 percent
of the American population. All the presidents for the past three decades -- George H. W,
Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama -- have either been multi-millionaires going
in or have cashed in on their presidencies to become multi-millionaires afterward. In the
person of the multi-billionaire real estate speculator and con man Donald Trump, the
financial oligarchy has directly taken occupancy of the White House.
In The State and Revolution , Vladimir Lenin wrote: "Bourgeois democracy,
although a great historical advance in comparison with medievalism, always remains, and under
capitalism is bound to remain, restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a paradise for
the rich and a snare and deception for the exploited, for the poor."
The trouble with CIA democrats is not that they are stupid, but that that are evil.
Hillary proved to be really destructive witch during her Obama stunt as the Secretary of State. Destroyed Libya and Ukraine,
which is no small feat.
Notable quotes:
"... The policy of the Obama administration, and particularly Hillary Clinton's State Department, was – and still is – regime change in Syria. This overrode all other considerations. We armed, trained, and "vetted" the Syrian rebels, even as we looked the other way while the Saudis and the Gulf sheikdoms funded groups like al-Nusra and al-Qaeda affiliates who wouldn't pass muster. And our "moderates" quickly passed into the ranks of the outfront terrorists, complete with the weapons we'd provided. ..."
"... She is truly an idiot. Thanks again, Ivy League. ..."
The Grauniad just quoted a tweet from a predictably OUTRAGED @HillaryClinton:
Actions have consequences, and whether we're in Syria or not, the people who want to
harm us are there & at war. Isolationism is weakness. Empowering ISIS is dangerous.
Playing into Russia & Iran's hands is foolish. This President is putting our national
security at grave risk.
This from the woman who almost singlehandedly (i.e. along with David Cameron and Sarkovy)
destroyed Libya and allowed -- if not encouraged -- the flow of US weapons to go into the
hands of ISIS allies in the US-Saudi-Israeli obsession with toppling Assad regardless of the
consequences. As Justin Raimondo wrote in
Antiwar.com in 2015:
The policy of the Obama administration, and particularly Hillary Clinton's State
Department, was – and still is – regime change in Syria. This overrode all
other considerations. We armed, trained, and "vetted" the Syrian rebels, even as we looked
the other way while the Saudis and the Gulf sheikdoms funded groups like al-Nusra and
al-Qaeda affiliates who wouldn't pass muster. And our "moderates" quickly passed into the
ranks of the outfront terrorists, complete with the weapons we'd provided.
This crazy policy was an extension of our regime change operation in Libya, a.k.a.
"Hillary's War," where the US – "leading from behind" – and a coalition of our
Western allies and the Gulf protectorates overthrew Muammar Qaddafi. There, too, we
empowered radical Islamists with links to al-Qaeda affiliates – and then used them to
ship weapons to their Syrian brothers, as another document uncovered by Judicial Watch
shows.
After HRC's multiple foreign policy fiascos she is the last person who should be
commenting on this matter.
a different chris, December 21, 2018 at 11:50 am
> the people who want to harm us are there & at war
Sounds like then they are too busy to harm us? She is truly an idiot. Thanks again, Ivy League.
"The last two Democratic presidencies largely involved talking progressive while serving
Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. The obvious differences in personalities and
behavior of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama diverted attention from their underlying political
similarities. In office, both men rarely fought for progressive principles -- and routinely
undermined them."
"Presidents, prime ministers, congresspersons and parliamentarians worldwide regularly negate
the democratic will of their nation's voters by refusing to support legitimate election
results. Strangely, their treasonous actions continue without serious reprisal or punishment
by the voter. This emboldens them. The reality of votes cast and "democracy" past does not
does bode well for the people of the United Kingdom, their future as a nation or their
hopeful return to sovereignty once called, "Brexit."
Dynamite opening paragraph by Brett Redmayne-Titley.
It defines the vital issue of -To be or not to be – for our Planet's citizens who
struggle (or aught to), for functioning Democratic Republics founded upon the ideal of
Liberty and Justice for All.
Titley's ending mention of the trials of the Greek nation, and others, is well placed and
a tribute to his worldview, that is key to analyzing the situation in any particular
corner.
"Britains should consider this arbitrary bullying of Italy and of the UK. Then they should
consider the sad EU imposed current condition of Greece. Next, they might dwell on the failed
outcomes of previous elections within the nearby EU nations, and how similar movements were
defeated in their nation as well. Last, they must pay closest of attention to what is
actually in the souls of their own politicians and what they truly support."
In America, we lost our Democratic Republic and our last Constitutional President, John
F. Kennedy , in a hail of bullets in the Coup D'état of November 22, 1963.
The Citizen Yellow Vests in France , supported by their 2 leading Resistance
Fighters, Dieudonné , and Alain Soral , display the next step forward in
the Resistance to Tyranny.
Step 1 – Committees of Correspondence (mainstream media free – websites, &
communications).
2. Step away from the TVs – & breathe the free air outside as the Citizen
Militia Yellow Vests(Minutemen), regain the streets and stretch their muscles.
3. Final Step: We are Joined by free police, military, even CIA & other police agency
employees, in the act of regaining their Countries, with their Sovereignty, and their Honor.
We Restore Our Republics!
a. Zionist imperialist/racists to jail and awaiting Trial.
b. Cleanup & rebuilding.
c. Unbought electoral process - no $ allowed in the process (equal media access for
all candidates), Debates between the candidates. Let a hundred flowers bloom (what democrat
said that?)?
It has become all too easy for democracy to be turned on its head and popular nationalist
mandates, referenda and elections negated via instant political hypocrisy by leaders who show
their true colours only after the public vote. So it has been within the two-and-a-half year
unraveling of the UK Brexit referendum of 2016 that saw the subsequent negotiations now provide
the Brexit voter with only three possibilities. All are a loss for Britain.
One possibility, Brexit, is the result of Prime Minister, Theresa May's negotiations- the
"deal"- and currently exists in name only. Like the PM herself, the original concept of Brexit
may soon lie in the dust of an upcoming UK Parliament floor vote in exactly the same manner as
the failed attempt by the Greeks barely three years ago. One must remember that Greece on June
27, 2015 once voted to leave the EU as well and to renegotiate its EU existence as well in
their own "Grexit" referendum. Thanks to their own set of underhanded and treasonous
politicians, this did not go well for Greece. Looking at the Greek result, and understanding
divisive UK Conservative Party control that exists in the hearts of PMs on both sides of the
House of Commons, this new parliamentary vote is not looking good for Britain. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek! "deal" -- would thus reveal the life-long scars of their true
national allegiance gnawed into their backs by the lust of their masters in Brussels. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
Ironically, like a cluster bomb of white phosphorous over a Syrian village, Cameron's Brexit
vote blew up spectacularly in his face. Two decades of ongoing political submission to the EU
by the Cons and "new" labour had them arrogantly misreading the minds of the UK
voter.
So on that incredible night, it happened. Prime Minister David Cameron the Cons New Labour
The Lib- Dems and even the UK Labour Party itself, were shocked to their core when the
unthinkable nightmare that could never happen, did happen . Brexit had passed by popular
vote!
David Cameron has been in hiding ever since.
After Brexit passed the same set of naïve UK voters assumed, strangely, that Brexit
would be finalized in their national interest as advertised. This belief had failed to
read
Article 50 - the provisos for leaving the EU- since, as much as it was mentioned, it was
very rarely linked or referenced by a quotation in any of the media punditry. However, an
article published four days after the night Brexit passed,
" A Brexit Lesson In Greek: Hopes and Votes Dashed on Parliamentary Floors," provided
anyone thus reading Article 50, which is only eight pages long and double-spaced, the info to
see clearly that this never before used EU by-law would be the only route to a UK exit.
Further, Article 50 showed that Brussels would control the outcome of exit negotiations along
with the other twenty-seven member nations and that effectively Ms May and her Tories
would be playing this game using the EU's ball and rules, while going one-on-twenty-seven
during the negotiations.
In the aftermath of Brexit, the real game began in earnest. The stakes: bigger than
ever.
Forgotten are the hypocritical defections of political expediency that saw Boris Johnson and
then Home Secretary Theresa May who were, until that very moment, both vociferously and very
publicly against the intent of Brexit. Suddenly they claimed to be pro- Brexit in their quest
to sleep in Cameron's now vacant bed at No. 10 Downing Street. Boris strategically dropped out
to hopefully see, Ms May, fall on her sword- a bit sooner. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by
Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
So, the plucky PM was left to convince the UK public, daily, as the negotiations moved on,
that "Brexit means Brexit!" A UK media that is as pro-EU as their PM chimed in to help
her sell distortions of proffered success at the negotiating table, while the rise of "old"
Labour, directed by Jeremy Corbyn, exposed her "soft" Brexit negotiations for the
litany of failures that ultimately equaled the "deal" that was strangely still called
"Brexit."
Too few, however, examined this reality once these political Chameleons changed their
colours just as soon as the very first results shockingly came in from Manchester in the wee
hours of the morning on that seemingly hopeful night so long ago: June 23, 2016. For thus would
begin a quiet, years-long defection of many more MPs than merely these two opportunists.
What the British people also failed to realize was that they and their Brexit victory would
also be faced with additional adversaries beyond the EU members: those from within their own
government. From newly appointed PM May to Boris Johnson, from the Conservative Party to the
New Labour sellouts within the Labour Party and the Friends of Israel , the
quiet internal political movement against Brexit began. As the House of Lords picked up their
phones, too, for very quiet private chats within House of Commons, their minions in the British
press began their work as well.
Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley -
The Unz Review
This article by Brett Redmayne is certainly right re the horrific sell-out by the Greek
government of Tsipras the other year, that has left the Greek citizenry in enduring political
despair the betrayal of Greek voters indeed a model for UK betrayal of Brexit voters
But Redmayne is likely very mistaken in the adulation of Jeremy Corbyn as the 'genuine
real deal' for British people
Ample evidence points to Corbyn as Trojan horse sell-out, as covered by UK researcher
Aangirfan on her blogs, the most recent of which was just vapourised by Google in their
censorship insanity
Jeremy Corbyn was a childhood neighbour of the Rothschilds in Wiltshire; with Jeremy's
father David Corbyn working for ultra-powerful Victor Rothschild on secret UK gov scientific
projects during World War 2
Jeremy Corbyn is tied to child violation scandals & child-crime convicted individuals
including Corbyn's Constituency Agent; Corbyn tragically ignoring multiple earnest complaints
from child abuse victims & whistleblowers over years, whilst "child abuse rings were
operating within all 12 of the borough's children's homes" in Corbyn's district not very
decent of him
And of course Corbyn significantly cucked to the Israel lobby in their demands for purge
of the Labour party alleged 'anti-semites'
The Trojan Horse 'fake opposition', or fake 'advocate for the people', is a very classic
game of the Powers That Be, and sadly Corbyn is likely yet one more fake 'hero'
My theory is, give "capitalism" and financial interests enough time, they will consume any
democracy. Meaning: the wealth flows upwards, giving the top class opportunity to influence
politics and the media, further improving their situation v.s. the rest, resulting in ever
stronger position – until they hold all the power. Controlling the media and therefore
the narrative, capable to destroy any and all opposition. Ministers and members of
parliaments, most bought and paid for one way or the other. Thankfully, the 1% or rather the
0.1% don't always agree so the picture can be a bit blurred.
You can guess what country inspired this "theory" of mine. The second on the list is
actually the U.K. If a real socialist becomes the prime minister of the U.K. I will be very
surprised. But Brexit is a black swan like they say in the financial sector, and they tend to
disrupt even the best of theories. Perhaps Corbin is genuine and will become prime minister!
I am not holding my breath.
However, if he is a real socialist like the article claims. And he becomes prime minister
of the U.K the situation will get really interesting. Not only from the EU side but more
importantly from U.K. best friend – the U.S. Uncle Sam will not be happy about this
development and doesn't hesitate to crush "bad ideas" he doesn't like.
Case in point – Ireland's financial crisis in 2009;
After massive expansion and spectacular housing bubble the Irish banks were in deep
trouble early into the crisis. The EU, ECB and the IMF (troika?) met with the Irish
government to discuss solutions. From memory – the question was how to save the Irish
banks? They were close to agreement that bondholders and even lenders to the Irish banks
should take a "haircut" and the debt load should be cut down to manageable levels so the
banks could survive (perhaps Michael Hudson style if you will). One short phone call from
the U.S Secretary of the treasury then – Timothy Geithner – to the troika-Irish
meeting ended these plans. He said: there will be no haircut! That was the end of it.
Ireland survived but it's reasonable to assume this "guideline" paved the road for the
Greece debacle.
I believe Mr. Geithner spoke on behalf of the financial power controlling – more or
less-our hemisphere. So if the good old socialist Corbin comes to power in the U.K. and
intends to really change something and thereby set examples for other nations – he is
taking this power head on. I think in case of "no deal" the U.K. will have it's back against
the wall and it's bargaining position against the EU will depend a LOT on U.S. response. With
socialist in power there will be no meaningful support from the U.S. the powers that be will
to their best to destroy Corbin as soon as possible.
My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This
article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals
(even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax
havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's
estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!
There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that
off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages
because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes
(even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions
by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems.
MIGA!
Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much
desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked
against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that
struggle against such reality.
I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread
communist. Hopeless ideas!
" This is because the deal has a provision that would still keep the UK in the EU Customs
Union (the system setting common trade rules for all EU members) indefinitely. This is an
outrageous inclusion and betrayal of a real Brexit by Ms May since this one topic was the
most contentious in the debate during the ongoing negotiations because the Customs Union is
the tie to the EU that the original Brexit vote specifically sought to terminate. "
Here I stopped reading, maybe later more.
Nonsense.
What USA MSM told in the USA about what ordinary British people said, those who wanted to
leave the EU, I do not know, one of the most often heard reasons was immigration, especially
from E European countries, the EU 'free movement of people'.
"Real' Britons refusing to live in Poland.
EP member Verhofstadt so desperate that he asked on CNN help by Trump to keep this 'one of
the four EU freedoms'.
This free movement of course was meant to destroy the nation states
What Boris Johnson said, many things he said were true, stupid EU interference for example
with products made in Britain, for the home market, (he mentioned forty labels in one piece
of clothing), no opportunity to seek trade without EU interference.
There was irritation about EU interference 'they even make rules about vacuum cleaners', and,
already long ago, closure, EU rules, of village petrol pumps that had been there since the
first cars appeared in Britain, too dangerous.
In France nonsensical EU rules are simply ignored, such as countryside private sewer
installations.
But the idea that GB could leave, even without Brussels obstruction, the customs union,
just politicians, and other nitwits in economy, could have such ideas.
Figures are just in my head, too lazy to check.
But British export to what remains of the EU, some € 60 billion, French export to GB,
same order of magnitude, German export to GB, far over 100 billion.
Did anyone imagine that Merkel could afford closing down a not negligible part of Bayern car
industry, at he same time Bayern being the Land most opposed to Merkel, immigration ?
This Brexit in my view is just the beginning of the end of the illusion EU falling
apart.
In politics anything is connected with anything.
Britons, again in my opinion, voted to leave because of immigration, inside EU
immigration.
What GB will do with Marrakech, I do not know.
Marrakech reminds me of many measures that were ready to be implemented when the reason to
make these measures no longer existed.
Such as Dutch job guarantees when enterprises merged, these became law when when the merger
idiocy was over.
The negative aspects of immigration now are clear to many in the countries with the imagined
flesh pots, one way or another authorities will be obliged to stop immigration, but at that
very moment migration rules, not legally binding, are presented.
As a Belgian political commentator said on Belgian tv 'no communication is possible
between French politicians and French yellow coat demonstrators, they live in completely
different worlds'.
These different worlds began, to pinpoint a year, in 2005, when the negative referenda about
the EU were ignored. As Farrage reminded after the Brexit referendum, in EP, you said 'they
do not know what they're doing'
But now Macron and his cronies do not know what to do, now that police sympathises with
yellow coat demonstrators.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance
cultures manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
@Digital
Samizdat Corbyn, in my opinion one of the many not too bright socialists, who are caught
in their own ideological prison: worldwide socialism is globalisation, globalisation took
power away from politicians, and gave it to multinationals and banks.
@niceland The
expression class war is often used without realising what the issue is, same with tax
evasion.
The rich of course consume more, however, there is a limit to what one can consume, it takes
time to squander money.
So the end of the class war may make the rich poor, but alas the poor hardly richer.
About tax evasion, some economist, do not remember his name, did not read the article
attentively, analysed wealth in the world, and concluded that eight % of this wealth had
originated in evading taxes.
Over what period this evasion had taken place, do not remember this economist had reached a
conclusion, but anyone understands that ending tax evasion will not make all poor rich.
There is quite another aspect of class war, evading taxes, wealth inequality, that is
quite worrying: the political power money can yield.
Soros is at war with Hungary, his Open University must leave Hungary.
USA MSM furious, some basic human right, or rights, have been violated, many in Brussels
furious, the 226 Soros followers among them, I suppose.
But since when is it allowed, legally and/or morally, to try to change the culture of a
country, in this case by a foreigner, just by pumping money into a country ?
Soros advertises himself as a philantropist, the Hungarian majority sees him as some kind of
imperialist, I suppose.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance cultures
manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
Well , I am reading " The occult renaissance church of Rome " by Michael Hoffman ,
Independent History and research . Coeur d`Alene , Idaho . http://www.RevisionistHistory.org
I saw about this book in this Unz web .
I used to think than the rot started with protestantism , but Hoffman says it started with
catholic Renaissance in Rome itself in the XV century , the Medici , the Popes , usury
This whole affair illustrates beautifully the real purpose of the sham laughingly known as
"representative democracy," namely, not to "empower" the public but to deprive it of
its power.
With modern means of communication, direct democracy would be technically feasible even in
large countries. Nevertheless, practically all "democratic" countries continue to delegate
all legislative powers to elected "representatives." These are nothing more than consenting
hostages of those with the real power, who control and at the same time hide behind those
"representatives." The more this becomes obvious, the lower the calibre of the people willing
to be used in this manner – hence, the current crop of mental gnomes and opportunist
shills in European politics.
I would only shout this rambling ignoramus a beer in the pub to stop his mouth for a while.
Some of his egregious errors have been noted. and Greece, anyway, is an irrelevance to the
critical decisions on Brexit.
Once Article 50 was invoked the game was over. All the trump cards were on the EU side.
Now we know that, even assuming Britain could muster a competent team to plan and negotiate
for Brexit that all the work of proving up the case and negotiating or preparing the ground
has to be done over years leading up to the triggering of Article 50. And that's assuming
that recent events leave you believing that the once great Britain is fit to be a sovereign
nation without adult supervision.
As it is one has to hope that Britain will not be constrained by the total humbug which
says that a 51 per cent vote of those choosing to vote in that very un British thing, a
referendum, is some sort of reason for not giving effect to a more up to date and better
informed view.
@Digital
Samizdat Hypothesis: The British masses would fare better without a privatized
government.
"Corbyn may prove to be real .. .. old-time Labour platform [leadership, capable to]..
return [political, social and financial] control back to the hands of the UK worker".. [but
the privateers will use the government itself and mass media to defeat such platforms and to
suppress labor with new laws and domestic armed warfare]. Why would a member of the British
masses allow [the Oligarch elite and the[ir] powerful business and foreign political
interests restrain democracy and waste the victims of privately owned automation revolution?
.. ..
[Corbyn's Labour platform challenges ] privatized capitalist because the PCs use the
British government to keep imprisoned in propaganda and suppressed in opportunity, the
masses. The privateers made wealthy by their monopolies, are using their resources to
maintain rule making and enforcement control (via the government) over the masses; such
privateers have looted the government, and taken by privatization a vast array of economic
monopolies that once belonged to the government. If the British government survives, the
Privateers (monopoly thieves) will continue to use the government to replace humanity, in
favor of corporate owned Robots and super capable algorithms.
Corbyn's threat to use government to represent the masses and to suppress or reduce
asymmetric power and wealth, and to provide sufficient for everyone extends to, and alerts
the masses in every capitalist dominated place in the world. He (Corbyn) is a very dangerous
man, so too was Jesus Christ."
There is a similar call in France, but it is not yet so well led.
Every working Dutch person is "owed" 50k euro from the bailout of Greece, not that Greece
will ever pay this back, and not as if Greece ever really got the money as it just went
straight to northern European banks to bail them out. Then we have the fiscal policy creating
more money by the day to stimulate the economy, which also doesn't reach the countries or
people just the banks. Then we have the flirting with East-European mobsters to pull them in
the EU sphere corrupting top EU bureaucrats. Then we have all of south Europe being extremely
unstable, including France, both its populations and its economy.
It's sad to see the British government doesn't see the disaster ahead, any price would be
cheaper then future forced EU integration. And especially at this point, the EU is so
unstable, that they can't go to war on the UK without also committing A kamikaze attack.
@Brabantian
Thank you for your comment and addition to my evaluation of Corbyn. I do agree with you that
Corbyn has yet to be tested for sincerity and effectiveness as PM, but he will likely get his
chance and only then will we and the Brits find out for sure. The main point I was hoping to
make was that: due to the perceived threat of Labour socialist reform under Corbyn, he has
been an ulterior motive in the negotiations and another reason that the EU wants PM May to
get her deal passed. Yes, I too am watching Corbyn with jaundiced optimism. Thank you.
I agree Jilles, and with many other of the commenters.
Read enough to see that the article has many errors of fact and perception. It is bad
enough to suspect *propaganda* , but Brett is clearly not at that level.
An important point that you hint at is that the Brits were violently and manipulatively
forced to accept mass immigration for many years.
Yet strangely, to say anything about it only became acceptable when some numbers of the
immigrants were fellow Europeans from within the EU, and most having some compatibility with
existing ethnicity and previous culture.
Even people living far away notice such forced false consciousness.
As for Corbyn, he is nothing like the old left of old Labour. He tries to convey that
image, it is a lie.
He may not be Blairite-Zio New Labour, and received some influence from the more heavily
Marxist old Labour figures, but he is very much a creature of the post-worst-of-1968 and
dirty hippy new left, Frankfurt School and all that crap, doubt that he has actually read
much of it, but he has internalised it through his formal and political education.
By the way, the best translation of the name of North Korea's ruling party is 'Labour
Party'. While it is a true fact, I intend nothing from it but a small laugh.
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.
Trump most probably will be a one time President... The American people will elect the next time another bullshit artist
but this time probably from Democratic Party..
Notable quotes:
"... I'll give the congressman all of that, especially ..."
"... When the economy is bad, nobody wants a bullsh*t artist in the White House. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... "He came to our community and said, 'Don't sell your house. These jobs are coming back,' " Green said. "We've seen nothing but job losses around here." ..."
"... What you can blame Trump for is exploiting the hopes of Rust Belt people by telling them that he could bring those jobs back. ..."
Part of the retrenchment is a response to a slowdown in new-car sales that has prompted automakers to slim their operations
and shed jobs. And earlier bets on smaller cars have had to be unwound as consumers have gravitated toward pickup trucks and sport-utility
vehicles in response to low gasoline prices.
In addition, automakers have paid a price for the trade battle that Mr. Trump set in motion. In June G.M. slashed its profit
outlook for the year because tariffs were driving up production costs, raising prices even on domestic steel. Rising interest
rates are also generating headwinds.
Ms. Barra said no single factor had prompted G.M.'s cutbacks, portraying them as a prudent trimming of sails. "We are taking
these actions now while the company and the economy are strong to stay in front of a fast-changing market," she said on a conference
call with analysts.
More:
But demand for small and midsize cars has plunged. Two-thirds of all new vehicles sold last year were trucks and S.U.V.s. That
shift has hit G.M.'s Lordstown plant hard. Just a few years ago, the factory employed three shifts of workers to churn out Chevy
Cruzes. Now it is down to one. In 2017 the plant made about 180,000 cars, down from 248,000 in 2013.
More broadly, the years long boom in car and truck sales in North America appears to be ending, said John Hoffecker, vice chairman
at AlixPartners, a global consulting firm with a large automotive practice. "Sales have held up well this year, but we do see
a downturn coming," he said. AlixPartners forecast that domestic auto sales will fall to about 15 million cars and light trucks
in 2020, from about 17 million this year.
Watching cable news tonight at the gym, I heard an Ohio Democratic Congressman blast the president over this. He ripped Trump
for having made promises to industrial workers in his state in 2016, about how he would bring jobs back. He ripped Trump over the
steel tariffs that have driven up costs of production. And he ripped Trump for not taking his job seriously, for caring more about
Twitter than coming up with a strategy that might save jobs.
I'll give the congressman all of that, especially on Trump being a lazy, golfing-and-tweeting buffoon who doesn't
care about his job. Trump can get away with that when the economy is booming, but now it looks like things might be turning downward.
In Lordstown, workers planned to pray for a miraculous reversal of the company's decision, according to David Green, president
of United Auto Workers Local 1112.
"It's like someone knocks the wind out of you," he said of GM's announcement. "You lose your breath for a minute."
About 40 percent of the local's members voted for Trump, Green said. Now workers want to see the president keep his promises,
he said.
"He came to our community and said, 'Don't sell your house. These jobs are coming back,' " Green said. "We've seen nothing
but job losses around here."
Indeed, even before Monday's announcement, Lordstown had been bleeding jobs. Since Trump took office, GM has eliminated two
shifts and roughly 3,000 jobs at the plant, according to John Russo, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University's Kalmanovitz
Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor.
But we have to face some facts. People aren't buying what GM is making. Aside from the move away from small cars, an effect of
lower gasoline prices, sedan sales have been declining across all manufacturers. This summer, I got a good deal on a 2018 Honda Accord,
a car I really love, and that received rapturous praise from the automobile press when it came out. Honda struggled to sell the cars.
It's not because they're lousy cars. They're actually terrific cars. It's that consumers are losing interest in sedans. What good
does it do GM to manufacture cars that people will not buy?
You can't blame Trump for that.
What you can blame Trump for is exploiting the hopes of Rust Belt people by telling them that he could bring those jobs back.
The Rust Belt made the crucial difference for Trump in 2016. Unless the Democrats' 2020 nominee is someone who is more or less a
space alien, it's going to be hard to win those voters' support when you've improved your Twitter game and your golf score, but those
plants are idle.
"... Despite the animals' increasingly desperate circumstances on the farm, Squealer's barrage of untruths ultimately convince the lowly, overworked animals that "things were getting better." ..."
"... Anymore, whether it's in the company of dictators Trump keeps or among the multi-millionaires and billionaires that our purported Capitol Hill representatives mingle with at home and abroad, it's becoming increasingly harder to tell "which is which." ..."
If the demogagic President Donald Trump and his greedy loyalist Republican abettors had
their way, the American citizenry would be consigned to a life of Farm -like
drudgery.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" becomes the leader
pigs' contorted "Commandment" to the rest of the farm animals by the end of Animal
Farm .
... ... ...
Orwell himself, indicated that his simplistic foreboding fairtale held "a wider application"
about "power-hungry people."
"I meant the moral to be that revolutions only effect a radical improvement when the masses
are alert.." Orwell writes Politics magazine founder Dwight Macdonald in a 1946 letter.
"What I was trying to say was," Orwell continues, "'You can't have a revolution unless you
make it for yourself; there is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship.'"
Disillusioned Americans, who weren't so much "alert" as they were desperate, clearly were
swindled by Trump's disingenous populous revolution of sorts.
Now, in the flotsam wake of the midterm election's Democratic blue wave -- demonstrating a
new found citizen alertness that will flood the House in January -- the mistake of ever
allowing a Trump Presidency, is coming into sharp, unsettling focus.
Oppression is oppression. Greed and abuse of power produce essentially the same result
whatever the misanthropic ideology – Communism or Fascism or some other hybrid demagogic
"ism" to which Trump and his loyalists aspire.
If Washington D.C's plutocratic pigs had their druthers, Americans would be so dumbed down
by the con-in-chief's exhaustive lies and grating vitriol, endorsed by congressional majority
party Republicans, that we would have about as much say in our Republic's affairs as Animal
Farm 's befuddled barnyard animals had on the farm under the pigs.
"Napoleon is Always Right"
Trump is akin to Farm 's ruthless ruling pig, Napoleon, a Berkshire boar who, Orwell
writes, has a knack for "getting his own way."
Napoleon counted on his propagandist pig, Squealer, who "could turn black into white" to
brainwash the farm animals with lies about their tyrannical leader's supposed benevolence.
Even Clover the mare, who notices the changes the pigs sneakily make to Animalism's
Commandments, eventually is lulled into a sense of complacency, convincing herself that she
must have "remembered it wrong."
As the Farm animals work harder for less, the beloved, but dim-witted carthorse Boxer
declares, "I will work harder" and routinely motivates himself by extolling the pigs' most
controlling lie of all: "Napoleon is always right."
To advance his doubtless premeditated assault on truth and civility from the start of 2017,
President Trump has employed his own tag team versions of Squealer – in imaginative
mouthpieces Kellyanne Conway and Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
Sanders, White House press secretary, seems eternally lost in an alternate reality where if
President Trump "says it, it must be true" – just as Farm's animals were
programmed to parrot of Napoleon, no matter how absurd the lie.
... ... ...
And we Americans, like Farm 's flock of mindless sheep taught by Squealer to
obediently bleat "Four legs good, two legs better ," are supposed to believe it all.
... ... ...
Pigs Hoarded Milk and Apples; Repubs, Tax Cuts For Rich
Just as Farm 's pigs reason early on that they need all of the farm's "milk and
apples" to lead the rest of the animals, Trump and his complicit Republican chums insisted at
the outset that billionaires' tax breaks are the key to economic revival for all.
Never mind that Reaganomics trickled down – and out, decades ago. Never mind that
corporate profits are soaring, while workers' wages have stagnated.
And that now, in order to pay for corporate big wigs' tax cuts, Republicans contrive to
carve up the people's Medicare and Medicaid, while sinisterly eyeing social security
benefits.
Who is the real "enemy of the people"?
"The turning-point of the story was supposed to be when the pigs kept the milk and apples
for themselves," Orwell writes in the 1946 letter to Macdonald, published in George Orwell: A
Life In Letters , 2013.
"If the other animals had had the sense to put their foot down then," Orwell continues, "it
would have been all right."
At the first sign of feebleness, Boxer, the farm's hardest worker -- instrumental in the
farm's success from which the pigs alone capitalized -- is hauled off to the
slaughterhouse.
Despite the animals' increasingly desperate circumstances on the farm, Squealer's barrage of
untruths ultimately convince the lowly, overworked animals that "things were getting
better."
Think of Trump's grandiose claims of new plant openings and soaring jobs numbers. When Fox
News' asked him this past weekend how he would grade his job as President so far, Trump
offered, "A plus."
And look no further than Trump's scripted, dictator-esque, brainwashing rallies, where
gullible Reality TV "fans" pathetically worship a snake oil salesman, cheering on command and
smiling idiotic smiles.
Which is Which?
In Farm' s last pages, the pigs have rewritten Animalism's "Seven Commandments" to
suit them, embracing the ways of the animals' sworn enemy humans.
"Comrade Napoleon" and his fellow privileged porkers have moved into overthrown (Manor Farm)
owner Mr. Jones' farm house, are dressed in his clothes and are walking upright on their two
hind legs.
By then, the incoherent sheep under the absolute sway of Napoleon's propagandist pig
Squealer, no longer are sounding off on command: "Four legs good, two legs bad," but rather,
"Four legs good, two legs better ."
Animal Farm leaves us with the animals peering through the farm house dining room
window as the pigs inside schmooze and toast mugs of beer with neighboring farmer, Mr.
Pilkington and his associates.
The pigs and humans end up squabbling over a card game in which Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington
each play an ace of spades.
Who is cheating?
In the novella's last line, the baffled animals at the window look from face to face, from
the humans to the pigs, but: "It was impossible to say which was which."
Anymore, whether it's in the company of dictators Trump keeps or among the
multi-millionaires and billionaires that our purported Capitol Hill representatives mingle with
at home and abroad, it's becoming increasingly harder to tell "which is which."
All that said, the subject's personality cannot help shine through anyway. One understands
Berlusconi's original appeal: salesmanship on a massive scale. First as a developer and
salesman in the booming 1970s Italian property market. Then by founding Italy's first private
television stations, circumventing the state ban on private national channels Ride of the
Valkyries . Berlusconi's success as a businessman reflects the materialism and
superficiality characteristic of the postwar democratic West, his power derives from the
masses' bottomless desire for things and for spectacle.
In the 1990s and 2000s, Berlusconi in effect converted his media appeal and economic clout
into political capital. My Way does give a sense of the man's charm, brashness, and
sordid sense of humor. Nonetheless, one can't help laughing at his jokes and enjoying his
company. We see him give a pep talk to his football players. Berlusconi tells a black player
that he would like to meet his wife, because she is so beautiful, adding that he needn't worry
as he's already "too old." He tells a fifty-year-old man that he looks great, adding however
that he still doesn't look as a good as Berlusconi himself. This is funny, but Berlusconi, who
was almost eighty during the interviews, does look like an awful case of plastic surgery.
Berlusconi gives us a tour of his gorgeous villa at Arcore (20 kilometers from Milan),
showing his collection of Renaissance paintings, classical Greco-Roman sculpture (some given to
him by Muamar Gaddafi from Libya), and a whole room of paintings of . . . himself, apparently
given to him over the years by his many admirers. Among these we are shown a heroic painting of
Mussolini, with Berlusconi weakly protesting that this shouldn't be filmed, lest they give the
wrong impression.
Berlusconi is a man who gets what he wants. Call it a weakness for appetite or a strength of
will. In any event, Berlusconi tells Friedman that he has never ever gone to bed with his
often-changing wife/girlfriend without making love to her. So much passion. After having two
children with his first wife (who did not age gracefully), he moved in with and eventually
married Veronica Lario. They stayed together for many years but they eventually divorced and,
in keeping with the modern era of female empowerment, Berlusconi has since 2013 been required
pay her $48 million per year as part of their settlement. Berlusconi's girlfriend since 2012 is
50 years his junior and, for her service, will presumably receive an even bigger payout.
Let no one say that THOT-ery does not pay!
Berlusconi's penchant for girls was part of his undoing in another respect, namely in his
notorious "Bunga Bunga" parties with nubile young women, culminating in the trial alleging that
he had had sex with an underage Moroccan prostitute nicknamed "Ruby Rubacuore" (Ruby
Heartstealer). In the interviews, Berlusconi explains that the term "Bunga Bunga" comes from a
sex joke involving an African tribe . . . on which I will say nothing other than I was
astonished to hear it because it was also popular in the high school I frequented.
My Way , while an hour and thirty-eight minutes long, does not tell you all that much
about Berlusconi's politics. Besides his changing of Italian laws so as to escape prosecution
for various misdeeds, the little that is said largely speaks in his favor. He is extremely
proud of having hosted a NATO summit near Rome in 2002, at which Berlusconi, U.S. President
George W. Bush, and Russian President Vladimir Putin really hit it off. Berlusconi goes so far
as to claim that his summit "ended the Cold War," which is the usual hyperbolic salesman-speak,
much like Trump's perennial "tremendous." Certainly, this marked a warming of relations between
Moscow and Washington after the disagreements over the Kosovo War. On the substance, one can
only welcome attempts to bring peace and good relations among Europe, America, and Russia,
which have so often been needlessly in conflict.
Loro & My Way, by Guillaume Durocher -
The Unz Review
In the interviews, Berlusconi makes the case against the Iraq War and against the Libya War.
In both cases he argues, as a good realist, that you need a strong leader, in effect a
dictator, to maintain order in these multiethnic countries. To bring "democracy" would mean
only chaos. Berlusconi notes that Iraq is made up of three antagonistic ethno-religious groups
and that Libya is made up of some 105 tribes, who had regularly declared Gaddafi "King of
Kings." Since the dictators are gone, these Arab nations have known only civil war . . . an
impotence which naturally great benefits Israel, has allowed the foundation of the Islamic
State, and harmed Europe by sparking massive Afro-Islamic migration. The fall of Gaddafi's
dictatorship also led the spread of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which captured
Timbuktu in 2012, destroying some of that city's ancient shrines and mausoleums, one of the few
examples of indigenous Sub-Saharan African architectural heritage.
Berlusconi expresses the basic truth: multicultural societies are not compatible with
democracy or, to put it more positively, with civic politics in general. There can be no
solidarity without identity. Given this fact, the multiculturalists and immigrationists are
digging the grave of liberal democracy, and in their ignorance and delusion, are preparing the
way for new regimes. Let us hope that these will be indeed more coherent and honest forms of
government.
I do not know if Berlusconi actually privately opposed the Iraq invasion in 2003. In any
event, once Bush got on his way, Italy did send troops there. On Libya, Berlusconi was
outmaneuvered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whom Friedman accurately describes as
fomenting a war to boost his flagging approval ratings and distract from his lackluster
economic performance.
We then move to the eurozone crisis in 2011. In this instance, the Great European Ponzi
Scheme of malinvestment in southern European property and debt, collapsed, threatening the
whole continent's banking sector. Friedman does not give the watcher any good idea of why all
this was occurring. He does explicitly show, based primarily on U.S. Secretary of the Treasury
Timothy Geithner's testimony, that Berlusconi was taken out under pressure by Sarkozy and
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who blamed Italy's lack of "reforms" for the eurozone's ills.
The European Central Bank also threatened to let Italy go bankrupt unless Rome towed the
line.
Berlusconi was toppled and Mario Monti, a former EU commissioner and Goldman Sachs banker,
was parachuted in,
on the recommendation of George Soros , no less. I for one don't think that rule by a
small, rootless, international clique tends to be very stable. Monti proved monstrously
unpopular and was kicked out of office within two years. The Italians have since responded to
EU diktats by electing anti-Brussels populists of various stripes.
Loro & My Way, by
Guillaume Durocher - The Unz Review
Friedman interviewed a number of people in making his documentary. These include a (probably
rightly) indignant Italian prosecutor, a colorless Italian journalist, a former Spanish prime
minister, a former EU president, and even Putin himself. Not a whole lot of light comes out of
all of this. Strikingly, Berlusconi emerges as if anything the most likable character among the
whole motley crew of people interviewed, at that is saying something. Despite his more-or-less
hostile narration, the interviewer Friedman is shown constantly being friendly and making
ingratiating smiles with Berlusconi, only to dump him at the end of the film, saying "and I
never saw him again" with a credit role showcasing Berlusconi and his associates' various
convictions.
On Berlusconi the talented and opportunist politician, I can add the following which was not
mentioned in the documentary. He knew how to make the difficult deals to form Italy's
notoriously-unstable coalition governments, starting in 1994, with a short-lived alliance with
the regionalist Lega Nord and post-fascist National Alliance (who hated each other, essentially
over the Southern Question). He knew how to compaign for what the people wanted. His famous
2001 "Contract with the Italians" promised less and simpler taxes, infrastructure, more jobs,
more pensions, more police, and less politicians. Of course, he rarely delivered. In 2006,
constitutional reforms proposed by Berlusconi would have strengthened the prime minister and
devolved more powers to Italy's regions, but this was rejected by referendum.
The Italian journalist in the documentary points out that Berlusconi never did the "reforms"
necessary to save the economy, as he did not want to upset his electorate or his coalition
partners. In short, for all the kvetching, Berlusconi was too much of a democrat to get much
done.
Berlusconi was however decidedly anti-leftist. He wanted to reform the constitution because
it had been co-drafted by the "Soviets" (as a matter of fact, communist and Marxist parties
made up about 40% of the 1946 Constituent Assembly and to this day Italy's official emblem looks
communist ). When facing Romano Prodi's left-wing coalition "the Union" in the mid-2000s,
Berlusconi nicknamed it "the Soviet Union." Unlike in France or Germany, Italy had no
taboo on the center-right, including Berlusconi, making alliances with nationalist and
sometimes even neofascist parties. He was born in 1936 in what was then the Kingdom of Italy,
well into the second decade of Fascist government.
At a holocaust remembrance ceremony in 2013, Berlusconi argued that Mussolini's Fascist
government did many good things , all the while lamenting the alliance with the Third Reich
and participation in the holocaust (specifically, the deportation of Jews, although in fact the
survival rate for Italian Jews was among the highest in Europe and these deportations only
began after Germany had created their own puppet government in northern Italy, nominally led by
Mussolini). As a matter of fact, many figures as diverse as Ezra Pound, Charles de Gaulle, and
Richard
Coudenhove-Kalergi admired Italian Fascism's political stability and ability to promote
communitarian values stressing individual self-sacrifice for the common good. All this may
not be understood today however.
In the end, Berlusconi achieved little politically. He maintained good relations with
Russia, America, Israel, and Libya, the latter being of particular value in containing the
ever-rising tied of African illegal immigration. He had excellent instincts in general. But,
ultimately, he was merely an end in himself, masculinity without purpose.
Salvini's party has eclipsed that of Berlusconi
With the declining influence of the mainstream media and the ability of outsiders to appeal
directly to the masses through social media, we will no doubt see the rise of many more
populists movements of both left and right. Happily, in Italy itself, Berlusconian populism has
given way to that of Matteo Salvini ,
who while something an opportunist himself (like all electoral politicians, I am tempted to
add), is saying and doing many of the right things on immigration and demography . . . and is
getting even more popular as a result.
The opportunity here is in overthrowing an emotionally stunted and ideologically incoherent
establishment, which is destroying Western civilization based on a fundamentally incorrect
understanding of human nature. The risk is that we fall into mere demotism, with governments
mindlessly following the fluctuations of the debased desires and prejudices of public opinion,
which would certainly not be optimal either. From this, there will be more electoral demand for
economically unsustainable left-wing economic policies, and for environmentally damaging
right-wing policies. Neither is desirable, I do not rejoice at Trump's blowing up of America's
hills for coal and gas or Bolsonaro's proposals to further cut down the rain forests.
But this is what democracy means! This is the ineluctable product of the hegemonic
"anti-fascism" and rejection of all authority since 1945! To those who are upset with the
careers of Berlusconi, Trump, and Bolsonaro, I am tempted to quote Gladiator : "Are you
not entertained!? Is this not why you are here!?"
Loro & My Way, by Guillaume Durocher -
The Unz Review
Western men and women can no longer understand the ancient notion of justice: that justice
is a right hierarchy. Obviously, there can be no hierarchy or justice among "equals," for whom
anyone's claim to superiority is necessarily presumptuous arrogance. Westerners today are not
ready to hear or understand these truths. In the natural course of events, things must
necessarily get worse before human beings realize that they are doing or thinking something
wrong, and correct course. This takes time. Things certainly are not bad enough yet. We are far
too comfy.
In the meantime, we will see not only more Berlusconis, but many more Trumps, Bolsonaros,
Orbáns , and
Salvinis in the future, as well as Corbyns and Grillos. Loro & My Way, by Guillaume
Durocher - The Unz Review
you also have to live in the country you talk about, or be on close terms with someone
objective who is really friendly to you and lives there, before confidently drawing judgments
on politicians (or writers, or anybody).
Because interests, ego-interests and career interests, cloud reports and opinions.
In the specific, verbally and culturally assaulting Berlusconi during the time of his
being influential and charismatic was the national (and European) sport for the "if Trump
wins I leave the USA, no longer feeling safe" types -- from Organized Press and TV
"journalists" and "film-makers" to "poets", "singers', "thinkers", and, well, every sort of
"influencer".
The same mechanics at play with Trump in the USA.
He was not superficial and initially got elected with programs and projects ahead of the
time for Italy, meeting the opposition (on top of the Left, as said) of his allies, who were
aggrieved by his overwhelming popularity.
He was no Orban no Haider no Le Pen no Farage. The closest comparison is with Trump but he
was no Trump either.
Among other things, he was always pushing to abridge the gap between Italy and those few
countries ahead of it (very few, but stably ahead) -- thus drawing upon himself the ire of
those countries' establishment.
He pursued independence from European élites, and the USA, in foreign politics and
economic governance, as well as efonomically strategical "friendships" with Russia-Putin and
Libya-Ghaddafi.
Such independence was no longer tolerated when, in the mid-00s, the Financial Times &
Goldman Sachs folks gained greater than ever control on exactly foreign policy of European
countries and economic policy.
"The Markets" suddenly stopped trusting Italy's trustwhortiness amd ability to honour its
debts; the "International Press" went on describing financial instability and dire prospects
for Italy full-time, as they do when there's an end to achieve (and to be achieved
shortly).
Interest rates that had to be paid to creditors and people who's buy state debt soared
above any reasonable height, forcing the government's lapse.
Mario Monti, an economist who had served in the ranks of Goldman Sachs, and an
international-élite member, was made President upon, very clearly, orders from
abroad.
Suddenly The Markets and the International Press went back to finding Italy's finances and
financial prospects healthy, debt rates went back to their normal.
In 2018, after some years an independent goverment is elected again (Salvini-Di Maio), and
again you have the EU's economy chiefs, the Press that Matters, the Markets, the USA rating
agencies, all worried about Italy's financial conditions. And again this makes debt rates on
issued state bonds soar.
It happens whenever elected politicians show lack of obedience -- especially if they fail
to harass Putin, has Berlusconi then, and Salvini & Di Maio now, failed and fail to.
It happens whenever elected politicians show lack of obedience -- especially if they
fail to harass Putin, has Berlusconi then, and Salvini & Di Maio now, failed and fail
to.
Yup. The bond-ratings agencies are nothing but a tool of the globalist debt-vultures on
Wall Street. The whole ratings system is a total scam.
[Friedman] does explicitly show, based primarily on U.S. Secretary of the Treasury
Timothy Geithner's testimony, that Berlusconi was taken out under pressure by Sarkozy and
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who blamed Italy's lack of "reforms" for the eurozone's
ills. The European Central Bank also threatened to let Italy go bankrupt unless Rome towed
the line.
I heard a slightly different version of the story. I heard that Berlusconi was pushed out
of office when he threatened to retaliate against Berlin/Brussels by dropping the euro:
In any case, it's a real delight having Guillaume Durocher here at Unz.com. I had never
heard of him before, but I have so far enjoyed all of his articles. It's always good to get a
European droite nouvelle perspective on politics.
@Digital
Samizdat Thanks for your comment! Indeed Italy is perhaps the country for which the euro
is the worst fit. I can imagine business circles around Berlusconi being tempted to get out..
The story of AC Milan, mentioned only in passing here, is instructive: he doesn't know when
to walk away. This can be viewed as positive (tenacity!) or negative (blatant egotism!), but
the fact is his inability to let go means his hand gets forced and in the case of both Italy
and Milan, everybody ends up with a completely crap deal.
In the meantime, we will see not only more Berlusconis, but many more Trumps,
Bolsonaros, Orbáns, and Salvinis in the future, as well as Corbyns and
Grillos.
Let's be absolutely clear about this. Corbyn is no populist. He has little empathy for the
white working class and is in favour of large 3rd World immigration. In fact, Durocher's case
for Left Wing Populism does not stand up to any form of scrutiny. To paraphrase the
dramatist, the mainstream and far left want to dissolve the people and elect a new one. More
and more immigration, they believe, will result in more and more people reliant on welfare.
These people, when enfranchised, will vote for the parties of welfare – the Left. The
Left will be in power forever, so they believe. Given their vested interest, they are
inherently anti-Populist.
From this, there will be more electoral demand for economically unsustainable
left-wing economic policies, and for environmentally damaging right-wing policies. Neither
is desirable, I do not rejoice at Trump's blowing up of America's hills for coal and gas or
Bolsonaro's proposals to further cut down the rain forests.
The population of the US and Brazil 100 years ago was a fraction of what it is now. In
1917 the US population was about 80 million. Now it is 327 million, a 4-fold increase.
Environmental degradation is logical outcome of large and sudden increase in population,
especially in small areas.
It is even more marked in countries like China and North Korea where there is no democracy at
all.
It has little to do with "demotism" or "right-wing policies."
Large scale industrialisation is also associated with environmental degradation. Yet in
Western Europe and North America, in the last 60 years, air, land and water pollution has
been drastically reduced. In the early 1950s, thousands died of respiratory diseases due to
urban smog – the London Pea Souper being the most notorious. These are now just a
memory.
By contrast, countries like India and China have trouble even supplying the population with
clean water. Many millions of Chinese have tap water with toxic levels of heavy metals and
other pollutants. The resultant deaths also run into the millions.
Mr Durocher seems to have a talent for deducing the wrong inference.
Paolo Sorrentino's Il Divo about Italian PM Giulio Andreotti who was actually convicted of
ordering the murder of a journalist (although that was by the same prosecutors' office that
convicted Amanda Knox).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Andreotti
A joke about Andreotti (originally seen in a strip by Stefano Disegni and Massimo Caviglia)
had him receiving a phone call from a fellow party member, who pleaded with him to attend
judge Giovanni Falcone's funeral. His friend supposedly begged, "The State must give an
answer to the Mafia, and you are one of the top authorities in it!" To which a puzzled
Andreotti asked, "Which one do you mean?"
1990 Andreotti was involved in getting all parties to agree to a binding timetable for
the Maastricht Treaty. The deep Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union favoured
by Italy was opposed by Britain's Margaret Thatcher, who wanted a system of competition
between currencies. Germany had doubts about committing to the project without requiring
economic reforms from Italy, which was seen as having various imbalances. As President of
the European Council, Andreotti co-opted Germany by making admittance to the single market
automatic once the criteria had been met, and committing to a rigorous overhaul of Italian
public finances. Critics later questioned Andreotti's understanding of the obligation, or
whether he had ever intended to fulfill it.[50][51]
Italians are taking the French banks that made bad loans to it, and Germany that backs
those loans to prop up the EU single market (Mutualisation), for yet another ride. Macron was
elected as the banks' mutualisation man to making French toxic loans something Germany will
stand behind. Italy is the third largest economy in Europe and too big to fail and they know
it. Technocrat Mario Monti was the bankers' man to reduce Italy's live now pay never
lifestyle , but Italy knew it had a much stronger hand to play and so they elected a
populist. The Germans are going to be squeezed till the pips squeak.
Trump administration policy on Ukraine is also strictly adhere yo the neocon playbook. As if
Victoria Nuland is strill working in State Departemetn and Cheney is the vice president.
Notable quotes:
"... in style and substance, there was no greater avatar for Trump's statement Tuesday than Gaffney's worldview. ..."
"... Trump explicitly namechecked the Muslim Brotherhood, a career-long hobby horse of Gaffney's, and depicted the Middle Eastern theater as straightforward. ..."
The controversial Washington think-tanker denied
to me in August 2017 that he'd directly advised the administration. To the contrary, he'd
actually endorsed and counseled Sen. Ted Cruz, Trump's bitter primary rival, in the late
stretches of the trench warfare 2016 primary (something, like most who have come over to Trump
after the primary, he has sought to minimize). But in style and substance, there was no
greater avatar for Trump's statement Tuesday than Gaffney's worldview.
Trump explicitly namechecked the Muslim Brotherhood, a career-long hobby horse of
Gaffney's, and depicted the Middle Eastern theater as straightforward. David Reaboi, an
alumnus of Gaffney's Center for Security Policy and now with the administration-friendly
Security Studies Group, fleshed the statement out Wednesday morning in an illuminating radio
interview. Reaboi has commented to
me in this publication before; there should be no reason to doubt his sincerity. But for
Reaboi, the joint action of last week's indictments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia coupled with
U.S. sanctions was sufficient, and it's time to get back to business.
... ... ...
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on
Twitter: @CurtMills .
The same things were said when the Queen of Great Britain as Head of State requested
President Eisenhower American Support for their Plans to overthrow an Iranian Democracy
in 1953 to save British Anglo-Persian Oil Revenues for Britons.
Or when Charles André Joseph Marie de Gaulle requested President Truman
American Millions in late 1944-45 intended to hold on to France's Indochina Vietnam,
Cambodia, and Laos Colonies to consolidate French control of the territory against Ho Chi
Minh determination for independence. Leading to the French 7 year war largely funded by
the United States few recall America refusing them costing another 2 Decades and another
5 Presidents inheriting this French Fiasco Imperialism.
Or when America Allied with Communists Joseb Besarionis Dze Jughashvili known as
Joseph (Koba) Stalin, murdered and imprisoned over 30 million Kulaks, Eastern Slavic
Europeans, and Soviet Union Subjects after making Peace with Adolph Hitler to carve up
Poland, and then required American Assistance of Billions to save Stalin's Communism from
Hitler no one objected?
All Presidents must weigh and decide past, current and future Alliances whether it be
President Carter and Reagan freezing American Iranian Assets and later returns by
President Obama in the Billions while Iran used the money to fund more Middle Eastern
Chaos and terror elsewhere. While President Trump reversed that signed Agreement and
added Sanctions to challenge Iranian Behavior. As well as promoting an Arabian Coalition
in the Middle East after 39 years of failure by the Aaytiollah's Regimes.
These controversies, policies, and outcomes are always up for debate, spin, and
accusations, and often depends on America being force to act and react Deeds of Deception
caused by other Nations Leaders especially, Absolute Monarchs, Communist, Socialist,
Fascist Dictators, and Theocratic Ayatollahs.
Saudi Arabia hosts US military bases. Saudi Arabia buys $billions upon $billions of US
weapons. Saudi Arabia is a major oil producer that aligns its activities with US oil
interests. Saudi Arabia is a big investor in the US. Saudi Arabia is a strong ally in the
Middle East. Murder is murder. It's never OK, and God will judge. However, the US has
massive vital interests at stake.
Trump administration is complicit in Khashoggi murder.
The US intelligence had intercepted calls between Riyadh, Washington and Istanbul about
Khashoggi a few days before the killing. It was aware of MbS plans to abduct or kill the
Journalist.
Instead of alerting Khashoggi, the American government let him walk in the Saudi
Consulate and be butchered there.
Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard took to Twitter on Wednesday to excoriate Donald Trump
for his decision to apparently pardon Saudi Arabia for the killing of journalist Jamal
Khashoggi, labeling the president the "bitch" of the authoritarian kingdom. "Hey
@realDonaldTrump," Gabbard tweeted , "being Saudi
Arabia's bitch is not "America First."
Gabbard's tweet comes just a day after Trump released
a statement -- with "America First!" right at the top -- that heavily implied that he will
not pursue any further action against top Saudi officials, who are widely believed to be
responsible for the writer's murder, and cast doubt on the finding of the CIA, his own
intelligence service.
Gabbard previously came
under fire for her own forays into Middle Eastern affairs, including her secret 2016
trip to meet with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria at the height of its civil war and her
suggestion that Assad, a brutal dictator who has overseen the deaths of more than 500,000
people in his country, should not be removed from office.
If this is Trump policy, then Trump is 100% pure neocon. It took just three months for the Deep state to turn him.
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined to see it keep getting worse. ..."
With the newly reimposed US sanctions against
Iran having little to no perceivable economic impact, national security adviser John Bolton
is talking up his plans to continue to escalate the sanctions track, saying he will "
squeeze
Iran until the pips squeak ."
Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying
that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined
to see it keep getting worse.
Bolton went on to predict that the European efforts to keep trading with Iran would
ultimately fail. He said the
Europeans are going through the six stages of grief , and would ultimately led to
European acceptance of the US demands.
Either way, Bolton's position is that the US strategy will continue to be
imposing new sanctions
on Iran going forward. It's not clear what the end game is, beyond just damaging
Iran.
If this is Trump policy, then Trump is 100% pure neocon. It took just three months for the Deep state to turn him.
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined to see it keep getting worse. ..."
With the newly reimposed US sanctions against
Iran having little to no perceivable economic impact, national security adviser John Bolton
is talking up his plans to continue to escalate the sanctions track, saying he will "
squeeze
Iran until the pips squeak ."
Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying
that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined
to see it keep getting worse.
Bolton went on to predict that the European efforts to keep trading with Iran would
ultimately fail. He said the
Europeans are going through the six stages of grief , and would ultimately led to
European acceptance of the US demands.
Either way, Bolton's position is that the US strategy will continue to be
imposing new sanctions
on Iran going forward. It's not clear what the end game is, beyond just damaging
Iran.
"... [Don't miss Barndollar discussing the forever war, the military industrial complex, and military reform at our fifth annual foreign policy conference on November 15 in Washington, D.C. Full schedule and free registration here] ..."
"... Gil Barndollar is Director of Middle East Studies at the Center for the National Interest and Military Fellow-in-Residence at the Catholic University of America's Center for the Study of Statesmanship. He served as a U.S. Marine infantry officer from 2009 to 2016. ..."
Flickr As we near the halfway point of President Donald Trump's first term, U.S. foreign
policy is being widely portrayed as off the rails. Yet when one looks past the Trumpian
bluster, the predetermined media narrative, and the serial incompetence of an understaffed and
often inexperienced administration, one finds a foreign policy agenda that differs far more in
style than in substance from its predecessors'.
Donald Trump ran for president as a foreign policy Buchananite in all but name. Thoughhe
made pro forma genuflections before the altars of primacy and American military supremacy,
Trump repeatedly bemoaned America's disastrous interventions in the Greater Middle East. The
South Carolina Republican presidential debate in February 2016 seemed like a watershed moment:
Trump attacked George W. Bush's war leadership and proclaimed the Iraq war a disaster, a bold
stance in a Republican Party that still refused to acknowledge reality more than a decade after
the invasion. Despite being booed by some in the audience, Trump won the state easily and drove
"Low Energy" Jeb Bush out of the race.
Candidate Trump offered a radical break with the U.S. foreign policy establishment. He said
was NATO obsolete and warned of the danger of a third world war with Russia. He rightly
declared the Libyan intervention to be another fiasco, and an illegal one at that. Hillary
Clinton, by comparison, bragged about Muammar Gaddafi's death and compared Vladimir Putin to
Hitler. Foreign policy realists and restrainers were understandably receptive to a Trump
presidency, warts and all.
Much of Trump's rhetoric revolved around the undeniable fact that our allies are prospering
under an American security umbrella they do not pay enough to support. He famously said that
the United States should "take Iraq's oil" as payback for the American blood and treasure
invested there. Trump seemed to sum up his view of America in the world when he told The
Washington Post in March 2016: "We certainly can't afford to do this anymore."
Two years later, it is clear that "America First" was negotiable. U.S. troops aren't coming
home, entangling alliances are expanding not contracting, and American client states are even
more likely to drag us into war in the Middle East. When one pushes the media and the
president's personality out of view, the most remarkable thing about Trump's foreign policy is
how unremarkable it is. Beneath the rhetoric, American foreign policy these past two years has
remained shackled to the traditional pillars of primacy, interventionism, and hubris.
Afghanistan: The war in Afghanistan offers the clearest evidence of business as usual
in American foreign policy. The administration's brief attempt at unconventional thinking on
Afghanistan was the risible Prince plan, whereby the U.S. would continue to prosecute the war
but outsource it to a "modern East India Company." Erik Prince, formerly head of the Blackwater
security firm and more recently a logistics provider in Africa and trainer of Chinese security
services, proposed to turn Afghanistan over to a brigade of contractors and a "viceroy" with
total command of the U.S. war effort. Though many of Prince's critiques of the current strategy
are sound, mercenaries cannot fix a country with massive culture and governance problems. This
idea was thankfully rejected. More creative thinking, like a real effort to work with Russia,
China, and Pakistan to stabilize Afghanistan, or a withdrawal and a pledge to return in force
if necessary, appears to have been unwelcome.
Instead, a vaunted new strategy offered little substantive change. U.S. forces in
Afghanistan were increased by 4,000 troops, and the number of airstrikes shot up. But the
situation there has only gotten worse. Casualties for both civilians and Afghan security forces
have risen dramatically in the past year while Pakistan still shelters and abets the Taliban.
The Afghan military is still not able to hold territory without U.S. assistance. In fact,
independent assessors like the Long War Journal believe that nearly 60 percent of Afghanistan's
districts are either under Taliban control or contested. The Department of Defense even briefly
trotted out enemy body counts as a metric for progress before The New York Times rightly
invoked the Vietnam War.
Meanwhile, 17 years after 9/11, the Pentagon claims there are now upwards of 20 terror
groups operating in Afghanistan, including what's left of ISIS, the heir to al Qaeda. For that
reason, Americans are told we cannot leave.
Europe: Early in his presidency Trump briefly declined to endorse NATO's Article 5,
provoking predictable hysteria on both sides of the Atlantic. A year later, he gave America's
European allies a tongue-lashing in Brussels, calling them delinquent in their contributions to
collective defense. Germany received special attention, with the president labeling Europe's
largest economy a "captive of Russia." In Helsinki a few days later, Trump appeared to dismiss
charges of Russian meddling in U.S. elections, igniting yet another firestorm of criticism.
Back stateside, he concurred during an interview with Fox News's Tucker Carlson that starting a
war over Montenegro, NATO's newest member, would be folly.
Yet when the dust finally settled, little had changed. The United States continues to
support Ukraine in its war against Russian-backed separatists, even selling Kiev Javelin
anti-tank missiles and other "lethal aid" that the more cautious President Barack Obama had
refused to provide. Sanctions against Russia pile up, dampening that country's long-term
economic development. European armies remain largely impotent while mindless NATO expansion
continues apace. Despite what he said on Fox News, Trump and the GOP-controlled Senate had
already signed off on the addition of Montenegro (and its tiny army of fewer than 2,000
soldiers) to NATO in 2017. Macedonia, another mouse that roared, is next. Poland has recently
entertained the idea of a "Fort Trump" to permanently house U.S. troops on its soil -- yet
another American tripwire force.
The Middle East: Iran remains the Trump administration's abiding foreign policy
obsession. Here, at least, one cannot blame false advertising. The president was explicit about
his plans to tear up Obama's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that limited Iran's
nuclear ambitions, and make a better deal.
Once in office, the president's instincts on the regime were further fortified by the Saudis
and Israelis, to whom he has clung more tightly than any previous administration. He surrounded
himself with paid advocates of the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK), a cult that is hated in Iran.
Trump's lawyer and national security advisor, Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton respectively, have
spoken on MEK's behalf, despite it being a U.S.-designated terrorist organization until 2012.
Bolton now officially abjures regime change, but in July 2017 he promised an MEK gathering in
Paris that they would celebrate together in Tehran in 2019.
[Don't miss Barndollar discussing the forever war, the military industrial complex, and
military reform at our fifth annual foreign policy conference on November 15 in Washington,
D.C. Full schedule
and free registration here]
In May, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo presented Iran with a list of 12 demands that bring
to mind Austria-Hungary and Serbia on the eve of World War I. Pompeo's conditions were not a
starting point for negotiations or normalization; they were a call for surrender. The
administration now believes it can crush Iran through economic sanctions and force it to the
negotiating table.
Trump's Iran obsession has had baleful effects beyond the Persian Gulf. U.S. sanctions on
Iran are damaging relations with a host of other nations by restricting their trade, even as
the president extolled the primacy of sovereignty at the United Nations General Assembly in
September.
Tethered to the increasingly reckless Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the U.S. has
continued to fuel, arm, and otherwise aid the Saudi-led coalition's brutal, stalemated war in
Yemen -- a policy begun by Barack Obama.
In Syria and Iraq, the U.S. can take credit for a successful campaign against the Islamic
State. Yet in the wake of this victory, U.S. troops seem to be staying put in Syria, despite a
promise by Trump to pull them out earlier this year. Top officials announced in September that
American forces will not be leaving Syria until the Iranians do. The risk of our presence in
Syria dragging us into a war with either Iran or Russia is more real than ever.
In Israel, Trump has doubled down on support of Benjamin Netanyahu and the hardline Likud
party. The U.S. finally moved its embassy to Jerusalem, as promised to pro-Israel donors during
the campaign, and cut off all funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA),
the UN's Palestinian refugee agency. These moves only cemented a growing impression that Trump
never planned to be an honest broker between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Many now
believe that the peace process is dead.
North Korea: North Korea dominated headlines and fears of during 2017 and early 2018.
While the president tweeted about "fire and fury" and "Little Rocket Man" Kim Jong-un,
ultra-hawks in Washington pushed for a "bloody nose" preventive attack or even full-on regime
change in North Korea. Thankfully, this was one case where Trump's status quo foreign policy
prevented conflict. Both sides climbed down, conducted a historic summit in Singapore, and made
over-hyped and easily reversible concessions. The president's personalization of diplomacy
resulted in a victory, albeit in a verbal conflict that he had done much to create.
Substantively, little has changed. North Korea will keep its nuclear weapons and ballistic
missiles, American troops will remain in South Korea, and further negotiations are
promised.
This is a good thing: a preventive war with North Korea would be the ultimate expression of
Bismarck's line about "committing suicide out of fear of death." It appears that North Korea
wants to slowly open itself to the world, a prospect that has South Korean businessmen quietly
ecstatic and China relieved. Nonetheless, this is basically business as usual: North Korea
threatens, is granted concessions, and the status quo is preserved. We have seen this before.
We may be on the cusp of a permanent change in relations with North Korea, but the jury is
still out.
China: There is one shining exception to the Trump administration's conventional
foreign policy: China. Trump, unencumbered by free trade ideology, is challenging China's
economic ascent. Gone is the mindless determinism of Clinton, Bush, and Obama, the
evidence-free belief that free trade would somehow gradually end Chinese totalitarianism and
mercantilism. The Chinese have never competed on a level playing field and as a result we have
spent 20 years ceding American industry and supply chains to China. The hour is late, but there
is still time for the United States to fundamentally reorient its relationship with China.
Despite the chimera of a 355-ship navy, America will not win or lose this fight in a
Gotterdammerung in the South China Sea. The contest with China may be existential, but it is
primarily an economic, technological, and political battle. For all of the deep structural
problems in the U.S. economy, China has more to lose from a trade war right now than America
does.
It is not clear, though, if we are in the midst of a trade war or a trade bluff. If it is
the latter, we are likely to get a slightly better arrangement for U.S. businesses and then
proceed towards the same endpoint. If we are fighting a real trade war, however, there is an
opportunity to unwind "Chimerica" and bring manufacturing, if not necessarily jobs, home. It is
an open question whether the president has the stomach for the economic and political pain that
this will entail, as his oft-invoked roaring stock market tanks and Americans feel the bite of
tariffs in their wallets.
As with most things this administration does, competence is also an enormous question mark.
A trade war with China may be necessary and prudent. Simultaneously battling the Europeans and
our NAFTA partners while conducting a trade war with China is neither. If we want to
fundamentally reorder our economic relationship with China, for reasons of both national
security and long-term prosperity, we need to do it in concert with the other liberal
democracies, especially our North American neighbors. They could benefit greatly from a
reorientation of American trade. A strategy is needed, not an impulse and a series of tactical
tariffs.
How did America First so quickly become business as usual, China excepted? Diehard Trumpists
are inclined to defend the president's foreign policy U-turns by painting him as a prisoner of
his own administration, surrounded by conventional Republicans who subvert his
non-interventionist instincts. The writing was on the wall immediately, they claim, as a trio
of generals -- John Kelly, James Mattis, and H. R. McMaster -- were chosen to drive national
security policy. As veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, all three were unlikely to support any
radical reexamination of America's place in the world. Steve Bannon, who would and did support
such a change, was forced out of the White House within a year.
Personnel is policy, as the cliché goes, and the administration's foreign policy team
is dominated by men who are conventional internationalists at best, unrepentant
neoconservatives at worst. Rex Tillerson presided over a State Department in unprecedented
disarray and often found himself focused on limiting the damage of the president's bombast. His
successor has been a reliable agent of foreign policy orthodoxy, dutifully dealing with North
Korea on the one hand and threatening Iran on the other.
There is undoubtedly something to the narrative of internal betrayal, as Bob Woodward's
Fear and the recent anonymous New York Times editorial attest. America may not
have a true Deep State, but Trump's personality and some of his policies have provoked
unprecedented resistance from within government bureaucracies and even from his own political
appointees. Realigning American foreign policy in the face of an obdurate establishment was
always going to be a significant challenge. Succeeding in this task without a united team is
likely impossible.
But this is not an entirely tenable defense. These are men the president chose, and they are
doing his bidding, inasmuch as he knows and communicates what that is. The bench of realists
and non-interventionists may be small, but the president has put some of the worst warmongers
in Washington into positions of real power and influence.
So those who believe in foreign policy realism and restraint are left with the worst of both
worlds: a presidency that espouses an America First agenda but then proceeds to sabotage
support for these policies through reckless rhetoric, incompetent implementation, and a refusal
to carry out anything approaching a thoughtful, non-interventionist strategy.
Perhaps the next two years will see a drastic change in American foreign policy. Hope
springs eternal -- but there is scant reason for anything more than hope.
Gil Barndollar is Director of Middle East Studies at the Center for the National
Interest and Military Fellow-in-Residence at the Catholic University of America's Center for
the Study of Statesmanship. He served as a U.S. Marine infantry officer from 2009 to
2016.
If this is Trump policy, then Trump is 100% pure neocon. It took just three months for the Deep state to turn him.
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined to see it keep getting worse. ..."
With the newly reimposed US sanctions against
Iran having little to no perceivable economic impact, national security adviser John Bolton
is talking up his plans to continue to escalate the sanctions track, saying he will "
squeeze
Iran until the pips squeak ."
Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying
that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined
to see it keep getting worse.
Bolton went on to predict that the European efforts to keep trading with Iran would
ultimately fail. He said the
Europeans are going through the six stages of grief , and would ultimately led to
European acceptance of the US demands.
Either way, Bolton's position is that the US strategy will continue to be
imposing new sanctions
on Iran going forward. It's not clear what the end game is, beyond just damaging
Iran.
The Democrats are politically responsible for the rise of Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... As Obama said following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump. ..."
"... The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout), pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man." ..."
"... This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to exploit discontent among impoverished social layers. ..."
Pelosi's deputy in the House, Steny Hoyer, sums up the right-wing policies of the Democrats,
declaring: "His [Trump's] objectives are objectives that we share. If he really means that,
then there is an opening for us to work together."
So much for the moral imperative of voting for the Democrats to stop Trump! As Obama said
following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their
differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock
and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump.
The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama
administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout),
pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass
surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and
intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies
against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to
sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the
anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man."
This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the
working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers
obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to
exploit discontent among impoverished social layers.
The same process is taking place internationally. While strikes and other expressions of
working class opposition are growing and broad masses are moving to the left, the right-wing
policies of supposedly "left" establishment parties are enabling far-right and neo-fascist
forces to gain influence and power in countries ranging from Germany, Italy, Hungary and Poland
to Brazil.
As for Gay's injunction to vote "pragmatically," this is a crude promotion of the bankrupt
politics that are brought forward in every election to keep workers tied to the capitalist
two-party system. "You have only two choices. That is the reality, whether you like it or not."
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.
The Democratic Party long ago earned the designation "graveyard of social protest
movements," and for good reason. From the Populist movement of the late 19th century, to the
semi-insurrectional industrial union movement of the 1930s, to the civil rights movement of the
1950s and 1960s, to the mass anti-war protest movements of the 1960s and the eruption of
international protests against the Iraq War in the early 2000s -- every movement against the
depredations of American capitalism has been aborted and strangled by being channeled behind
the Democratic Party.
The Democrats are politically responsible for the rise of Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... As Obama said following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump. ..."
"... The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout), pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man." ..."
"... This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to exploit discontent among impoverished social layers. ..."
Pelosi's deputy in the House, Steny Hoyer, sums up the right-wing policies of the Democrats,
declaring: "His [Trump's] objectives are objectives that we share. If he really means that,
then there is an opening for us to work together."
So much for the moral imperative of voting for the Democrats to stop Trump! As Obama said
following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their
differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock
and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump.
The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama
administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout),
pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass
surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and
intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies
against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to
sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the
anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man."
This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the
working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers
obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to
exploit discontent among impoverished social layers.
The same process is taking place internationally. While strikes and other expressions of
working class opposition are growing and broad masses are moving to the left, the right-wing
policies of supposedly "left" establishment parties are enabling far-right and neo-fascist
forces to gain influence and power in countries ranging from Germany, Italy, Hungary and Poland
to Brazil.
As for Gay's injunction to vote "pragmatically," this is a crude promotion of the bankrupt
politics that are brought forward in every election to keep workers tied to the capitalist
two-party system. "You have only two choices. That is the reality, whether you like it or not."
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.
The Democratic Party long ago earned the designation "graveyard of social protest
movements," and for good reason. From the Populist movement of the late 19th century, to the
semi-insurrectional industrial union movement of the 1930s, to the civil rights movement of the
1950s and 1960s, to the mass anti-war protest movements of the 1960s and the eruption of
international protests against the Iraq War in the early 2000s -- every movement against the
depredations of American capitalism has been aborted and strangled by being channeled behind
the Democratic Party.
"... For his first two years in office, he sunk nearly all his political capital into enacting huge tax cuts for the rich, wholesale Wall Street deregulation, large increases in military spending, and an extremely pro-Israel foreign policy -- exactly the sort of policies near-and-dear to the establishment conservative candidates whom he had crushed in the Republican primaries. Meanwhile, his jilted grassroots supporters have had to settle for some radical rhetoric and a regular barrage of outrageous Tweets rather than anything more substantive. ..."
"... With Republicans in full control of Congress, finding excuses for this widespread betrayal was quite difficult, but now that the Democrats have taken the House, Trump's apologists can more easily shift the blame over to them. ..."
"... Both Trump's supporters and his opponents claim that his presidency represents a drastic break from Republican business-as-usual, and surely that was the hope of many of the Americans who voted for him in 2016, but the actual reality often seems rather different. ..."
"... Although the net election results were not particularly bad for the Republicans, the implications of several state races seem extremely worrisome. The highest profile senate race was in Texas, and Trump may have narrowly dodged a bullet. ..."
Perhaps the loss of the House may actually prove to be a mixed blessing for Trump. Democrats
will achieve control of all the investigative committees and their accusations and subpoenas
will make Trump's life even more miserable than it was before, while surely removing any chance
that significant elements of Trump's remaining agenda will ever be enacted.
However, although Trump had reached the presidency by advocating a radical
populist-nationalist agenda, he has hardly governed in those terms. For his first two years in
office, he sunk nearly all his political capital into enacting huge tax cuts for the rich,
wholesale Wall Street deregulation, large increases in military spending, and an extremely
pro-Israel foreign policy -- exactly the sort of policies near-and-dear to the establishment
conservative candidates whom he had crushed in the Republican primaries. Meanwhile, his jilted
grassroots supporters have had to settle for some radical rhetoric and a regular barrage of
outrageous Tweets rather than anything more substantive.
With Republicans in full control of
Congress, finding excuses for this widespread betrayal was quite difficult, but now that the
Democrats have taken the House, Trump's apologists can more easily shift the blame over to
them.
Meanwhile, a considerably stronger Republican Senate will certainly ease the way for Trump's
future court nominees, especially if another Supreme Court vacancy occurs, and there will be
little chance of any difficult Kavanaugh battles. However, here once again, Trump's supposed
radicalism has merely been rhetorical. Kavanaugh and nearly all of his other nominees have been
very mainstream Republican choices, carefully vetted by the Federalist Society and other
conservative establishment groups, and they would probably have been near the top of the list
if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio were sitting in the Oval Office.
Both Trump's supporters and his opponents claim that his presidency represents a drastic
break from Republican business-as-usual, and surely that was the hope of many of the Americans
who voted for him in 2016, but the actual reality often seems rather different.
Although the net election results were not particularly bad for the Republicans, the
implications of several state races seem extremely worrisome. The highest profile senate race
was in Texas, and Trump may have narrowly dodged a bullet. Among our largest states, Texas
ranks as by far the most solidly Republican, and therefore it serves as the central lynchpin of
every Republican presidential campaign. The GOP has won every major statewide race for more
than twenty years, but despite such seemingly huge advantages, incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz faced a
very difficult reelection race against a young border-area Congressman named Beto O'Rourke, who
drew enormous enthusiasm and an ocean of local and national funding.
Perhaps the loss of the House may actually prove to be a mixed blessing for Trump. Democrats
will achieve control of all the investigative committees and their accusations and subpoenas
will make Trump's life even more miserable than it was before, while surely removing any chance
that significant elements of Trump's remaining agenda will ever be enacted.
However, although Trump had reached the presidency by advocating a radical
populist-nationalist agenda, he has hardly governed in those terms. For his first two years in
office, he sunk nearly all his political capital into enacting huge tax cuts for the rich,
wholesale Wall Street deregulation, large increases in military spending, and an extremely
pro-Israel foreign policy -- exactly the sort of policies near-and-dear to the establishment
conservative candidates whom he had crushed in the Republican primaries. Meanwhile, his jilted
grassroots supporters have had to settle for some radical rhetoric and a regular barrage of
outrageous Tweets rather than anything more substantive. With Republicans in full control of
Congress, finding excuses for this widespread betrayal was quite difficult, but now that the
Democrats have taken the House, Trump's apologists can more easily shift the blame over to
them.
Meanwhile, a considerably stronger Republican Senate will certainly ease the way for Trump's
future court nominees, especially if another Supreme Court vacancy occurs, and there will be
little chance of any difficult Kavanaugh battles. However, here once again, Trump's supposed
radicalism has merely been rhetorical. Kavanaugh and nearly all of his other nominees have been
very mainstream Republican choices, carefully vetted by the Federalist Society and other
conservative establishment groups, and they would probably have been near the top of the list
if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio were sitting in the Oval Office.
Both Trump's supporters and his opponents claim that his presidency represents a drastic
break from Republican business-as-usual, and surely that was the hope of many of the Americans
who voted for him in 2016, but the actual reality often seems rather different.
Although the net election results were not particularly bad for the Republicans, the
implications of several state races seem extremely worrisome. The highest profile senate race
was in Texas, and Trump may have narrowly dodged a bullet. Among our largest states, Texas
ranks as by far the most solidly Republican, and therefore it serves as the central lynchpin of
every Republican presidential campaign. The GOP has won every major statewide race for more
than twenty years, but despite such seemingly huge advantages, incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz faced a
very difficult reelection race against a young border-area Congressman named Beto O'Rourke, who
drew enormous enthusiasm and an ocean of local and national funding.
I was actually in Texas just a couple of days before the vote, speaking at a Ron
Paul-related conference in the Houston area, and although most of the libertarian-leaning
attendees thought that Cruz would probably win, they all agreed with the national media that it
would probably be close. Cruz's final victory margin of less than three points confirmed this
verdict.
But if things had gone differently, and O'Rourke had squeaked out a narrow win, our national
politics would have been immediately transformed. Any Republican able to win California has a
near-lock on the White House, and the same is true for any Democrat able to carry Texas,
especially if the latter is a young and attractive Kennedyesque liberal, fluent in Spanish and
probably very popular with the large Latino populations of other important states such as
Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado. I strongly suspect that a freshman Sen. O'Rourke
(R-Texas) would have been offered the 2020 Democratic nomination almost by acclamation, and
barring unexpected personal or national developments, would have been a strong favorite in that
race against Trump or any other Republican. Rep. O'Rourke raised an astonishing $70 million in
nationwide donations, and surely many of his contributors were dreaming of similar
possibilities. A shift of just a point and a half, and in twenty-four months he probably would
have been our next president. But it was not to be.
"... Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts ..."
"... The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people were killed in the course of the three conflicts. ..."
"... Civilians make up over half of the roughly 500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as well. ..."
"... This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011. ..."
Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts
Brown University has released a new study on the cost
in lives of America's Post-9/11 Wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people
were killed in the course of the three conflicts.
This includes combatant deaths and civilian deaths in fighting and war violence. Civilians make up over half of the roughly
500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as
well.
This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly
in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of
the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011.
The report also notes that over 60,000 US troops were either killed or wounded in the course of the wars. This includes 6,951
US military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.
The Brown study also faults the US for having done very little in the last 17 years to provide transparency to the country about
the scope of the conflicts, concluding that they are "inhibited by governments determined to paint a rosy picture of perfect execution
and progress."
"... Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts ..."
"... The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people were killed in the course of the three conflicts. ..."
"... Civilians make up over half of the roughly 500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as well. ..."
"... This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011. ..."
Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts
Brown University has released a new study on the cost
in lives of America's Post-9/11 Wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people
were killed in the course of the three conflicts.
This includes combatant deaths and civilian deaths in fighting and war violence. Civilians make up over half of the roughly
500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as
well.
This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly
in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of
the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011.
The report also notes that over 60,000 US troops were either killed or wounded in the course of the wars. This includes 6,951
US military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.
The Brown study also faults the US for having done very little in the last 17 years to provide transparency to the country about
the scope of the conflicts, concluding that they are "inhibited by governments determined to paint a rosy picture of perfect execution
and progress."
"... Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts ..."
"... The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people were killed in the course of the three conflicts. ..."
"... Civilians make up over half of the roughly 500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as well. ..."
"... This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011. ..."
Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts
Brown University has released a new study on the cost
in lives of America's Post-9/11 Wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people
were killed in the course of the three conflicts.
This includes combatant deaths and civilian deaths in fighting and war violence. Civilians make up over half of the roughly
500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as
well.
This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly
in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of
the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011.
The report also notes that over 60,000 US troops were either killed or wounded in the course of the wars. This includes 6,951
US military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.
The Brown study also faults the US for having done very little in the last 17 years to provide transparency to the country about
the scope of the conflicts, concluding that they are "inhibited by governments determined to paint a rosy picture of perfect execution
and progress."
"... You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal. ..."
"... Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little naive, by most foreigners. ..."
"... Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite. ..."
"... Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with Russia. ..."
"... The problem however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people. ..."
"... The only thing Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia. ..."
"... The US 'Deep State' did this in response to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump attempting to put the interests of the American people first . ..."
Billed as a 'referendum on Trump's presidency', the US Midterm Elections drew an
unusually high number of Americans to the polls yesterday. The minor loss, from Trump's
perspective, of majority Republican control of the lower House of Representatives, suggests, if
anything, the opposite of what the media and establishment want you to believe it means.
An important clue to why the American media has declared permanent open season on this man
transpired during a sometimes heated post-elections press conference at the White House
yesterday. First, CNN's obnoxious Jim Acosta insisted on bringing up the patently absurd
allegations of 'Russia collusion' and refused to shut up and sit down. Soon after, PBS reporter
Yamiche Alcindor joined her colleagues in asking Trump another loaded question , this time on the 'white
nationalism' canard:
Alcindor : On the campaign trail you called yourself a nationalist. Some people saw
that as emboldening white nationalists...
Trump : I don't know why you'd say this. It's such a racist question.
Alcindor : There are some people who say that now the Republican Party is seen as
supporting white nationalists because of your rhetoric. What do you make of that?
Trump : Why do I have among the highest poll numbers with African Americans?
That's such a racist question. I love our country. You have nationalists, and you have
globalists . I also love the world, and I don't mind helping the world, but we have to
straighten out our country first. We have a lot of problems ...
The US media is still "not even wrong" on Trump and why he won the 2016 election.
You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out
MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more
clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal.
Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at
least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the
world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation
for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses
and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little
in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little
naive, by most foreigners.
Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the
Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with
the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the
public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to
increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite.
Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's
money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he
appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to
the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an
all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and
people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the
American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on
the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that
country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with
Russia.
These are but a few examples of the "globalism" that drives the Washington establishment.
Who, in their right mind, would support it? (I won't get into what constitutes a 'right mind',
but we can all agree it does not involve destroying other nations for profit). The problem
however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such
military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian
collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly
the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people.
The only thing
Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of
Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington
establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while
advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia.
Words and their exact meanings matter . To be able to see through the lies of
powerful vested interests and get to the truth, we need to know when those same powerful vested
interests are exploiting our all-too-human proclivity to be coerced and manipulated by appeals
to emotion.
So the words "nationalist" and "nationalism", as they relate to the USA, have never been
"dirty" words until they were made that way by the "globalist" element of the Washington
establishment (i.e., most of it) by associating it with fringe Nazi and "white supremacist"
elements in US society that pose no risk to anyone, (except to the extent that the mainstream
media can convince the general population otherwise). The US 'Deep State' did this in response
to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist
vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the
expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump
attempting to put the interests of the American people first .
"... You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal. ..."
"... Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little naive, by most foreigners. ..."
"... Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite. ..."
"... Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with Russia. ..."
"... The problem however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people. ..."
"... The only thing Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia. ..."
"... The US 'Deep State' did this in response to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump attempting to put the interests of the American people first . ..."
Billed as a 'referendum on Trump's presidency', the US Midterm Elections drew an
unusually high number of Americans to the polls yesterday. The minor loss, from Trump's
perspective, of majority Republican control of the lower House of Representatives, suggests, if
anything, the opposite of what the media and establishment want you to believe it means.
An important clue to why the American media has declared permanent open season on this man
transpired during a sometimes heated post-elections press conference at the White House
yesterday. First, CNN's obnoxious Jim Acosta insisted on bringing up the patently absurd
allegations of 'Russia collusion' and refused to shut up and sit down. Soon after, PBS reporter
Yamiche Alcindor joined her colleagues in asking Trump another loaded question , this time on the 'white
nationalism' canard:
Alcindor : On the campaign trail you called yourself a nationalist. Some people saw
that as emboldening white nationalists...
Trump : I don't know why you'd say this. It's such a racist question.
Alcindor : There are some people who say that now the Republican Party is seen as
supporting white nationalists because of your rhetoric. What do you make of that?
Trump : Why do I have among the highest poll numbers with African Americans?
That's such a racist question. I love our country. You have nationalists, and you have
globalists . I also love the world, and I don't mind helping the world, but we have to
straighten out our country first. We have a lot of problems ...
The US media is still "not even wrong" on Trump and why he won the 2016 election.
You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out
MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more
clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal.
Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at
least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the
world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation
for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses
and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little
in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little
naive, by most foreigners.
Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the
Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with
the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the
public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to
increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite.
Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's
money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he
appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to
the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an
all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and
people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the
American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on
the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that
country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with
Russia.
These are but a few examples of the "globalism" that drives the Washington establishment.
Who, in their right mind, would support it? (I won't get into what constitutes a 'right mind',
but we can all agree it does not involve destroying other nations for profit). The problem
however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such
military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian
collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly
the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people.
The only thing
Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of
Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington
establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while
advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia.
Words and their exact meanings matter . To be able to see through the lies of
powerful vested interests and get to the truth, we need to know when those same powerful vested
interests are exploiting our all-too-human proclivity to be coerced and manipulated by appeals
to emotion.
So the words "nationalist" and "nationalism", as they relate to the USA, have never been
"dirty" words until they were made that way by the "globalist" element of the Washington
establishment (i.e., most of it) by associating it with fringe Nazi and "white supremacist"
elements in US society that pose no risk to anyone, (except to the extent that the mainstream
media can convince the general population otherwise). The US 'Deep State' did this in response
to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist
vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the
expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump
attempting to put the interests of the American people first .
Gold age of the USA (say 40 years from 1946 to approximately 1986 ) were an in some way an aberration caused by WWII. As soon
as Germany and Japan rebuilt themselves this era was over. And the collapse of the USSR in 1991 (or more correct Soviet
nomenklatura switching sides and adopting neoliberalism) only make the decline more gradual but did not reversed it. After
200 it was clear that neoliberalism is in trouble and in 2008 it was clear that ideology of neoliberalism is dead, much like
Bolshevism after 1945.
As the US ruling neoliberal elite adopted this ideology ad its flag, the USA faces the situation somewhat similar the USSR
faced in 70th. It needs its "Perestroika" but with weak leader at the helm like Gorbachov it can lead to the dissolution of
the state. Dismantling neoliberalism is not less dangerous then dismantling of Bolshevism. The level of brainwashing of both
population and the elite (and it looks like the USA elite is brainwashed to an amazing level, probably far exceed the level of
brainwashing of Soviet nomenklatura) prevents any constructive moves.
In a way, Neoliberalism probably acts as a mousetrap for the country, similar to the role of Bolshevism in the
USSR. Ideology of neoliberalism is dead, so what' next. Another war to patch the internal divisions ? That's probably
why Trump is so adamant about attacking Iran. Iran does not have nuclear weapons so this is in a way an ideal target.
Unlike, say, Russia. And such a war can serve the same political purpose. That's why many emigrants from the USSR view the current
level of divisions with the USA is a direct analog of divisions within the USSR in late 70th and 80th. Similarities are
clearly visible with naked eye.
Notable quotes:
"... t is well known that legendary American gangster Al Capone once said that 'Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class', - and I have commented on the links between organised crime and capitalist accumulation before on this blog, but I recently came across the following story from Claud Cockburn's autobiography, and decided to put it up on Histomat for you all. ..."
"... "Listen," he said, "don't get the idea I'm one of those goddam radicals. Don't get the idea I'm knocking the American system. The American system..." As though an invisible chairman had called upon him for a few words, he broke into an oration upon the theme. He praised freedom, enterprise and the pioneers. He spoke of "our heritage". He referred with contempuous disgust to Socialism and Anarchism. "My rackets," he repeated several times, "are run on strictly American lines and they're going to stay that way"...his vision of the American system began to excite him profoundly and now he was on his feet again, leaning across the desk like the chairman of a board meeting, his fingers plunged in the rose bowls. ..."
"... A month later in New York I was telling this story to Mr John Walter, minority owner of The Times . He asked me why I had not written the Capone interview for the paper. I explained that when I had come to put my notes together I saw that most of what Capone had said was in essence identical with what was being said in the leading articles of The Times itself, and I doubted whether the paper would be best pleased to find itself seeing eye to eye with the most notorious gangster in Chicago. Mr Walter, after a moment's wry reflection, admitted that probably my idea had been correct.' ..."
"... The biggest lie ever told is that American hegemony relies on American imperialism and warmongering. The opposite is true. America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs, not to protect or favor the American people. ..."
"... please mr. author don't give us more globalist dribble. We want our wealth back ..."
"... America the empire is just another oligarchic regime that other countries' populations rightly see as an example of what doesn't work ..."
"... It's the ruling capitalist Predator Class that has been demanding empire since McKinley was assassinated. That's the problem. ..."
"... And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? ..."
"... The US physical plant and equipment as well as infrastructure is in advanced stages of decay. Ditto for the labor force which has been pauperized and abused for decades by the Predator Class... ..."
"The only wealth you keep is wealth you have given away," said Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD),
last of the great Roman emperors. US President Donald Trump might know of another Italian,
Mario Puzo's Don Vito Corleone, and his memorable mumble : "I'm going to make him
an offer he can't refuse."
Forgetting such Aurelian and godfather codes is propelling the decline and fall of the
American empire.
Trump is making offers the world can refuse – by reshaping trade deals, dispensing
with American sops and forcing powerful corporations to return home, the US is regaining
economic wealth but relinquishing global power.
As the last leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Mikhail Gorbachev's
perestroika (restructuring) led to the breakup of its vast territory(22 million square
kilometers). Gorbachev's failed policies led to the dissolution of the USSR into Russia and
independent countries, and the end of a superpower.
Ironically, the success of Trump's policies will hasten the demise of the American empire:
the US regaining economic health but losing its insidious hold over the world.
This diminishing influence was highlighted when India and seven other countries geared up to
defy Washington's re-imposition of its unilateral, illegal sanctions against Iran, starting
Monday.
The US State Department granting "permission" on the weekend to the eight countries to buy
Iranian oil was akin to waving the green flag at a train that has already left the
station
The US State Department granting "permission" on the weekend to the eight countries to buy
Iranian oil was akin to waving the green flag at a train that has already left the station.
The law of cause and effect unavoidably delivers. The Roman Empire fell after wars of greed
and orgies of consumption. A similar nemesis, the genie of Gorbachev, stalks Pennsylvania
Avenue, with Trump unwittingly writing the last chapter of World War II: the epilogue of the
two rival superpowers that emerged from humanity's most terrible conflict.
The maverick 45th president of the United States may succeed at being an economic messiah to
his country, which has racked up a $21.6 trillion debt, but the fallout is the death of
American hegemony. These are the declining days of the last empire standing.
Emperors and mafia godfathers knew that wielding great influence means making payoffs.
Trump, however, is doing away with the sops, the glue that holds the American empire together,
and is making offers that he considers "fair" but instead is alienating the international
community– from badgering NATO and other countries to pay more for hosting the US legions
(800 military bases in 80 countries) to reducing US aid.
US aid to countries fell from $50 billion in fiscal year 2016, $37 billion in 2017 to $7.7
billion so far in 2018. A world less tied to American largesse and generous trade tarrifs can
more easily reject the "you are with us or against us" bullying doctrine of US presidents. In
the carrot and stick approach that largely passes as American foreign policy, the stick loses
power as the carrot vanishes.
Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) in The Godfather. Big payoffs needed for big influence. A
presidential lesson for Don Trump
More self-respecting leaders will have less tolerance for American hypocrisy, such as
sanctioning other countries for nuclear weapons while having the biggest nuclear arsenal on the
planet.
They will sneer more openly at the hysteria surrounding alleged interference in the 2016 US
presidential elections, pointing to Washington's violent record of global meddling. They will
cite examples of American hypocrisy such as its sponsorship of coups against elected leaders in
Latin America, the US Army's Project Camelot in 1964 targeting 22 countries for intervention
(including Iran, Turkey, Thailand, Malaysia), its support for bloodthirsty dictators, and its
destabilization of the Middle East with the destruction of Iraq and Libya.
Immigrant
cannon fodder
Trump's focus on the economy reduces the likelihood of him starting wars. By ending the
flood of illegal immigrants to save jobs for US citizens, he is also inadvertently reducing the
manpower for illegal wars. Non-citizen immigrants comprise about 5% of the US Army. For its
Iraq and Afghanistan wars, US army recruiters offered citizenship to lure illegal immigrants,
mostly Latinos.
Among the first US soldiers to die in the Iraq War was 22-year old illegal immigrant
Corporal Jose Antonio Gutierrez, an orphan from the streets of Guatemala City. He sneaked
across the Mexican border into the US six years before enlisting in exchange for American
citizenship.
On March 21, 2003, Gutierrez was killed by friendly fire near Umm Qasr, southern Iraq. The
coffin of this illegal immigrant was draped in the US flag, and he received American
citizenship – posthumously.
Trump policies targeting illegal immigration simultaneously reduces the availability of
cannon fodder for the illegal wars needed to maintain American hegemony.
Everything comes to an end, and so too will the last empire of our era.
The imperial American eagle flying into the sunset will see the dawn of an economically
healthier US that minds its own business, and increase hopes for a more equal, happier world
– thanks to the unintentional Gorbachev-2 in the White House.
I am sure that many of us are OK with ending American Empire. Both US citizens and other
countries don't want to fight un-necessary and un-ending wars. If Trump can do that, then he
is blessed.
See a pattern here? Raja Murthy, you sound like a pro-American Empire shill. 1964 Project
Camelot has nothing to do with the current administration. Raja, you forgot to wear your
satirical pants.
The idea and catchy hook of 2016 was Make America Great Again, not wasting lives and
resources on the American Empire. You point out the good things. Who might have a problem
with the end of the American Empire are Globalists. What is wrong with relinquishing global
power and not wasting lives and money?
"The only lives you keep is lives you've given away" That does not ring true. The only
lies you keep are the lies you've given away. What? You're not making any sense, dude. How
much American Empire are you vested in? Does it bother you if the Empire shrinks its death
grip on Asia or the rest of the world? Why don't you just say it: This is good! Hopefully
Trump's policies will prevent you from getting writers' cramp and being confusing--along with
the canon fodder. Or maybe you're worried about job security.
America is a super power, just like Russia. Just like England. However, whom the US
carries water for might change. Hope that's ok.
Trump is an empirial president, just like every other US president. In fact, that's what
the article is describing. MAGA depends upon imperialist domination. Trump and all of US
capitalism know that even if the brain-dead MAGA chumps don't.
Capitalism can't help but seek to rule the world. It is the result of pursuing
capitalism's all-important growth. If it's not US capitalism, it will be Chinese capitalism,
or Russian capitalism, or European capitalism that will rule the world.
The battle over global markets doesn't stop just because the US might decide not to play
anymore. Capitalism means that you're either the global power who is ******* the royal ****
out of everyone else, or you're the victim of being fucked up the *** by an imperialist
power.
The only thing which makes the US different from the rest of the world is its super
concentration of power, which in effect is a super concentration of corruption.
Another day and another ZeroHedge indictment of American capitalism.
And how refreshing that the article compares US capitalism to gangsterism. It's a most
appropriate comparison.
--------------------
Al Capone on Capitalism
It is well known that legendary American gangster Al Capone once said that 'Capitalism is the
legitimate racket of the ruling class', - and I have commented on the links between organised
crime and capitalist accumulation before
on this blog, but I recently came across the following story from Claud Cockburn's autobiography, and decided
to put it up on Histomat for you all.
In 1930, Cockburn, then a correspondent in America for the Times newspaper,
interviewed Al Capone at the Lexington Hotel in Chicago, when Capone was at the height of his
power. He recalls that except for 'the sub-machine gun...poking through the transom of a door
behind the desk, Capone's own room was nearly indistinguishable from that of, say, a "newly
arrived" Texan oil millionaire. Apart from the jowly young murderer on the far side of the
desk, what took the eye were a number of large, flattish, solid silver bowls upon the desk,
each filled with roses. They were nice to look at, and they had another purpose too, for
Capone when agitated stood up and dipped the tips of his fingers in the water in which
floated the roses.
I had been a little embarrassed as to how the interview was to be launched. Naturally the
nub of all such interviews is somehow to get round to the question "What makes you tick?" but
in the case of this millionaire killer the approach to this central question seemed mined
with dangerous impediments. However, on the way down to the Lexington Hotel I had had the
good fortune to see, I think in the Chicago Daily News , some statistics offered by an
insurance company which dealt with the average expectation of life of gangsters in Chicago. I
forget exactly what the average was, and also what the exact age of Capone at that time - I
think he was in his early thirties. The point was, however, that in any case he was four
years older than the upper limit considered by the insurance company to be the proper average
expectation of life for a Chicago gangster. This seemed to offer a more or less neutral and
academic line of approach, and after the ordinary greetings I asked Capone whether he had
read this piece of statistics in the paper. He said that he had. I asked him whether he
considered the estimate reasonably accurate. He said that he thought that the insurance
companies and the newspaper boys probably knew their stuff. "In that case", I asked him, "how
does it feel to be, say, four years over the age?"
He took the question quite seriously and spoke of the matter with neither more nor less
excitement or agitation than a man would who, let us say, had been asked whether he, as the
rear machine-gunner of a bomber, was aware of the average incidence of casualties in that
occupation. He apparently assumed that sooner or later he would be shot despite the elaborate
precautions which he regularly took. The idea that - as afterwards turned out to be the case
- he would be arrested by the Federal authorities for income-tax evasion had not, I think, at
that time so much as crossed his mind. And, after all, he said with a little bit of
corn-and-ham somewhere at the back of his throat, supposing he had not gone into this racket?
What would be have been doing? He would, he said, "have been selling newspapers barefoot on
the street in Brooklyn".
He stood as he spoke, cooling his finger-tips in the rose bowl in front of him. He sat
down again, brooding and sighing. Despite the ham-and-corn, what he said was probably true
and I said so, sympathetically. A little bit too sympathetically, as immediately emerged, for
as I spoke I saw him looking at me suspiciously, not to say censoriously. My remarks about
the harsh way the world treats barefoot boys in Brooklyn were interrupted by an urgent angry
waggle of his podgy hand.
"Listen," he said, "don't get the idea I'm one of those goddam radicals. Don't get the
idea I'm knocking the American system. The American system..." As though an invisible
chairman had called upon him for a few words, he broke into an oration upon the theme. He
praised freedom, enterprise and the pioneers. He spoke of "our heritage". He referred with
contempuous disgust to Socialism and Anarchism. "My rackets," he repeated several times, "are
run on strictly American lines and they're going to stay that way"...his vision of the
American system began to excite him profoundly and now he was on his feet again, leaning
across the desk like the chairman of a board meeting, his fingers plunged in the rose
bowls.
"This American system of ours," he shouted, "call it Americanism, call it Capitalism, call
it what you like, gives to each and every one of us a great opportunity if we only seize it
with both hands and make the most of it." He held out his hand towards me, the fingers
dripping a little, and stared at me sternly for a few seconds before reseating himself.
A month later in New York I was telling this story to Mr John Walter, minority owner of
The Times . He asked me why I had not written the Capone interview for the paper. I
explained that when I had come to put my notes together I saw that most of what Capone had
said was in essence identical with what was being said in the leading articles of The
Times itself, and I doubted whether the paper would be best pleased to find itself seeing
eye to eye with the most notorious gangster in Chicago. Mr Walter, after a moment's wry
reflection, admitted that probably my idea had been correct.'
This article was obviously written by someone who wants to maintain the status quo.
America would be much stronger if it were not trying to be an empire. The biggest lie ever
told is that American hegemony relies on American imperialism and warmongering. The opposite
is true. America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because
anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs, not to
protect or favor the American people.
I truly believe that "America First" is not selfish. America before it went full ******
was the beacon of freedom and success that other countries tried to emulate and that changed
the world for the better.
America the empire is just another oligarchic regime that other
countries' populations rightly see as an example of what doesn't work.
Empire is a contrivance, a vehicle for psychopathic powerlust. America was founded by
people who stood adamantly opposed to this. Here's hoping Trump holds their true spirit in
his heart.
If he doesn't, there's hundreds of millions of us who still do. We don't all live in
America...
America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because
anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs [sic],
not to protect or favor the American people.
And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to
call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? Oligarchs...you're
FULL of ****. Who exactly pools all (((their))) money, makes sure the [s]elected officials
know (((who))) to not question and, instead, just bow down to them, who makes sure these
(((officials))) sign pledges for absolute commitment towards Israel--or in no uncertain
terms-- and know who will either sponsor them/or opposes them next time around?
JSBach1 called you a 'coward', for being EXACTLY LIKE THESE TRAITOROUS SPINELESS
VERMIN who simply just step outside just 'enough' the comfort zone to APPEAR 'real'. IMHO, I
concur with JSBach1 ...your're a coward indeed, when you should know better .....
shame you you indeed!
There is little evidence, Trump's propaganda aside (that he previously called Obama
dishonest for) that the US economy is improving. If anything, the exploding budget and trade
deficits indicate that the economy continues to weaken.
Correct. The US physical plant and equipment as well as infrastructure is in advanced
stages of decay. Ditto for the labor force which has been pauperized and abused for decades
by the Predator Class...
the US can't even raise an army... even if enough young (men) were
dumb enough to volunteer there just aren't enough fit, healthy and mentally acute recruits
out there.
"... There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. The Rich, the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats. It's one minute after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are burning and seas are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9? ..."
"... So the Democrat faction of the Corporate One-Party took back control of the House from the Republican faction. (It's one hard-right party, of course; only liars and those ignorant of history call the Dems "centrist". By any objective or historical standard they're a right-wing party.) ..."
"... I made no prediction on what would happen in this election, but I've long predicted that if/when the Democrats win control of either house they'll do nothing with that control. Jack squat. Status quo all the way, embellished with more retarded Russia-Derangement stuff and similar nonsense. ..."
"... If there really were a difference between these corporate factions, here's the chance for the House to obstruct all Senate-passed legislation. ..."
"... They claim there's a difference between the two parties? ..."
"... But I predict this House won't lift a finger vs. the Senate, and that it'll strive to work with the Senate on legislation, and that it'll fully concur with the Senate on war budgets, police state measures, anything and everything demanded by Wall Street, Big Ag, the fossil fuel extractors, and of course the corporate welfare state in general. ..."
"... Nothing I've talked about here is anything but what is possible, what is always implicitly or explicitly promised by Dembots, and what it would seem is the minimum necessary given what Dembots claim is the scope of the crisis and what is at stake. ..."
It's not even decent theatre. Drama is much lacking, character development zilch. The outcome that dems take congress,& rethugs
improve in senate is exactly as was predicted months ago.
The dems reveal once again exactly how mendacious and uncaring of
the population they are. Nothing matters other than screwing more cash outta anyone who wants anything done so that the DC trough
stays full with the usual crew of 4th & 5th generation wannabe dem pols guzzling hard at the corporate funded 'dem aligned' think
tanks which generate much hot air yet never deliver. Hardly suprising given that actually doing something to show they give a
sh1t about the citizenry would annoy the donor who would give em all the boot, making all these no-hopers have to take up a gig
actually practising law.
These are people whose presence at the best law schools in the country prevented many who wanted to be y'know lawyers from
entering Harvard, Cornell etc law school. "one doesn't go to law school to become a lawyer It too hard to even pull down a mil
a year as a brief, nah, I studied the law to learn how to make laws that actually do the opposite of what they seem to. That is
where the real dough is."
Those who think that is being too hard on the dem slugs, should remember that the rethugs they have been indoctrinated to detest
act pretty much as printed on the side of the can. They advertise a service of licking rich arseholes and that is exactly what
they do. As venal and sociopathic as they are, at least they don't pretend to be something else; so while there is no way one
could vote for anyone spouting republican nonsense at least they don't hide their greed & corruption under a veneer of pseudo-humanist
nonsense. Dems cry for the plight of the poverty stricken then they slash welfare.
Or dems sob about the hard row african americans must hoe, then go off to the house of reps to pass laws to keep impoverished
african americans slotted up in an over crowded prison for the rest of his/her life.
Not only deceitful and vicious, 100% pointless since any Joe/Jo that votes on the basis of wanting to see more blackfellas
incarcerated is always gonna tick the rethug box anyhow.
Yeah- yeah we know all this so what?
This is what - the dems broke their arses getting tens of millions of young first time voters out to "exercise their democratic
prerogative" for the first time. Dems did this knowing full well that there would be no effective opposition to rethug demands
for more domestic oppression, that in fact it is practically guaranteed that should the trump and the rethug senate require it,
in order to ensure something particularly nasty gets passed, that sufficient dem congress people will 'cross the floor' to make
certain the bill does get up.
Of course the dems in question will allude to 'folks back home demanding' that the dem slug does vote with the nasties, but
that is the excuse, the reality is far too many dem pols are as bigoted greedy and elitist as the worst rethugs.
Anyway the upshot of persuading so many kids to get out and vote, so the kids do but the dems are content to just do more of
the same, will be another entire generation lost to elections forever.
If the DNC had been less greedy and more strategic they would have kept their powder dry and hung off press-ganging the kids
until getting such a turnout could have resulted in genuine change, prez 2020' or whenever, would be actual success for pols and
voters.
But they didn't and wouldn't ever, since for a dem pol, hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens living on the street isn't
nearly as problematic for them, as the dem wannabe pol paying off the mortgage on his/her DC townhouse by 2020, something that
would have been impossible if they hadn't taken congress as all the 'patrons' would have jerked back their cash figuring there
is no gain giving dosh to losers who couldn't win a bar raffle.
As for that Sharice Davids - a total miss she needed to be either a midget or missing an arm or leg to qualify as the classic
ID dem pol. Being a native american lezzo just doesn't tick enough boxes. I predict a not in the least illustrious career since
she cannot even qualify as the punchline in a circa 1980's joke.
As you said, nothing will get out of the House, Pelosi can't lead. They can easily swing 3 Democrats, then Mike Pence puts
the hammer down. If anything manages to crawl through, it won't even be brought to a vote in the Republican Senate. Trump can
still us his bully pulpit to circle the White wagons, fly in even more than his current 1,125,000 H-visa aliens, and No Taxes
for the Rich is now engraved in stone for the Pharoahs.
The imminent $1,500B Omnibus Deficit Bill Three will be lauded as a 'bipartisan solution' by both houses, and 2020 looks to
be a $27,000B illegal, onerous, odious National Debt open Civil War.
There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. The Rich,
the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats.
It's one minute after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are burning and seas
are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9?
Smart money is moving toward the exits. This shyte is gonna blow. Let's move to Australia, before it becomes part of Xi's PRC
String of Girls.
Reading most of the comments explaining how the D's won/lost,,, the R's won/lost,,, Trump and company won/lost,,, but couldn't
find one post about how America is losing due to the two suffocating party's and a greedy, disunited, selfish, electorate that
wants it all free.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the Majority discovers it can vote itself
largess out of the public treasury,,,,,,, After that the Majority always votes for the candidate 'promising the most' ,,,,,,,
Alex Fraser.
So the Democrat faction of the Corporate One-Party took back control of the House from the Republican faction. (It's one hard-right
party, of course; only liars and those ignorant of history call the Dems "centrist". By any objective or historical standard they're
a right-wing party.)
It's no big surprise. Last two years it's been the normally self-assured Republicans who, because of their ambivalence about Trump,
have uncharacteristically taken on the usual Democrat role of existential confusion and doubt. Meanwhile the Democrats, in a berserk
batsh$t-insane way, have been more motivated and focused.
So what are these Democrats going to do with this control now that they have it?
I made no prediction on what would happen in this election, but I've long predicted that if/when the Democrats win control of
either house they'll do nothing with that control. Jack squat. Status quo all the way, embellished with more retarded Russia-Derangement
stuff and similar nonsense.
If there really were a difference between these corporate factions, here's the chance for the House to obstruct all Senate-passed
legislation. And as for things which are technically only in the power of the Senate such as confirming appointments, here's the
chance for the House to put public moral pressure on Democrats in the Senate. And there's plenty of back-door ways an activist
House can influence Senate business. Only morbid pedantry, so typical of liberal Dembots, babbles about what the technical powers
of this or that body are. The real world doesn't work that way. To the extent I pay attention at all to Senate affairs it'll be
to see what the House is doing about it.
They claim there's a difference between the two parties? And they claim Trump is an incipient fascist dictator? In that case there's
a lot at stake, and extreme action is called for. Let's see what kind of action we get from their "different" party in control
of the House.
But I predict this House won't lift a finger vs. the Senate, and that it'll strive to work with the Senate on legislation, and
that it'll fully concur with the Senate on war budgets, police state measures, anything and everything demanded by Wall Street,
Big Ag, the fossil fuel extractors, and of course the corporate welfare state in general.
Nor will any of these new-fangled fake "socialist" types take any action to change things one iota. Within the House Democrats,
they could take action, form any and every kind of coalition, to obstruct the corporate-Pelosi leadership faction. They will not
do so. This "new" progressive bloc will be just as fake as the old one.
Nothing I've talked about here is anything but what is possible, what is always implicitly or explicitly promised by Dembots,
and what it would seem is the minimum necessary given what Dembots claim is the scope of the crisis and what is at stake.
"... There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. The Rich, the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats. It's one minute after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are burning and seas are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9? ..."
"... So the Democrat faction of the Corporate One-Party took back control of the House from the Republican faction. (It's one hard-right party, of course; only liars and those ignorant of history call the Dems "centrist". By any objective or historical standard they're a right-wing party.) ..."
"... I made no prediction on what would happen in this election, but I've long predicted that if/when the Democrats win control of either house they'll do nothing with that control. Jack squat. Status quo all the way, embellished with more retarded Russia-Derangement stuff and similar nonsense. ..."
"... If there really were a difference between these corporate factions, here's the chance for the House to obstruct all Senate-passed legislation. ..."
"... They claim there's a difference between the two parties? ..."
"... But I predict this House won't lift a finger vs. the Senate, and that it'll strive to work with the Senate on legislation, and that it'll fully concur with the Senate on war budgets, police state measures, anything and everything demanded by Wall Street, Big Ag, the fossil fuel extractors, and of course the corporate welfare state in general. ..."
"... Nothing I've talked about here is anything but what is possible, what is always implicitly or explicitly promised by Dembots, and what it would seem is the minimum necessary given what Dembots claim is the scope of the crisis and what is at stake. ..."
It's not even decent theatre. Drama is much lacking, character development zilch. The outcome that dems take congress,& rethugs
improve in senate is exactly as was predicted months ago.
The dems reveal once again exactly how mendacious and uncaring of
the population they are. Nothing matters other than screwing more cash outta anyone who wants anything done so that the DC trough
stays full with the usual crew of 4th & 5th generation wannabe dem pols guzzling hard at the corporate funded 'dem aligned' think
tanks which generate much hot air yet never deliver. Hardly suprising given that actually doing something to show they give a
sh1t about the citizenry would annoy the donor who would give em all the boot, making all these no-hopers have to take up a gig
actually practising law.
These are people whose presence at the best law schools in the country prevented many who wanted to be y'know lawyers from
entering Harvard, Cornell etc law school. "one doesn't go to law school to become a lawyer It too hard to even pull down a mil
a year as a brief, nah, I studied the law to learn how to make laws that actually do the opposite of what they seem to. That is
where the real dough is."
Those who think that is being too hard on the dem slugs, should remember that the rethugs they have been indoctrinated to detest
act pretty much as printed on the side of the can. They advertise a service of licking rich arseholes and that is exactly what
they do. As venal and sociopathic as they are, at least they don't pretend to be something else; so while there is no way one
could vote for anyone spouting republican nonsense at least they don't hide their greed & corruption under a veneer of pseudo-humanist
nonsense. Dems cry for the plight of the poverty stricken then they slash welfare.
Or dems sob about the hard row african americans must hoe, then go off to the house of reps to pass laws to keep impoverished
african americans slotted up in an over crowded prison for the rest of his/her life.
Not only deceitful and vicious, 100% pointless since any Joe/Jo that votes on the basis of wanting to see more blackfellas
incarcerated is always gonna tick the rethug box anyhow.
Yeah- yeah we know all this so what?
This is what - the dems broke their arses getting tens of millions of young first time voters out to "exercise their democratic
prerogative" for the first time. Dems did this knowing full well that there would be no effective opposition to rethug demands
for more domestic oppression, that in fact it is practically guaranteed that should the trump and the rethug senate require it,
in order to ensure something particularly nasty gets passed, that sufficient dem congress people will 'cross the floor' to make
certain the bill does get up.
Of course the dems in question will allude to 'folks back home demanding' that the dem slug does vote with the nasties, but
that is the excuse, the reality is far too many dem pols are as bigoted greedy and elitist as the worst rethugs.
Anyway the upshot of persuading so many kids to get out and vote, so the kids do but the dems are content to just do more of
the same, will be another entire generation lost to elections forever.
If the DNC had been less greedy and more strategic they would have kept their powder dry and hung off press-ganging the kids
until getting such a turnout could have resulted in genuine change, prez 2020' or whenever, would be actual success for pols and
voters.
But they didn't and wouldn't ever, since for a dem pol, hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens living on the street isn't
nearly as problematic for them, as the dem wannabe pol paying off the mortgage on his/her DC townhouse by 2020, something that
would have been impossible if they hadn't taken congress as all the 'patrons' would have jerked back their cash figuring there
is no gain giving dosh to losers who couldn't win a bar raffle.
As for that Sharice Davids - a total miss she needed to be either a midget or missing an arm or leg to qualify as the classic
ID dem pol. Being a native american lezzo just doesn't tick enough boxes. I predict a not in the least illustrious career since
she cannot even qualify as the punchline in a circa 1980's joke.
As you said, nothing will get out of the House, Pelosi can't lead. They can easily swing 3 Democrats, then Mike Pence puts
the hammer down. If anything manages to crawl through, it won't even be brought to a vote in the Republican Senate. Trump can
still us his bully pulpit to circle the White wagons, fly in even more than his current 1,125,000 H-visa aliens, and No Taxes
for the Rich is now engraved in stone for the Pharoahs.
The imminent $1,500B Omnibus Deficit Bill Three will be lauded as a 'bipartisan solution' by both houses, and 2020 looks to
be a $27,000B illegal, onerous, odious National Debt open Civil War.
There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. The Rich,
the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats.
It's one minute after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are burning and seas
are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9?
Smart money is moving toward the exits. This shyte is gonna blow. Let's move to Australia, before it becomes part of Xi's PRC
String of Girls.
Reading most of the comments explaining how the D's won/lost,,, the R's won/lost,,, Trump and company won/lost,,, but couldn't
find one post about how America is losing due to the two suffocating party's and a greedy, disunited, selfish, electorate that
wants it all free.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the Majority discovers it can vote itself
largess out of the public treasury,,,,,,, After that the Majority always votes for the candidate 'promising the most' ,,,,,,,
Alex Fraser.
So the Democrat faction of the Corporate One-Party took back control of the House from the Republican faction. (It's one hard-right
party, of course; only liars and those ignorant of history call the Dems "centrist". By any objective or historical standard they're
a right-wing party.)
It's no big surprise. Last two years it's been the normally self-assured Republicans who, because of their ambivalence about Trump,
have uncharacteristically taken on the usual Democrat role of existential confusion and doubt. Meanwhile the Democrats, in a berserk
batsh$t-insane way, have been more motivated and focused.
So what are these Democrats going to do with this control now that they have it?
I made no prediction on what would happen in this election, but I've long predicted that if/when the Democrats win control of
either house they'll do nothing with that control. Jack squat. Status quo all the way, embellished with more retarded Russia-Derangement
stuff and similar nonsense.
If there really were a difference between these corporate factions, here's the chance for the House to obstruct all Senate-passed
legislation. And as for things which are technically only in the power of the Senate such as confirming appointments, here's the
chance for the House to put public moral pressure on Democrats in the Senate. And there's plenty of back-door ways an activist
House can influence Senate business. Only morbid pedantry, so typical of liberal Dembots, babbles about what the technical powers
of this or that body are. The real world doesn't work that way. To the extent I pay attention at all to Senate affairs it'll be
to see what the House is doing about it.
They claim there's a difference between the two parties? And they claim Trump is an incipient fascist dictator? In that case there's
a lot at stake, and extreme action is called for. Let's see what kind of action we get from their "different" party in control
of the House.
But I predict this House won't lift a finger vs. the Senate, and that it'll strive to work with the Senate on legislation, and
that it'll fully concur with the Senate on war budgets, police state measures, anything and everything demanded by Wall Street,
Big Ag, the fossil fuel extractors, and of course the corporate welfare state in general.
Nor will any of these new-fangled fake "socialist" types take any action to change things one iota. Within the House Democrats,
they could take action, form any and every kind of coalition, to obstruct the corporate-Pelosi leadership faction. They will not
do so. This "new" progressive bloc will be just as fake as the old one.
Nothing I've talked about here is anything but what is possible, what is always implicitly or explicitly promised by Dembots,
and what it would seem is the minimum necessary given what Dembots claim is the scope of the crisis and what is at stake.
This is somewhat naive, but still useful stance of US elections.
Notable quotes:
"... In 2004 Tom Frank, a Kansas author, wrote: "The poorest county in America isn't in Appalachia or the Deep South. It is on the Great Plains, a region of struggling ranchers and dying farm towns, and in the election of 2000, George W. Bush carried it by a majority of greater than 75 percent." Inattentive voters are vulnerable to voting against their own interests. They are vulnerable to voting for politicians who support big business and ignore their interests as farmers, workers, consumers, patients, and small taxpayers. Big Business will not spur change in a political system that gives the fatcats every advantage. ..."
"... President Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress are masters at flattering voters and lying about their positions on issues ranging from health care to the minimum wage. Before you vote, rid yourself of all preconceived, hereditary, ideological, and political straitjackets. Use two general yardsticks for candidates for elective office: Are they playing fair and are they doing right? ..."
"... Ask candidates to speak of Solutions to the major problems confronting our country. Politicians often avoid defining solutions that upset their commercial campaign contributors. ..."
"... Ask about a range of issues, such as energy efficiency, livable wages, lower drug prices, massive government contractor fraud, corporate crimes against consumers, workers and investors, reducing sprawl, safer food, and clean elections. ..."
Let's face it. Most politicians use the mass media to obfuscate.
Voters who don't do their homework, who don't study records of the politicians, and who can't
separate the words from the deeds will easily fall into traps laid by wily politicians.
In 2002, Connecticut Governor John Rowland was running for re-election against his
Democratic opponent, William Curry. Again and again, the outspent Curry informed the media and
the voters about the corruption inside and around the governor's office. At the time, the
governor's close associates and ex-associates were under investigation by the U.S. attorney.
But to the public, Rowland was all smiles, flooding the television stations with self-serving,
manipulative images and slogans. He won handily in November. Within weeks, the U.S. attorney's
investigation intensified as they probed the charges Curry had raised about Rowland. Rowland's
approval rating dropped to record lows, and impeachment initiatives and demands for his
resignation grew. He was prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned. Unfortunately, enough voters
were flattered, fooled, and flummoxed to cost Bill Curry the race.
In 2004 Tom Frank, a Kansas author, wrote: "The poorest county in America isn't in
Appalachia or the Deep South. It is on the Great Plains, a region of struggling ranchers and
dying farm towns, and in the election of 2000, George W. Bush carried it by a majority of
greater than 75 percent." Inattentive voters are vulnerable to voting against their own
interests. They are vulnerable to voting for politicians who support big business and ignore
their interests as farmers, workers, consumers, patients, and small taxpayers. Big Business
will not spur change in a political system that gives the fatcats every advantage. Change must
come from the voters, and here's how:
President Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress are masters at flattering voters and
lying about their positions on issues ranging from health care to the minimum wage. Before you
vote, rid yourself of all preconceived, hereditary, ideological, and political straitjackets.
Use two general yardsticks for candidates for elective office: Are they playing fair and are
they doing right?
Stay open-minded. Avoid jumping to conclusions about candidates based solely on their
stance on your one or two top issues. Pay attention to where these politicians are on the many
other issues that profoundly affect you and your family. If you judge them broadly rather than
narrowly, you will increase your influence by increasing your demands and expectation levels
for public officials. There are numerous evaluations of their votes, easily available on the
Internet.
Know where you stand. A handy way to contrast your views with those of the incumbents and
challengers is to make your own checklist of twenty issues, explain where you stand and then
compare your positions, the candidates' votes and declarations. Seeing how their positions or
their actual record matches up to your own positions makes it harder for politicians to play
you. Compare candidates with their votes or declarations.
Ask the tough questions. These are many issues that politicians like to avoid. They
include questions about whether candidates are willing to debate their opponents and how often,
why they avoid talking about and doing something about corporate power and its expanding
controls over people's lives, or how they plan specifically to shift power from these global
corporate supremacists to the people. After all, the Constitution starts with "We the People"
not "We the Corporations." The words "corporations" and "company" are never mentioned in our
Constitution!!
Ask candidates to speak of Solutions to the major problems confronting our country.
Politicians often avoid defining solutions that upset their commercial campaign
contributors.
Ask about a range of issues, such as energy efficiency, livable wages, lower drug
prices, massive government contractor fraud, corporate crimes against consumers, workers and
investors, reducing sprawl, safer food, and clean elections.
Ask members of Congress to explain why they keep giving themselves salary increases and
generous benefits, and yet turn cold at doing the same for the people's frozen minimum wage,
health insurance, or pension protections.
All in all, it takes a little work and some time to become a super-voter, impervious to
manipulation by politicians who intend to flatter, fool,and flummox. But this education can
also be fun, and the pursuit of justice can offer great benefits to your pursuit of
happiness.
Such civic engagement will help Americans today become better ancestors for tomorrow's
descendants.
Populism. The word is used a lot today by political journalists in reference to both
President Trump supporters and the Brexit movement. And, historically speaking, it is
generally used inaccurately, a fact that I, too, was unaware of until I read another reader's
review of a separate title. That reviewer recommended this book, written by Duke professor of
history, Lawrence Goodwyn, and published in 1979.
While the title refers to the book as 'short', it is a very thorough review of the
populist political movement that rose out of the National Farmers Alliance, which went under
a series of different names and platforms that ultimately had everything to do with the
coinage of silver and relatively little to do with the original populist reforms.
What is most fascinating to me is not the acquisition of historical accuracy regarding the
populist label as it is the revelation of the degree to which the 1896 presidential election,
between Republican William McKinley and Democrat (and presumed populist) William Jennings
Bryant, ultimately cast the shape of American economics and politics that survives yet today.
While that election appeared to turn on gold (McKinley) versus silver (Bryant), the outcome
would ultimately define no less than what it means to be an American in the 21st Century.
It all began with the American Civil War, not surprisingly. And, more specifically, who
was going to pay the enormous debt incurred to fight it. And that, ultimately, came down to
the question of currency. The creation of a hard currency, which is ultimately the position
that won out, protected the bankers and other owners of corporate capital, but at the expense
of laborers and farmers.
The hard currency ultimately exaggerated the worst abuses of the crop lien system then
prevalent in the South, forcing farmers (land-owners and tenants alike) into a cycle of
increasing debt and falling commodity prices that they could not escape. It is, in many ways,
the same inescapable cycle that entraps the urban and rural poor today.
But that's where the populist analogy ends, as the populist agrarian movement pursued a
political agenda that would be the antithesis of Trump's MAGA agenda of today. It was, in
fact, the antitheses of both the modern conservative and progressive agendas, both of which
only appear to offer a real distinction and choice.
Both agendas presume the economic supremacy of capital and the political supremacy of the
corporate and banking classes that control it. Among other things, it is the supremacy of
capital that has fueled the rapid and unbridled consolidation of both industry and
agriculture in the US, permanently planting the corporation at the top of the political food
chain. (In 1870, the average US factory had only 8 workers.)
Before the Civil War, about 80% of all free white men owned property. By 1890, however,
the richest 9% of all Americans (still white men) owned three-fourths of all wealth and
within a decade one in eight Americans were living in abject poverty. With the exception of a
historically brief period following World War II, in which unions managed to give laborers a
political voice, now lost, it is a trend that continues to this day.
What was most amazing to me, in reading this book, was how little things have really
changed. Our political parties are built on regional alliances far more than differences of
ideological substance. Both accept the supremacy of corporate consolidation and the benefit
of economies of scale, even though there is little actual evidence to support the premise.
Consolidation has done nothing quite so effectively as it has promoted political, social, and
financial inequality. (Republicans and Democrats both blamed the farmers themselves for their
economic plight in the 1890s, much as politicians frequently blame the poor themselves for
their plight today.)
The solutions proposed by the populists of the National Agrarian Federation were decidedly
collective in nature and built from the success of the cooperative movement that had provided
some relief from corporate anarchy. It called for the abolition of private banks, a new
dynamic currency, the nationalization of the railroads, and the formation of government
cooperatives to handle crop financing, insurance, and post-harvest handling and storage. It
was, in other words, quite the ideological opposite of Trump's anti-immigrant,
anti-regulatory, pro-corporate agenda.
The author makes two other important contributions to the current political dialogue. The
first is to refute the illusion promoted by both political parties that American history is a
timeline of uninterrupted progress and advancement. It is, more than we care to admit, a
history of exploitation and the dominance of minority interests under the guise of personal
and economic freedom that, for most, does not exist.
And because it is a myth that is almost universally accepted, the author notes, real
political reform in the US is virtually impossible to achieve, in short because we refuse to
see the world the way it really is. We have, as a result, neither the confidence nor the
persistence to force the owners of capital, which control the political agenda, to give up
the advantages they have enshrined into American politics and business.
In short, this is a fascinating book that everyone should have the courage to read. You
may not agree with the author's conclusions, and there will surely be other historians who
will take exception with his interpretation. Each of us, however, should have a commitment to
defend that which we believe in the face of inconvenient facts, including those presented in
this book.
Most likely (amateur historian opinion) the single best account of the Populist phenomenon I
have ever read. If I have to find fault somewhere, It would be the absence of much coverage
of earlier Populist themes in American politics, particularly as seen in the Jeffersonian
sovereign-yeoman theme and in the Jacksonian anti-big-banking theme.
Usually histories of economics put me to sleep. But Lawrence Goodwyn's "The Populist
Movement" is an enthralling gem that will give you numerous "Aha!" moments as it shows how
and why populist movements, particularly that of the post-Civil War era (with its inception
in Texas), began, grew, and failed in competing with big banks and business. There are many
surprises to someone like me, who is not an economist but has been led (or pushed) to care
about it from what has happened in and to America these past 30 years. Goodwyn shows clearly
why the small farmers of southern and Plains America were driven to do something about the
crushing control of big banks, growing commercial interests, and Wall Street. Ultimately,
they failed because all power and control was in the hands of men like Gould and Morgan and
the other Robber Barons. There is, however, a lesson to be taken from "The Populist
Movement," that knowing and anticipating what massive blockages stand in the way of economic
and political change can help people work around them. No one who reads Goodwyn's book can
claim, "Well, I just didn't know."
"... But the roots of the word populist we can find in the word popular: and the other day I encountered a list of the actual top concerns of Americans, and as I recall the state of the ocean and rivers and lakes, and water quality, and political corruption, and health care figured highly - were 'popular' concerns, and destroying other countries, not so much. ..."
"... 'Real thing' Populism would be inevitably be flawed, given the human condition, but still offer 'real' improvement. ..."
@92 What might a 'real thing' Populist offer: Well, we have the schooling on the Populist
Movement in the United States, late in the 19th century, memorialized in the book by Lawrence
Goodwyn - The Populist Moment - and Goodwyn immediately links Populism to Democracy.
Now this much maligned and misused word democracy denotes a political system in which the
public, the many - exercise actual sovereignty: an extremely rare event. So that's not about
to happen in the current situation.
But the roots of the word populist we can find in the word popular: and the other day
I encountered a list of the actual top concerns of Americans, and as I recall the state of
the ocean and rivers and lakes, and water quality, and political corruption, and health care
figured highly - were 'popular' concerns, and destroying other countries, not so
much.
So Piotr, we might extend a kindred list greatly, and we don't have to end up with a list
trivial desires or maniacal religions, like demonizing carbon dioxide. ;/
'Real thing' Populism would be inevitably be flawed, given the human condition, but
still offer 'real' improvement.
Unfortunately, Debsisdead is correct. The United States cannot be fixed. It could be
that Trump knows what's needed and is deliberately trying to set the US on a course towards
sanity using shock treatment, and is deliberately trying to wean America from the petrodollar
in such a manner that Americans have no other country to blame/bomb, thus saving civilization
from America's inevitable spasm of ultraviolence when the BRICS succeed in taking the
petrodollar down. This seems unlikely, though.
The sad reality is that the delusion Americans suffer from (result of their universal
cradle-to-grave brainwashing that I mentioned earlier) is too deeply rooted as a core
component of their identities.
That mass-based delusion must be overcome before America's psychotic behavior on the world
stage can be addressed, but I see no forces within the US making any progress in that
direction at all.
Even the brightest and most humanistic Americans are horribly twisted to appalling
evil by unquestionable faith in their own exceptionalism. As a consequence it could be
that the only hope for humanity lies in a radical USA-ectomy with the resulting stump being
cauterized.
I certainly wish there were some other way, but I don't see one.
The leader of Communist China, Chairman Mao, warned the country that revisionists were
threatening to erase all the progress made since the Communist Revolution which brought Mao to
power.
It had been almost 20 years since the bloody revolution, and Mao wanted to reinvigorate the
rebel spirit in the youth. He instructed students to root out any teachers who wove subtle
anti-communist sentiments in their lessons.
Mao encouraged students to rebel against any mindless respect for entrenched authority,
remnants, he said, of centuries of capitalist influence.
Students at Yizhen Middle School, like many others, quickly took up the task. They "exposed"
capitalist intellectual teachers and paraded them around in dunce caps with insulting signs
hung around their necks.
Teachers were beaten and harassed until they confessed to their crimes most of which were,
of course, false confessions to avoid further torture.
It only escalated from there.
What ensued puts Lord of the Flies to shame.
One teacher killed himself after being taken captive by students. Most teachers fled.
Soon the students were left entirely in charge of their school. Two factions quickly
emerged, one calling themselves the East is Red Corps, and the other the Red Rebels.
One student was kidnapped by the East is Red Corps, and suffocated to death on a sock
stuffed in his mouth.
A girl was found to be an East is Red spy among the Red Rebels. She was later cornered with
other East is Red students in a building. She shouted from a window that she would rather die
than surrender. Praising Chairman Mao, she jumped to her death.
Some Red Rebels died from an accidental explosion while making bombs.
Many were tortured, and another student died from his injuries at the hands of the East is
Red Corps.
A female teacher refused to sign an affidavit lying about the cause of death. She was beaten
and gang-raped by a group of students.
Although it might be tempting to see what happened at YMS as mostly relevant to group
adolescent behavior what happened at the school occurred throughout China in government
offices, factories, within the army, and among Chinese of all ages in an eerily similar
way
The students' repressed resentment at having to be so obedient now boiled over into anger
and the desire to be the ones doing the punishing and oppressing
In the power vacuum that Mao had now created, another timeless group dynamic emerged.
Those who were naturally more assertive, aggressive, and even sadistic pushed their way
forward and assumed power , while those who were more passive quietly receded into the
background becoming followers
Once all forms of authority were removed and the students ran the school, there was
nothing to stop the next and most dangerous development in group dynamics. The split into
tribal factions
People may think they are joining because of the different ideas or goals of this tribe or
the other, but what they want more than anything is a sense of belonging and a clear tribal
identity.
Look at the actual differences between the East is Red Corps and the Red Rebels. As the
battle between them intensified it was hard to say what they were fighting for, except to
assume power over the other group.
One strong or vicious act of one side called for a reprisal from the other, and any type
of violence seemed totally justified. There could be no middle ground, nor any questioning of
the rightness of their cause.
The tribe is always right. And to say otherwise is to betray it.
I write this on the eve of the 2018 midterm elections.
And like Mao handing down his orders to dispose of capitalist sympathizers, such have the
leaders of each major US political party rallied their supporters.
This is the most important election of our lifetime, they say.
No middle ground. Violence is justified to get our way. Betray the tribe, and be considered
an enemy.
Just like Mao, they have manufactured a crisis that did not previously exist.
The students had no violent factions before Mao's encouragement. They had no serious
problems with their teachers.
Is there any natural crisis occurring right now? Or has the political establishment whipped
us into an artificial frenzy?
This isn't just another boring election, they say. This is a battle for our future.
The students battled over who were the purest revolutionaries.
The voters now battle over who has the purest intentions for America.
Do the factions even know what they are fighting for anymore?
They are simply fighting for their tribe's control over the government.
The battle of the factions at schools across China were "resolved" when Mao came to support
one side or the other. In that sense, it very much did matter which side the students were
on
The government came down hard against the losing faction.
They had chosen wrong and found themselves aligned against the powerful Communist Party.
It won't be a dictator that hands control to one faction or another in this election. It
will be a simple majority. And those in the minority will suffer.
The winners will feel that it is their time to wield power, just as the students were happy
to finally have the upper hand on their teachers.
If Mao didn't have so much power, he could have never initiated such a violent crisis.
And if our government didn't have so much power, it would hardly matter who wins the
election.
Yet here we are, fighting for control of the government because each faction threatens to
violently repress the other if they gain power.
It is a manufactured crisis. A crisis that only exists because political elites in the
government and media have said so.
They decided that this election will spark the USA's "Cultural Revolution."
And anyone with sympathies from a bygone era will be punished.
You don't have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and
brainwashed peers.
When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:
How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.
This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of
your dreams. It's not as hard as you think
Tribal warfare? You clearly don't understand what's happening here. The Globalist cartel
has created division between two parties to incite chaos and violence. The "warfare" you
reference will be nothing but protesting ->rioting ->anarchy ->police restraint of
the Democrat incited sheeple.
There's no tribalism associated with upholding and preserving the Constitution.
I think the globalists will try to cool it off before things spin out of (((their)))
control. Either that or move to the next phase...world war... so they can just slaughter us
and not have to bother trying to herd the increasingly "woke" goyim live stock.
I have NOT heard about a SINGLE CREDIBLE violent incident where people got hurt FROM THE
RIGHT. All the incidents of "White Fascist Violence" look like FALSE FLAGS and contrived
incidents. The foregoing CAN NOT be said of the Leftist Antifa types including racist La Raza
supporters, racist Blacks who want something for nothing, immigrants from any country who
want to be fully supported because they BREATHE and the Top Group (pun intended) Whites who
do not believe in boundaries, standards or quality of life UNLESS it's their lives. NOT all
Blacks, Hispanics and Immigrants are in the Left; but most Blacks, Hispanics and Immigrants
are on the Left and havn't a clue they are responsible for their own prisons because they
cannot REASON and virtue signaling is more important so they are part of the GROUP. Misplaced
EMPHASIS on what is important in creating a CIVILIZED and SAFE society.
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But
should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as
a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed, as we saw with the
pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic
politicians and critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain
control of the House and the Senate, violence will still be the favored instrument of political
control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are in for
it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham.
Only the rich like his tax cuts, his refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to
destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not to say that, if
only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of
the war industry and the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel
industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic control of the House will do very
little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis
brewing on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.
The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that
has given rise to Trump, are the party of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics,
Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump! This is
ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing
another run for the presidency after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political
heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast elites who want to instill
corporate fascism with a friendly face.
Bertram
Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that
fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is
embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer. Janus-like, fascism seeks to present itself to a
captive public as a force for good and moral renewal. It promises protection against enemies
real and invented. But denounce its ideology, challenge its power, demand freedom from
fascism's iron grip, and you are mercilessly crushed. Gross knew that if the United States'
form of fascism, expressed through corporate tyranny, was able to effectively mask its true
intentions behind its "friendly" face we would be stripped of power, shorn of our most
cherished rights and impoverished. He has been proved correct.
"Looking at the present, I see a more probable future: a new despotism creeping slowly
across America," Gross wrote. "Faceless oligarchs sit at command posts of a
corporate-government complex that has been slowly evolving over many decades. In efforts to
enlarge their own powers and privileges, they are willing to have others suffer the intended or
unintended consequences of their institutional or personal greed. For Americans, these
consequences include chronic inflation, recurring recession, open and hidden unemployment, the
poisoning of air, water, soil and bodies, and more important, the subversion of our
constitution. More broadly, consequences include widespread intervention in international
politics through economic manipulation, covert action, or military invasion."
No totalitarian state has mastered propaganda better than the corporate state. Our press has
replaced journalism with trivia, feel-good stories, jingoism and celebrity gossip. The banal
and the absurd, delivered by cheery corporate courtiers, saturate the airwaves. Our emotions
are skillfully manipulated around manufactured personalities and manufactured events. We are,
at the same time, offered elaborate diversionary spectacles including sporting events, reality
television and absurdist political campaigns. Trump is a master of this form of entertainment.
Our emotional and intellectual energy is swallowed up by the modern equivalent of the Roman
arena. Choreographed political vaudeville, which costs corporations billions of dollars, is
called free elections. Cliché-ridden slogans, which assure us that the freedoms we
cherish remain sacrosanct, dominate our national discourse as these freedoms are stripped from
us by judicial and legislative fiat. It is a vast con game.
You cannot use the word "liberty" when your government, as ours does, watches you 24 hours a
day and stores all of your personal information in government computers in perpetuity. You
cannot use the word "liberty" when you are the most photographed and monitored population in
human history. You cannot use the word "liberty" when it is impossible to vote against the
interests of Goldman Sachs or General Dynamics. You cannot use the word "liberty" when the
state empowers militarized police to use indiscriminate lethal force against unarmed citizens
in the streets of American cities. You cannot use the word "liberty" when 2.3 million citizens,
mostly poor people of color, are held in the largest prison system on earth. This is the
relationship between a master and a slave. The choice is between whom we want to clamp on our
chains -- a jailer who mouths politically correct bromides or a racist, Christian fascist.
Either way we are shackled.
Gross understood that unchecked corporate power would inevitably lead to corporate fascism.
It is the natural consequence of the ruling ideology of neoliberalism that consolidates power
and wealth into the hands of a tiny group of oligarchs. The political philosopher Sheldon
Wolin , refining Gross' thesis, would later characterize this corporate tyranny or friendly
fascism as "inverted totalitarianism." It was, as Gross and Wolin pointed out, characterized by
anonymity. It purported to pay fealty to electoral politics, the Constitution and the
iconography and symbols of American patriotism but internally had seized all of the levers of
power to render the citizen impotent. Gross warned that we were being shackled incrementally.
Most would not notice until they were in total bondage. He wrote that "a friendly fascist power
structure in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, or today's Japan would be far more
sophisticated than the 'caesarism' of fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan. It would need no
charismatic dictator nor even a titular head it would require no one-party rule, no mass
fascist party, no glorification of the State, no dissolution of legislatures, no denial of
reason. Rather, it would come slowly as an outgrowth of present trends in the
Establishment."
Gross foresaw that technological advances in the hands of corporations would be used to trap
the public in what he called "cultural ghettoization" so that "almost every individual would
get a personalized sequence of information injections at any time of the day -- or night." This
is what, of course, television, our electronic devices and the internet have done. He warned
that we would be mesmerized by the entertaining shadows on the wall of the Platonic cave as we
were enslaved.
Gross knew that the most destructive force against the body politic would be the war
profiteers and the militarists. He saw how they would siphon off the resources of the state to
wage endless war, a sum that now accounts for half of all discretionary spending. And he
grasped that warfare is the natural extension of corporatism. He wrote:
Under the militarism of German, Italian, and Japanese fascism violence was openly
glorified. It was applied regionally -- by the Germans in Europe and England, the Italians in
the Mediterranean, the Japanese in Asia. In battle, it was administered by professional
militarists who, despite many conflicts with politicians, were guided by old-fashioned
standards of duty, honor, country, and willingness to risk their own lives.
The emerging militarism of friendly fascism is somewhat different. It is global in scope.
It involves weapons of doomsday proportions, something that Hitler could dream of but never
achieve. It is based on an integration between industry, science, and the military that the
old-fashioned fascists could never even barely approximate. It points toward equally close
integration among military, paramilitary, and civilian elements. Many of the civilian leaders
-- such as Zbigniew Brzezinski or Paul Nitze -- tend to be much more bloodthirsty than any
top brass. In turn, the new-style military professionals tend to become corporate-style
entrepreneurs who tend to operate -- as Major Richard A. Gabriel and Lieutenant Colonel Paul
L. Savage have disclosed -- in accordance with the ethics of the marketplace. The old
buzzwords of duty, honor, and patriotism are mainly used to justify officer subservience to
the interests of transnational corporations and the continuing presentation of threats to
some corporate investments as threats to the interest of the American people as a whole.
Above all, in sharp contrast with classic fascism's glorification of violence, the friendly
fascist orientation is to sanitize, even hide, the greater violence of modern warfare behind
such "value-free" terms as "nuclear exchange," "counterforce" and "flexible response," behind
the huge geographical distances between the senders and receivers of destruction through
missiles or even on the "automated battlefield," and the even greater psychological distances
between the First World elites and the ordinary people who might be consigned to quick or
slow death.
We no longer live in a functioning democracy. Self-styled liberals and progressives, as they
do in every election cycle, are urging us to vote for the Democrats, although the Democratic
Party in Europe would be classified as a right-wing party, and tell us to begin to build
progressive movements the day after the election. Only no one ever builds these movements. The
Democratic Party knows there is no price to pay for selling us out and its abject service to
corporations. It knows the left and liberals become supplicants in every election cycle. And
this is why the Democratic Party drifts further and further to the right and we become more and
more irrelevant. If you stand for something, you have to be willing to fight for it. But there
is no fight in us.
The elites, Republican and Democrat, belong to the same club. We are not in it. Take a look
at the flight roster of the billionaire
Jeffrey Epstein , who was accused of prostituting dozens of underage girls and ended up
spending 13 months in prison on a single count. He flew political insiders from both parties
and the business world to his secluded Caribbean island, known as "Orgy Island," on his jet,
which the press nicknamed "the Lolita Express." Some of the names on his flight
roster, which usually included unidentified women, were Bill Clinton, who took dozens of trips,
Alan
Dershowitz , former Treasury Secretary and former Harvard President Larry Summers, the
Candide -like
Steven Pinker ,
whose fairy dust ensures we are getting better and better, and Britain's Prince Andrew. Epstein
was also a friend of Trump, whom he visited at Mar-a-Lago.
We live on the precipice, the eve of the deluge. Past civilizations have crumbled in the
same way, although as Hegel understood, the only thing we learn from history is "that people
and governments never have learned anything from history." We will not arrest the decline if
the Democrats regain control of the House. At best we will briefly slow it. The corporate
engines of pillage, oppression, ecocide and endless war are untouchable. Corporate power will
do its dirty work regardless of which face -- the friendly fascist face of the Democrats or the
demented visage of the Trump Republicans -- is pushed out front. If you want real change,
change that means something, then mobilize, mobilize, mobilize, not for one of the two
political parties but to rise up and destroy the corporate structures that ensure our doom.
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But
should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as
a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed, as we saw with the
pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic
politicians and critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain
control of the House and the Senate, violence will still be the favored instrument of political
control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are in for
it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham.
Only the rich like his tax cuts, his refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to
destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not to say that, if
only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of
the war industry and the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel
industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic control of the House will do very
little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis
brewing on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.
The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that
has given rise to Trump, are the party of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics,
Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump! This is
ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing
another run for the presidency after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political
heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast elites who want to instill
corporate fascism with a friendly face.
Bertram
Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that
fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is
embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer. Janus-like, fascism seeks to present itself to a
captive public as a force for good and moral renewal. It promises protection against enemies
real and invented. But denounce its ideology, challenge its power, demand freedom from
fascism's iron grip, and you are mercilessly crushed. Gross knew that if the United States'
form of fascism, expressed through corporate tyranny, was able to effectively mask its true
intentions behind its "friendly" face we would be stripped of power, shorn of our most
cherished rights and impoverished. He has been proved correct.
"Looking at the present, I see a more probable future: a new despotism creeping slowly
across America," Gross wrote. "Faceless oligarchs sit at command posts of a
corporate-government complex that has been slowly evolving over many decades. In efforts to
enlarge their own powers and privileges, they are willing to have others suffer the intended or
unintended consequences of their institutional or personal greed. For Americans, these
consequences include chronic inflation, recurring recession, open and hidden unemployment, the
poisoning of air, water, soil and bodies, and more important, the subversion of our
constitution. More broadly, consequences include widespread intervention in international
politics through economic manipulation, covert action, or military invasion."
No totalitarian state has mastered propaganda better than the corporate state. Our press has
replaced journalism with trivia, feel-good stories, jingoism and celebrity gossip. The banal
and the absurd, delivered by cheery corporate courtiers, saturate the airwaves. Our emotions
are skillfully manipulated around manufactured personalities and manufactured events. We are,
at the same time, offered elaborate diversionary spectacles including sporting events, reality
television and absurdist political campaigns. Trump is a master of this form of entertainment.
Our emotional and intellectual energy is swallowed up by the modern equivalent of the Roman
arena. Choreographed political vaudeville, which costs corporations billions of dollars, is
called free elections. Cliché-ridden slogans, which assure us that the freedoms we
cherish remain sacrosanct, dominate our national discourse as these freedoms are stripped from
us by judicial and legislative fiat. It is a vast con game.
You cannot use the word "liberty" when your government, as ours does, watches you 24 hours a
day and stores all of your personal information in government computers in perpetuity. You
cannot use the word "liberty" when you are the most photographed and monitored population in
human history. You cannot use the word "liberty" when it is impossible to vote against the
interests of Goldman Sachs or General Dynamics. You cannot use the word "liberty" when the
state empowers militarized police to use indiscriminate lethal force against unarmed citizens
in the streets of American cities. You cannot use the word "liberty" when 2.3 million citizens,
mostly poor people of color, are held in the largest prison system on earth. This is the
relationship between a master and a slave. The choice is between whom we want to clamp on our
chains -- a jailer who mouths politically correct bromides or a racist, Christian fascist.
Either way we are shackled.
Gross understood that unchecked corporate power would inevitably lead to corporate fascism.
It is the natural consequence of the ruling ideology of neoliberalism that consolidates power
and wealth into the hands of a tiny group of oligarchs. The political philosopher Sheldon
Wolin , refining Gross' thesis, would later characterize this corporate tyranny or friendly
fascism as "inverted totalitarianism." It was, as Gross and Wolin pointed out, characterized by
anonymity. It purported to pay fealty to electoral politics, the Constitution and the
iconography and symbols of American patriotism but internally had seized all of the levers of
power to render the citizen impotent. Gross warned that we were being shackled incrementally.
Most would not notice until they were in total bondage. He wrote that "a friendly fascist power
structure in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, or today's Japan would be far more
sophisticated than the 'caesarism' of fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan. It would need no
charismatic dictator nor even a titular head it would require no one-party rule, no mass
fascist party, no glorification of the State, no dissolution of legislatures, no denial of
reason. Rather, it would come slowly as an outgrowth of present trends in the
Establishment."
Gross foresaw that technological advances in the hands of corporations would be used to trap
the public in what he called "cultural ghettoization" so that "almost every individual would
get a personalized sequence of information injections at any time of the day -- or night." This
is what, of course, television, our electronic devices and the internet have done. He warned
that we would be mesmerized by the entertaining shadows on the wall of the Platonic cave as we
were enslaved.
Gross knew that the most destructive force against the body politic would be the war
profiteers and the militarists. He saw how they would siphon off the resources of the state to
wage endless war, a sum that now accounts for half of all discretionary spending. And he
grasped that warfare is the natural extension of corporatism. He wrote:
Under the militarism of German, Italian, and Japanese fascism violence was openly
glorified. It was applied regionally -- by the Germans in Europe and England, the Italians in
the Mediterranean, the Japanese in Asia. In battle, it was administered by professional
militarists who, despite many conflicts with politicians, were guided by old-fashioned
standards of duty, honor, country, and willingness to risk their own lives.
The emerging militarism of friendly fascism is somewhat different. It is global in scope.
It involves weapons of doomsday proportions, something that Hitler could dream of but never
achieve. It is based on an integration between industry, science, and the military that the
old-fashioned fascists could never even barely approximate. It points toward equally close
integration among military, paramilitary, and civilian elements. Many of the civilian leaders
-- such as Zbigniew Brzezinski or Paul Nitze -- tend to be much more bloodthirsty than any
top brass. In turn, the new-style military professionals tend to become corporate-style
entrepreneurs who tend to operate -- as Major Richard A. Gabriel and Lieutenant Colonel Paul
L. Savage have disclosed -- in accordance with the ethics of the marketplace. The old
buzzwords of duty, honor, and patriotism are mainly used to justify officer subservience to
the interests of transnational corporations and the continuing presentation of threats to
some corporate investments as threats to the interest of the American people as a whole.
Above all, in sharp contrast with classic fascism's glorification of violence, the friendly
fascist orientation is to sanitize, even hide, the greater violence of modern warfare behind
such "value-free" terms as "nuclear exchange," "counterforce" and "flexible response," behind
the huge geographical distances between the senders and receivers of destruction through
missiles or even on the "automated battlefield," and the even greater psychological distances
between the First World elites and the ordinary people who might be consigned to quick or
slow death.
We no longer live in a functioning democracy. Self-styled liberals and progressives, as they
do in every election cycle, are urging us to vote for the Democrats, although the Democratic
Party in Europe would be classified as a right-wing party, and tell us to begin to build
progressive movements the day after the election. Only no one ever builds these movements. The
Democratic Party knows there is no price to pay for selling us out and its abject service to
corporations. It knows the left and liberals become supplicants in every election cycle. And
this is why the Democratic Party drifts further and further to the right and we become more and
more irrelevant. If you stand for something, you have to be willing to fight for it. But there
is no fight in us.
The elites, Republican and Democrat, belong to the same club. We are not in it. Take a look
at the flight roster of the billionaire
Jeffrey Epstein , who was accused of prostituting dozens of underage girls and ended up
spending 13 months in prison on a single count. He flew political insiders from both parties
and the business world to his secluded Caribbean island, known as "Orgy Island," on his jet,
which the press nicknamed "the Lolita Express." Some of the names on his flight
roster, which usually included unidentified women, were Bill Clinton, who took dozens of trips,
Alan
Dershowitz , former Treasury Secretary and former Harvard President Larry Summers, the
Candide -like
Steven Pinker ,
whose fairy dust ensures we are getting better and better, and Britain's Prince Andrew. Epstein
was also a friend of Trump, whom he visited at Mar-a-Lago.
We live on the precipice, the eve of the deluge. Past civilizations have crumbled in the
same way, although as Hegel understood, the only thing we learn from history is "that people
and governments never have learned anything from history." We will not arrest the decline if
the Democrats regain control of the House. At best we will briefly slow it. The corporate
engines of pillage, oppression, ecocide and endless war are untouchable. Corporate power will
do its dirty work regardless of which face -- the friendly fascist face of the Democrats or the
demented visage of the Trump Republicans -- is pushed out front. If you want real change,
change that means something, then mobilize, mobilize, mobilize, not for one of the two
political parties but to rise up and destroy the corporate structures that ensure our doom.
"... Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion. ..."
"... Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class privilege, the real basis of the elite's power. ..."
"... The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the US. ..."
"... Former socialist leaders like Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because powerful interests rejected their right to rule. These socialists never had control over the key levers of power, the key resources. Their efforts were sabotaged – from within and without – from the moment of their election. ..."
"... The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America. The corporate world has no interest either in building proper housing in place of slums or in dragging the masses out of the kind of poverty that fuels the drug gangs that Bolsonaro claims he will crush through more violence. ..."
"... As in Pinochet's Chile, Bolsonaro can rest assured that his kind of neo-fascism will live in easy harmony with neoliberalism. ..."
"... Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net . ..."
With Jair Bolsonaro's victory in Brazil's presidential election at the weekend, the doom-mongers among western elites are out in force once again. His success, like Donald Trump's, has confirmed a long-held prejudice: that the people cannot be trusted; that, when empowered, they behave like a mob driven by primitive urges; that the unwashed masses now threaten to bring down the carefully constructed walls of civilisation.
The guardians of the status quo refused to learn the lesson of Trump's election, and so it will be with Bolsonaro. Rather than engaging the intellectual faculties they claim as their exclusive preserve, western "analysts" and "experts" are again averting their gaze from anything that might help them understand what has driven our supposed democracies into the dark places inhabited by the new demagogues. Instead, as ever, the blame is being laid squarely at the door of social media.
Social media and fake news are apparently the reasons Bolsonaro won at the ballot box. Without the gatekeepers in place to limit access to the "free press" – itself the plaything of billionaires and global corporations, with brands and a bottom line to protect – the rabble has supposedly been freed to give expression to their innate bigotry.
Here is Simon Jenkins, a veteran British gatekeeper – a former editor of the Times of London who now writes a column in the Guardian – pontificating on Bolsonaro:
"The lesson for champions of open democracy is glaring. Its values cannot be taken for granted. When debate is no longer through regulated media, courts and institutions, politics will default to the mob. Social media – once hailed as an agent of global concord – has become the purveyor of falsity, anger and hatred. Its algorithms polarise opinion. Its pseudo-information drives argument to the extremes."
This is now the default consensus of the corporate media, whether in its rightwing incarnations or of the variety posing on the liberal-left end of the spectrum like the Guardian. The people are stupid, and we need to be protected from their base instincts. Social media, it is claimed, has unleashed humanity's id.
Selling plutocracy
There is a kind of truth in Jenkins' argument, even if it is not the one he intended. Social
media did indeed liberate ordinary people. For the first time in modern history, they were not
simply the recipients of official, sanctioned information. They were not only spoken down to by
their betters, they could answer back – and not always as deferentially as the media
class expected.
Clinging to their old privileges, Jenkins and his ilk are rightly unnerved. They have much
to lose.
But that also means they are far from dispassionate observers of the current political
scene. They are deeply invested in the status quo, in the existing power structures that have
kept them well-paid courtiers of the corporations that dominate the planet.
Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an
intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion.
The plutocrats who run our societies need figureheads, behind whom they can conceal their
unaccountable power. Until now they preferred the slickest salespeople, ones who could sell
wars as humanitarian intervention rather than profit-driven exercises in death and destruction;
the unsustainable plunder of natural resources as economic growth; the massive accumulation of
wealth, stashed in offshore tax havens, as the fair outcome of a free market; the bailouts
funded by ordinary taxpayers to stem economic crises they had engineered as necessary
austerity; and so on.
A smooth-tongued Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were the favoured salespeople, especially
in an age when the elites had persuaded us of a self-serving argument: that ghetto-like
identities based on colour or gender mattered far more than class. It was divide-and-rule
dressed up as empowerment. The polarisation now bewailed by Jenkins was in truth stoked and
rationalised by the very corporate media he so faithfully serves.
Fear of the domino effect
Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a
far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They
prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect
their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class
privilege, the real basis of the elite's power.
The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not
control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms
manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that
smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the
US.
Former socialist leaders like Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because
powerful interests rejected their right to rule. These socialists never had control over the
key levers of power, the key resources. Their efforts were sabotaged – from within and
without – from the moment of their election.
Local elites in Latin America are tied umbilically to US elites, who in turn are determined
to make sure any socialist experiment in their backyard fails – as a way to prevent a
much-feared domino effect, one that might seed socialism closer to home.
The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist
governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America. The corporate world has no
interest either in building proper housing in place of slums or in dragging the masses out of
the kind of poverty that fuels the drug gangs that Bolsonaro claims he will crush through more
violence.
Bolsonaro will not face any of the institutional obstacles Lula da Silva or Chavez needed to
overcome. No one in power will stand in his way as he institutes his "reforms". No one will
stop him creaming off Brazil's wealth for his corporate friends. As in Pinochet's Chile,
Bolsonaro can rest assured that his kind of neo-fascism will live in easy harmony with
neoliberalism.
Immune system
If you want to understand the depth of the self-deception of Jenkins and other media
gatekeepers, contrast Bolsonaro's political ascent to that of Jeremy Corbyn, the modest social
democratic leader of Britain's Labour party. Those like Jenkins who lament the role of social
media – they mean you, the public – in promoting leaders like Bolsonaro are also
the media chorus who have been wounding Corbyn day after day, blow by blow, for three years
– since he accidentally slipped past safeguards intended by party bureacrats to keep
someone like him from power.
The supposedly liberal Guardian has been leading that assault. Like the rightwing media, it
has shown its absolute determination to stop Corbyn at all costs, using any pretext.
Within days of Corbyn's election to the Labour leadership, the Times newspaper – the
voice of the British establishment – published an article quoting a general, whom it
refused to name, warning that the British army's commanders had agreed they would sabotage a
Corbyn government. The general strongly hinted that there would be a military coup first.
We are not supposed to reach the point where such threats – tearing away the
façade of western democracy – ever need to be implemented. Our pretend democracies
were created with immune systems whose defences are marshalled to eliminate a threat like
Corbyn much earlier.
Once he moved closer to power, however, the rightwing corporate media was forced to deploy
the standard tropes used against a left leader: that he was incompetent, unpatriotic, even
treasonous.
But just as the human body has different immune cells to increase its chances of success,
the corporate media has faux-liberal-left agents like the Guardian to complement the right's
defences. The Guardian sought to wound Corbyn through identity politics, the modern left's
Achille's heel. An endless stream of confected crises about anti-semitism were intended to
erode the hard-earned credit Corbyn had accumulated over decades for his anti-racism work.
Slash-and-burn politics
Why is Corbyn so dangerous? Because he supports the right of workers to a dignified life,
because he refuses to accept the might of the corporations, because he implies that a different
way of organising our societies is possible. It is a modest, even timid programme he
articulates, but even so it is far too radical either for the plutocratic class that rules over
us or for the corporate media that serves as its propaganda arm.
The truth ignored by Jenkins and these corporate stenographers is that if you keep
sabotaging the programmes of a Chavez, a Lula da Silva, a Corbyn or a Bernie Sanders, then you
get a Bolsonaro, a Trump, an Orban.
It is not that the masses are a menace to democracy. It is rather that a growing proportion
of voters understand that a global corporate elite has rigged the system to accrue for itself
ever greater riches. It is not social media that is polarising our societies. It is rather that
the determination of the elites to pillage the planet until it has no more assets to strip has
fuelled resentment and destroyed hope. It is not fake news that is unleashing the baser
instincts of the lower orders. Rather, it is the frustration of those who feel that change is
impossible, that no one in power is listening or cares.
Social media has empowered ordinary people. It has shown them that they cannot trust their
leaders, that power trumps justice, that the elite's enrichment requires their poverty. They
have concluded that, if the rich can engage in slash-and-burn politics against the planet, our
only refuge, they can engage in slash-and-burn politics against the global elite.
Are they choosing wisely in electing a Trump or Bolsonaro? No. But the liberal guardians of
the status quo are in no position to judge them. For decades, all parts of the corporate media
have helped to undermine a genuine left that could have offered real solutions, that could have
taken on and beaten the right, that could have offered a moral compass to a confused, desperate
and disillusioned public.
Jenkins wants to lecture the masses about their depraved choices while he and his paper
steer them away from any politician who cares about their welfare, who fights for a fairer
society, who prioritises mending what is broken.
The western elites will decry Bolsonaro in the forlorn and cynical hope of shoring up their
credentials as guardians of the existing, supposedly moral order. But they engineered him.
Bolsonaro is their monster.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include
"Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East"
(Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books).
His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
Hell is empty and all the devils are here. ~William Shakespeare
Notable quotes:
"... Scum versus scum. That sums up this election season. Is it any wonder that 100 million Americans don't bother to vote? When all you are offered is Bob One or Bob Two, why bother? ..."
"... One-fourth of Democratic challengers in competitive House districts in this week's elections have backgrounds in the CIA, the military, the National Security Council or the State Department. Nearly all candidates on the ballots in House races are corporate-sponsored, with a few lonely exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, members of the Democratic Socialists of America who are running as Democrats. ..."
"... "In interviews with two dozen Wall Street executives, fund-raisers, donors and those who raise money from them, Democrats described an extraordinary level of investment and excitement from the finance sector ," The New York Times reported about current campaign contributions to the Democrats from the corporate oligarchs. ..."
There is perhaps no better illustration of the deep decay of the American political system than the Senate race in New Jersey.
Sen. Bob Menendez, running for re-election, was censured by the Senate Ethics Committee for accepting bribes from the Florida businessman
Salomon Melgen, who was convicted in 2017 of defrauding Medicare of $73 million. The senator had flown to the Dominican Republic
with Melgen on the physician's private jet and stayed in his private villa, where the men cavorted with young Dominican women who
allegedly were prostitutes. Menendez performed numerous political favors for Melgen, including helping some of the Dominican women
acquire visas to the United States. Menendez was indicted in a federal corruption trial but escaped sentencing because of a hung
jury.
Menendez has a voting record as sordid as most Democrats'. He supported the $716 billion military spending bill, along with 85
percent of his fellow Senate Democrats. He signed
a letter , along with other Democratic leaders, calling for steps to extradite
Julian Assange to
stand trial in the United States. The senator, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is owned by the lobby for Israel
-- a country that routinely and massively interferes in our elections -- and supported moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. He helped
cause the 2008 global financial crisis by voting to revoke
Glass-Steagall
, the Depression-era law enacted to create a firewall between commercial and investment banks.
His Republican rival in the Senate race that will be decided Tuesday is
Bob Hugin , whose reported net worth is at least $84 million. With Hugin as its CEO, the pharmaceutical firm Celgene made $200
million by conspiring to keep generic cancer drugs off the market, according to its critics. Celgene, a model of everything that
is wrong with our for-profit health care system, paid $280 million to settle a lawsuit filed by a whistleblower who accused the firm
of improperly marketing two drugs to treat several forms of cancer without getting Federal Drug Administration approval, thereby
defrauding Medicare. Celgene, over seven years, also doubled the price of
the cancer drug Revlimid to some $20,000
for a supply of 28 pills.
The Senate campaign in New Jersey has seen no discussion of substantive issues. It is dominated by both candidates' nonstop personal
attacks and negative ads, part of the typical burlesque of American politics.
Scum versus scum. That sums up this election season. Is it any wonder that 100 million Americans don't bother to vote? When all
you are offered is Bob One or Bob Two, why bother?
One-fourth of Democratic challengers in competitive
House districts in this week's elections have backgrounds in the CIA, the military, the National Security Council or the State Department.
Nearly all candidates on the ballots in House races are corporate-sponsored, with a few lonely exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and Rashida Tlaib, members of the Democratic Socialists of America who are running as Democrats.
The securities and finance industry
has backed Democratic congressional candidates 63 percent to 37 percent over Republicans, according to data collected by the
Center for Responsive Politics . Democratic candidates and political action committees have received $56.8 million, compared
with Republicans' $33.4 million, the center reported. The broader sector of finance, insurance and real estate, it found, has given
$174 million to Democratic candidates, against $157 million to Republicans. And
Michael Bloomberg
, weighing his own presidential run, has pledged $100 million to elect a Democratic Congress.
"In interviews with two dozen Wall Street executives, fund-raisers, donors and those who raise money from them, Democrats described
an extraordinary level of investment and excitement from the finance sector ," The New York Times reported about current campaign
contributions to the Democrats from the corporate oligarchs.
Our system of legalized bribery is an equal-opportunity employer.
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But should the Democrats take control of
the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed,
as we saw with the pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic politicians and
critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain control of the House and the Senate, violence will
still be the favored instrument of political control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are
in for it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham. Only the rich like his tax cuts, his
refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not
to say that, if only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of the war industry and
the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic
control of the House will do very little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis brewing
on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.
The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that has given rise to Trump, are the party
of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics, Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump!
This is ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing another run for the presidency
after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast
elites who want to instill corporate fascism with a friendly face.
Elections USA, Inc: "Scum Vs. Scum." When I went looking for Hedges's weekly column today I
rather expected him to be onto the next Bigger Picture item that he is always adroit at
tackling.
So it was a little surprising that he chose instead to lead with an example of the midterm
races in his state of NJ, the one between disgraced Democratic Senator Robert Menendez and
Republican Bob Hugin.
He never disappoints.
There is perhaps no better illustration of the deep decay of the American political
system than the Senate race in New Jersey. Sen. Bob Menendez, running for re-election, was
censured by the Senate Ethics Committee for accepting bribes from the Florida businessman
Salomon Melgen, who was convicted in 2017 of defrauding Medicare of $73 million. The
senator had flown to the Dominican Republic with Melgen on the physician's private jet and
stayed in his private villa, where the men cavorted with young Dominican women who
allegedly were prostitutes. Menendez performed numerous political favors for Melgen,
including helping some of the Dominican women acquire visas to the United States. Menendez
was indicted in a federal corruption trial but escaped sentencing because of a hung
jury.
Menendez has a voting record as sordid as most Democrats'. He supported the $716 billion
military spending bill, along with 85 percent of his fellow Senate Democrats. He signed a
letter, along with other Democratic leaders, calling for steps to extradite Julian Assange
to stand trial in the United States. The senator, the ranking member of the Foreign
Relations Committee, is owned by the lobby for Israel -- a country that routinely and
massively interferes in our elections -- and supported moving the U.S. Embassy to
Jerusalem. He helped cause the 2008 global financial crisis by voting to revoke
Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era law enacted to create a firewall between commercial and
investment banks.
In what is so emblematic of how pathetic and corrupt the opposition party, their
presidential candidate came out to throw her support behind such an odious criminal and
corporate whore and to campaign with him. While at the same time the Dems have made no secret
about their intention to crush any candidate who espouses socialist values.
Vote if you want, but it's a charade in which the Duopoly will remain beholden to the same
money interests who paid for both the Red and Blue campaigns.
Scum versus scum. That sums up this election season. Is it any wonder that 100 million
Americans don't bother to vote? When all you are offered is Bob One or Bob Two, why bother?
One-fourth of Democratic challengers in competitive House districts in this week's
elections have backgrounds in the CIA, the military, the National Security Council or the
State Department. Nearly all candidates on the ballots in House races are
corporate-sponsored, with a few lonely exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and
Rashida Tlaib, members of the Democratic Socialists of America who are running as
Democrats. The securities and finance industry has backed Democratic congressional
candidates 63 percent to 37 percent over Republicans, according to data collected by the
Center for Responsive Politics. Democratic candidates and political action committees have
received $56.8 million, compared with Republicans' $33.4 million, the center reported. The
broader sector of finance, insurance and real estate, it found, has given $174 million to
Democratic candidates, against $157 million to Republicans. And Michael Bloomberg, weighing
his own presidential run, has pledged $100 million to elect a Democratic Congress.
"In interviews with two dozen Wall Street executives, fund-raisers, donors and those who
raise money from them, Democrats described an extraordinary level of investment and
excitement from the finance sector ," The New York Times reported about current campaign
contributions to the Democrats from the corporate oligarchs.
Our system of legalized bribery is an equal-opportunity employer.
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But
should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence
as a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed, as we saw
with the pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward
prominent Democratic politicians and critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party
of the president retain control of the House and the Senate, violence will still be the
favored instrument of political control as the last of democratic protections are stripped
from us. Either way we are in for it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a
sham. Only the rich like his tax cuts, his refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort
to destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not to say
that, if only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic
scum, tools of the war industry and the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street
and the fossil fuel industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic control of
the House will do very little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with
another economic crisis brewing on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political
system is deep and terminal.
"Plus ça change, Plus c'est la même chose."
But it is always necessary to remind folks that the Greatest Democracy In The World is
not. It is An Auction House To The Highest Bidder.
He goes on to talk about fascism, its characteristics, its incarnation today, and the
elements that pave the way for, which are economic instability, concentrated wealth,
monopoly, a police state, imperialism, etc. It is Neoliberalism which has ushered in fascism
across the globe, plain and simple.
No totalitarian state has mastered propaganda better than the corporate state. Our press
has replaced journalism with trivia, feel-good stories, jingoism and celebrity gossip. The
banal and the absurd, delivered by cheery corporate courtiers, saturate the airwaves. Our
emotions are skillfully manipulated around manufactured personalities and manufactured
events. We are, at the same time, offered elaborate diversionary spectacles including
sporting events, reality television and absurdist political campaigns. Trump is a master of
this form of entertainment. Our emotional and intellectual energy is swallowed up by the
modern equivalent of the Roman arena. Choreographed political vaudeville, which costs
corporations billions of dollars, is called free elections. Cliché-ridden slogans,
which assure us that the freedoms we cherish remain sacrosanct, dominate our national
discourse as these freedoms are stripped from us by judicial and legislative fiat. It is a
vast con game.
You cannot use the word "liberty" when your government, as ours does, watches you 24
hours a day and stores all of your personal information in government computers in
perpetuity. You cannot use the word "liberty" when you are the most photographed and
monitored population in human history. You cannot use the word "liberty" when it is
impossible to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or General Dynamics. You cannot
use the word "liberty" when the state empowers militarized police to use indiscriminate
lethal force against unarmed citizens in the streets of American cities. You cannot use the
word "liberty" when 2.3 million citizens, mostly poor people of color, are held in the
largest prison system on earth. This is the relationship between a master and a slave. The
choice is between whom we want to clamp on our chains -- a jailer who mouths politically
correct bromides or a racist, Christian fascist. Either way we are shackled.
American Exceptionalism reigns supreme to the Nationalist. He refuses to acknowledge that
the real idea of "freedom" is not owning a munitions factory full of weaponry and putting a
flag on the back of a pickup. It is instead the freedom to not have to live in the shadow of
being foreclosed upon for a medical emergency, to not have to spend almost all of one's
income on rent or mortgage debt, to have more time to spend with loved ones or doing what you
love instead of working a dead end job just to pay the bills. In other words, a socialist
economy heavily regulating the banks and corporations, in which debt peonage would largely
become a thing of the past.
And then there it is. "We are being shackled incrementally," by unseen, unelected and
unacknowledged vipers who use their wealth and power to also make sure we're ignorant and
impotent to the real story.
Gross understood that unchecked corporate power would inevitably lead to corporate
fascism. It is the natural consequence of the ruling ideology of neoliberalism that
consolidates power and wealth into the hands of a tiny group of oligarchs. The political
philosopher Sheldon Wolin, refining Gross' thesis, would later characterize this corporate
tyranny or friendly fascism as "inverted totalitarianism." It was, as Gross and Wolin
pointed out, characterized by anonymity. It purported to pay fealty to electoral politics,
the Constitution and the iconography and symbols of American patriotism but internally had
seized all of the levers of power to render the citizen impotent. Gross warned that we were
being shackled incrementally. Most would not notice until they were in total bondage. He
wrote that "a friendly fascist power structure in the United States, Canada, Western
Europe, or today's Japan would be far more sophisticated than the 'caesarism' of fascist
Germany, Italy, and Japan. It would need no charismatic dictator nor even a titular head it
would require no one-party rule, no mass fascist party, no glorification of the State, no
dissolution of legislatures, no denial of reason. Rather, it would come slowly as an
outgrowth of present trends in the Establishment."
As far as I'm concerned America has been fascist for a long time, at least since 9/11 but
probably longer. We've been captured by Inverted Totalitarianism. Trump just puts the ugly
villainous face to that Fascism which has been rampant for a long time. Lewis Lapham had a
great piece called, "Due Process: Lamenting the death of
the rule of law in a country where it might have always been missing" that lays out the
case for a how concentrated wealth has pretty much ruled with impunity since the beginning.
(h/t to wendy davis)
How long will we continue to participate in this elaborate Lesser of Two Evil voting
sham?
And these days those who do will surely let you know too. All the Good Zombies will be
smiling for their selfies with their, "I Voted" stickers (now an added bonus to your "voting
experience," as if it were a child's toy inside of a cereal box or something). How long will
it be until we're handed little candies as a reward for voting? In step with the continuation
of the infantilization of interaction in America. Civics? Nah. Stickers? Yeah.
Seems we're fucking doomed. But not unless people turn off the tv's and social media to
begin talking to one another in public as fellow human beings, who as the 99% pretty much
have so many of the same concerns in common.
Partisan ideology, blasted night and day on the propaganda networks, keeping us divided
and conquered, with fear, manufactured distraction and celebrity gossip thrown in, to keep
the lemmings hypnotized from what's really going on.
But he also pulled back from saying one shouldn't vote for the Dems to stem Trump's
insanity, although he quickly added that it wouldn't stop the onslaught of corporate
tyranny.
The only thing giving me hope lately is taking the longview, and the emergence of
whistleblowers/journalists exposing the inner workings of the corporate coup. To what degree
it matters will depend on how many people they reach.
"... The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed. ..."
"... the Republicans are being forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.) ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court, where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift, new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual depravity in higher education. ..."
"... I hope that the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. ..."
Back in the last century, when this was a different country, the Democrats were the "smart"
party and the Republicans were the "stupid" party.
How did that work?
Well, back then the Democrats represented a broad middle class, with a base of factory
workers, many of them unionized, and the party had to be smart, especially in the courts, to
overcome the natural advantages of the owner class.
In contrast, the Republicans looked like a claque of country club drunks who staggered
home at night to sleep on their moneybags. Bad optics, as we say nowadays.
The Democrats also occupied the moral high ground as the champion of the little guy. If not
for the Dems, factory workers would be laboring twelve hours a day and children would still be
maimed in the machinery. Once the relationship between business and labor was settled in the
1950s, the party moved on to a new crusade on even loftier moral high ground: civil rights,
aiming to correct arrant and long-lived injustices against downtrodden black Americans. That
was a natural move, considering America's self-proclaimed post-war status as the world's Beacon
of Liberty. It had to be done and a political consensus that included Republicans got it done.
Consensus was still possible.
The Dems built their fortress on that high ground and fifty years later they find themselves
prisoners in it. The factory jobs all vamoosed overseas. The middle class has been pounded into
penury and addiction.
The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons
seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the
permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual
minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group
that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of
them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed.
The Republican Party has, at least, sobered up some after getting blindsided by Trump and
Trumpism. Like a drunk out of rehab, it's attempting to get a life. Two years in, the party
marvels at Mr. Trump's audacity, despite his obvious lack of savoir faire. And despite a
longstanding lack of political will to face the country's problems,the Republicans are being
forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration
policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of
medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on
thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.)
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting
with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an
unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even
more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no
Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling
them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court,
where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift,
new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual
depravity in higher education.
I hope that Democrats lose as many congressional and senate seats as possible.I hope that
the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding
dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. If
there is anything to salvage in this organization, I hope it discovers aims and principles that
are unrecognizable from its current agenda of perpetual hysteria. But if the party actually
blows up and disappears, as the Whigs did a hundred and fifty years ago, I will be content. Out
of the terrible turbulence, maybe something better will be born.
Or, there's the possibility that the dregs of a defeated Democratic Party will just go
batshit crazy and use the last of its mojo to incite actual sedition. Of course, there's also a
distinct possibility that the Dems will take over congress, in which case they'll ramp up an
even more horrific three-ring-circus of political hysteria and persecution that will make the
Spanish Inquisition look like a backyard barbeque. That will happen as the US enters the most
punishing financial train wreck in our history, an interesting recipe for epic political
upheaval.
"... The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed. ..."
"... the Republicans are being forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.) ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court, where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift, new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual depravity in higher education. ..."
"... I hope that the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. ..."
Back in the last century, when this was a different country, the Democrats were the "smart"
party and the Republicans were the "stupid" party.
How did that work?
Well, back then the Democrats represented a broad middle class, with a base of factory
workers, many of them unionized, and the party had to be smart, especially in the courts, to
overcome the natural advantages of the owner class.
In contrast, the Republicans looked like a claque of country club drunks who staggered
home at night to sleep on their moneybags. Bad optics, as we say nowadays.
The Democrats also occupied the moral high ground as the champion of the little guy. If not
for the Dems, factory workers would be laboring twelve hours a day and children would still be
maimed in the machinery. Once the relationship between business and labor was settled in the
1950s, the party moved on to a new crusade on even loftier moral high ground: civil rights,
aiming to correct arrant and long-lived injustices against downtrodden black Americans. That
was a natural move, considering America's self-proclaimed post-war status as the world's Beacon
of Liberty. It had to be done and a political consensus that included Republicans got it done.
Consensus was still possible.
The Dems built their fortress on that high ground and fifty years later they find themselves
prisoners in it. The factory jobs all vamoosed overseas. The middle class has been pounded into
penury and addiction.
The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons
seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the
permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual
minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group
that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of
them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed.
The Republican Party has, at least, sobered up some after getting blindsided by Trump and
Trumpism. Like a drunk out of rehab, it's attempting to get a life. Two years in, the party
marvels at Mr. Trump's audacity, despite his obvious lack of savoir faire. And despite a
longstanding lack of political will to face the country's problems,the Republicans are being
forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration
policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of
medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on
thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.)
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting
with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an
unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even
more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no
Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling
them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court,
where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift,
new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual
depravity in higher education.
I hope that Democrats lose as many congressional and senate seats as possible.I hope that
the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding
dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. If
there is anything to salvage in this organization, I hope it discovers aims and principles that
are unrecognizable from its current agenda of perpetual hysteria. But if the party actually
blows up and disappears, as the Whigs did a hundred and fifty years ago, I will be content. Out
of the terrible turbulence, maybe something better will be born.
Or, there's the possibility that the dregs of a defeated Democratic Party will just go
batshit crazy and use the last of its mojo to incite actual sedition. Of course, there's also a
distinct possibility that the Dems will take over congress, in which case they'll ramp up an
even more horrific three-ring-circus of political hysteria and persecution that will make the
Spanish Inquisition look like a backyard barbeque. That will happen as the US enters the most
punishing financial train wreck in our history, an interesting recipe for epic political
upheaval.
Absent independents, Republicans are running away with it. And independents are most assuredly witnessing the insanity that has gripped the
Democratic Party, and will vote for Republicans at least 9:1.
Well, hang in there, sport. Yes, the US does seem to be going down the tubes, in that it's
lost all respect in the world; we still fear it, but don't respect it. Sic transit
gloria , or something like that...
"... Today's Blue elite represents the greatest concentration of wealth and power in the United States. Moreover, such wealth is scattered across a mosaic of pristine, manicured, gated communities physically and socially divorced from the realities of normal American life -- glittering bubbles of sovereign privilege . This is the very oligarchy Founders like John Adams so feared . While both Red and Blue elites represent themselves as the people's champion, Blue's protests ring the most false . ..."
Today, two righteous paths are gridlocked in opposition. Both perceive themselves as
champions of national renewal, of cleansing corrupted ideals, and of truly fulfilling America's
promise. Both fervently believe that they alone own virtue. Yet the banners of each course are
absolutist mirrors of one another, pro and contra, all or nothing. Moreover, lightning rod
issues, as in the 1770s and 1850s, make the space between battle lines a no man's land, forcing
majority moderates and compromising fence-sitters to choose or be called out as willing
collaborators with the other.
Today's lightning rods -- a feminist reordering of jurisprudence , a
state-promoted LGBT agenda, closed or open borders, full gun rights guarantees -- should not be
seen as mere hot-button issues that can be manipulated at will by political party elites. These
are way-of-life banners for two warring coalitions. Iconic issues that now represent the future
of two tribal alliances are taking the place of a former, single nation. The time for
compromise is over.
Othering. Here, the barren and
inhospitable new civic space is dominated along looming, fortified lines. Warring
identities have concluded that the only solution is the complete submission of the enemy party,
and both sides are beginning to prepare for an
ultimate showdown . Othering is a transforming process, through which former kin are
reimagined as evil, an American inner-enemy, who once defeated must be punished. The most
familiar metaphor of American othering was the 1770s practice of tarring and feathering .
This less-than-lethal mob punishment corresponds -- in shaming power and severity -- to mob
vengeance pervasive today on social media outlets such as Twitter.
Hence, to work fully as othering, the process must be public, result in the shame of the
transgressor, and show that true virtue is in command. More than anything, othering is a
ceremonial act designed to bring shame not just on the single person being tarred and
feathered, but the entire community to which he belongs. The political object of #MeToo is not
the numerically bounded set of guilty men, but rather the entire population set of
all men . The political object of Black Lives Matter is not racists, but rather all
whitepeople . The
political object of the LGBT movement is not homophobes, but
rather the whole of straight cisgender
society whose reality compass they seek to transform.
The targeted other, equally seized by virtue, operates today from an angry defensive crouch.
Thus do corporate elites support marquee Blue "social justice" agendas on Twitter, Facebook,
and YouTube while censoring counterarguments and comment by Red. This is exactly the goal in
this struggle: namely, to condition moderates to widespread acquiescence of a loud and
insistent Blue agenda, while subtly coercing them to choose sides. They do this by arraigning
Red as social losers, the future minority tribe, on their eventual way to the dustbin of
history.
Red and Blue already represent an irreparable religious schism, deeper in doctrinal terms
even than the 16th-century Catholic-Protestant schism. The war here is over which faction
successfully captures the (social media) flag as
true inheritor of American virtue.
The Decision. Othering's most decisive effect is to condition the whole of society to
believe that an existential clash is coming, that all must choose, and that there are no
realistic alternatives to a final test of wills. Remember, in past times, Jacobins on both
sides were small minorities. Yet for either one of these two angry visions to win, there must
be a showdown. This demands, perversely, that they work together to bring on open conflict,
successfully coercing the majority of Americans to buy into its inevitability. At that point,
only a trigger pull is needed.
This was what the Boston Massacre did to push colonials against Britain in 1770, and this is
what
John Brown's Pottawatomie Massacre and Congressman Preston Brooks's
caning of Charles Sumner on the Senate floor did to push people toward civil war in 1856.
This is what the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh and the nearly two-year effort to
delegitimize and overthrow President Donald Trump may doing today: getting the two halves of
the former nation to pull that trigger.
The Fight. If the political balance shifts dramatically, then conflict checks -- held
in place by lingering political norms and a longstanding electoral standoff -- disintegrate.
Suddenly, both newly advantaged and disadvantaged parties rush to a test of wills sooner rather
than later. A triggering incident becomes a spark -- yet the spark itself does not ignite.
Rather, it is the readiness for combat in this emerging "community of violence" that makes a
fight the natural way forward. In 1774, the Sons of Liberty were spoiling for a fight. In the
1850s, Jayhawkers and Border Ruffians were equally primed to hit back. That pushed the nation
to civil war.
Evidence from history and our own eyes tells us that we are deep into phase four. Three
takeaways show us how close we are to real battle.
Both sides rush to tear down the constitutional order. Just since the 2016 election,
we have witnessed a rolling thunder of Blue and Red elite rhetoric -- packing
the
SupremeCourt,abolishing
the ElectoralCollege , repealing
the
SecondAmendment
, wholesale state nullification of federal law, shackling of voter rights, and Deep State
invocation of the 25th Amendment. These are all potential extremities of action that would not
only dismantle our constitutional order, but also skew it to one side's juridical construct of
virtue, thus dissolving any semblance of adherence to law by the other. Over time each party
becomes emotionally invested in the lust to dismantle the old and make something new.
Hence, constitutional norms exist only conditionally, until such time as they finally be
dismantled, and only as long as a precariously balanced electoral divide holds firm. A big
historical tilt in favor of one party over the other would very quickly push the nation into
crisis because the party with the new mandate would rush to enact its program. The very threat
of such constitutional dismantling would be sure casus belli . Such tilts in the
early 1770s against Britain, and later in
the 1850s against the slaveholding party, were the real tipping points. Not only was
Dred Scott v. Sandford just such a tipping point in 1857, but subconsciously its legacy
weighs heavily on Americans today, as they contemplate -- often with hysterical passion -- the
dread consequences of a Kavanaugh appointment.
The dead hand of the last civil war grabs us from the grave. It is eerie how today's
angst pulls us back to the 1860s -- and shows us what is likely to happen in our third civil
war. If the poisonous hatreds of the 1860s again inform our civil anger today -- i.e. battles
between the alt-right and antifa -- then this should tell us that we are literally on the cusp
of another time of rage, where the continuity of strife is stronger than any hopes for
reconciliation. What is clear is that two warring parties will accept nothing less from the
other than submission, even though the loser will never submit. Moreover, each factional ethos
is incapable of empathizing with
the other.
Yet we should remember that "unconditional surrender" is like an Old Testament doctrine --
meaning that its invocation hearkens unmistakably to God's judgment. It became the
Federal rallying cry throughout the Civil War, a substrate trope in the Versailles Treaty,
the president's official position for the end of World War II, and even our complacent
conviction during the decomposition of the Soviet Union. It is an apocalyptic vision deeply
embedded in both Blue and Red. Such visions presage existential crisis that puts what is left
of the nation at real risk. If, at war's end, the sacred scrolls, artifacts, and symbols -- the
archaeology of a once-cherished identity -- cannot be restored or repurposed, then our entire
history must be destroyed, and the "we" that once was wiped clean. Civil war -- the battle over
how, or whether, we belong to one another -- thus demands nothing less than transformation.
Disbelieving war makes it inevitable. People will always
disbelieve that we could come to blows, until we do. Delegates at the "Democracy" party
convention in Charleston, in the summer of 1860, were still in denial of
the coming fury . No one dares imagine another civil war playing out like the last, when
two grimly determined American armies fought each other to the death in bloody pitched battles.
It is unlikely that a third American civil war will embrace 18th and 19th century military
dynamics. Antique Anglo-American society -- organized around community "
mustering " -- was culturally equipped to fight civil wars. Today's screen-absorbed
Millennials are not. So what?
But the historical consequences of a non-military American civil war would be just as severe
as any struggle settled by battle and blood. For example, the map of a divided America today
suggests that division into functioning state and local sovereignties -- with autonomy over
kinship, identity, and way of life issues -- might be the result of this non-bloody war. This
could even represent de facto national partition -- without de jure secession, achieved through
a gradual process of accretive state and local
nullification .
So what would a non-military civil war look like? Could it be non-violent? Americans are
certainly not lovers, but they do not seem really to be fighters either. A possible path to
kinship disengagement -- a separation without de jure divorce -- would here likely follow a
crisis, a confrontation, and some shocking, spasmodic violence, horrifyingly amplified on
social media. Passions at this point would pull back, but investment in separation would not.
What might eventuate would be a national sorting out, a de facto kinship separation in which
Blue and Red regions would go -- and govern -- their own ways, while still maintaining the
surface fiction of a titular "United States." This was, after all, the arrangement America came
to after 20 years of civil war (1857-1877). This time, however, there will be no succeeding
conciliation (as was achieved in the 1890s). Culturally, this United States will be, from the
moment of agreement, two entirely separate sensibilities, peoples, and politics.
♦♦♦
The winding path to civil war has yet another wrinkle: the people-elite divide. In the 1770s
and the 1850s, American fissuring was championed by opposing elites. In the 1770s, two elites
had emerged: one was the colonial, homegrown elite -- such as Washington, Hamilton, and Adams
-- and the other was the metropole,
trans-Atlantic
British elite , celebrated by royally endowed landowners such as Lord Fairfax , whose holdings
were in the thousands of square miles. Yet the British aristocracy was less intimately engaged
in the colonies, and the loyalist elite a more sotto voce
voice in colonial politics.
Not so the proto-Confederacy, the celebrated "Slave Power." In the looming struggle between
North and South, the Southern elite was the dominant economic force in the nation, thanks to
its overwhelming capital stored in human flesh. In fact, planter aristocracy capital formation
in 1860
equaled all capital invested in manufacturing, railroads, banks, and all currency in
circulation -- combined. This was the power of chattel slavery as the wealth ecology of the
antebellum South. In
defiant opposition to them were the Northern
anti-slavery elites , nowhere as privileged and rich as their Southern counterparts. The
new Republicans were further thwarted by the indissoluble alliance of planter aristocracy and
the nation's financial hub: New York City. There was an unholy bond between a dominant
slaveholder elite and an equally dominant New York slave-enabling elite. To make the point, in
1859, New York shipbuilders outfitted
85 slave ships for the hungry needs of the Southern planter class.
The dominant cultural position occupied by the overlords of chattel slavery has its analogy
today in the overlords of America's Blue elite. While there is a vocal Red elite, the Blue
elite dominates public life through its hold on the Internet, Hollywood, publishing, social
media, academia, the Washington bureaucracy, and the global grip of corporate giants. Blue
elite's power, in its hold on the cultural pulse and economic lifeblood of American life,
compares granularly to the planter aristocracy of the 1850s.
Ruling elites famously overthrown by history -- like the Ancien Régime in
France, Czarist Russia, and even the Antebellum South -- were fated by their insatiable
selfishness, their impenetrable arrogance, and their sneering aloofness from the despised
people -- "the deplorables" -- upon whom their own
economic status feasted .
Today's
Blue elite represents the
greatest concentration of wealth and power in the United States. Moreover, such wealth is
scattered across a mosaic of pristine, manicured, gated communities physically and socially
divorced from the realities of normal American life
-- glittering bubbles of
sovereign privilege . This is the very oligarchy Founders like John Adams
so feared . While both Red and Blue elites represent themselves as the people's champion,
Blue's protests ring the
most false .
America is divided today not by customary tussles in party politics, but rather by
passionate, existential, and irreconcilable opposition. Furthermore, the onset of battle is
driven yet more urgently by the "intersection" of a culturally embedded kinship divide moving
-- however haphazardly -- to join up with an elite-people divide.
Tragically, our divide may no longer be an outcome that people of goodwill work to overcome.
Schism -- with our nation in an ideological Iron Maiden -- will soon force us all to submit,
and choose.
Michael Vlahos teaches strategy and war at Johns Hopkins Advanced Academic Programs and
formerly, at the Naval War College. He is the author of the book
Fighting Identity: Sacred War and World Change .
Likbez
I think that the key for understating the political crisis in the USA is to understand its
connection with the crisis on neoliberalism as an ideology which was encompassed as the USA
national ideology after WWII.
The US neoliberal elite lost the support of the population, and the is what the current
crisis is about. Also, the level of degeneration of the current elite demonstrated by Haley
appointed to the UN and several other disastrous appointments also signify the Us approaching
the situation of " let them eat cakes."
The same time the power of surveillance state is such that outside of random acts of
violence like we observed recently, insurrection is impossible and political ways to change
the situation are blocked.
Neoliberals came to power with Carter, so more than 40 years ago (although formally Reagan
is considered to be the first neoliberal president.) Now they are are losing political power
and popular support.
Trump attempt to reform "classic neoliberalism" into what can be called "national
neoliberalism" or neoliberalism without globalization is probably doomed to be a failure and
not only due to Trump weaknesses as a political leader. He trying increase the level of
neoliberaliztion with the USA failing to understand that the current problems stem from
excessive levels of deregulation (and associated level of corruption), the excessive power of
military industrial complex (supported by Wall Street) which led to waiting for trillion of
arms race and destruction of New Deal Social protection mechanisms.
With the collapse of neoliberalism of global ideology, international standing of the USA
greatly deteriorated, and now in some areas (especially with unilateral Iran sanctions and
behavior in Korea crisis), Trump administration approaches the status of a pariah nation.
My impression is the neoliberalism just can't be reformed the way Trump is trying it to
reform into what can be called "national neoliberalism."
That's probably why intelligence agencies and Clinton wing of the Democratic party,
closely connected to Wall Street launched a color revolution ("Russiagate) against him in
late 2016, trying to depose him and install a more "compliant" leader, who would support
kicking the can down the road.
So the two warring camps now represent "classic neoliberalism" with its idea of the global
neoliberal empire (and related "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine) and "revisionists" of
various flavors (including Trump and Sanders supporters)
BTW neocons, who dominate the USA foreign policy, are also neoliberals, just moonlighting
as lobbyists of the military industrial complex.
I think that globalization as an immanent feature and trump policies this will fail.
As the same, the opposition to neoliberalism on the ground level of the US society demand
reforms and retreat form the globalization, which they connect with outsourcing and
offshoring.
That's why Trump's idea of "national neoliberalism" -- an attempt to retreat from
"globalization" and at the same time to obtain some economic advantages by brute force and
bilateral treaties instead of multilateral organizations like WTO got some initial support.
Along with his fake promises to improve the economic position of the middle class, squeezed
by globalization.
the truth is that the "classic neoliberals" (which are represented by Clinton wing of Dems
and Paul Ryan wing in Republicans ) lost popular support.
Dems, for example, now rely as their major constituency fringe groups and elements of
national security state (that's why so many of their candidates for midterm are associated
with intelligence agencies and military). So they are trying to mobilize elements of national
security state to help them to return to power. That gambit, like Russiagate before it,
probably will fail.
Republicans are also in limbo with Trump clearly betraying his electorate, but still enjoy
some level of ground support.
IMHO his betrayals which is very similar to Obama betrayal(in no way he wants to improve
the condition of the lower middle class and workers, it just hot air) might cost him two
important group of voters who will vote for independent candidates if they vote at all:
1. Anti-war republicans
2. People who want the return of the New Deal.
Factions which are against imperial wars and for more fair redistribution of income in the
society, a distribution which were screwed by 40 years of neoliberalism dominance in the
USA.
So the US electorate have a classic political choice between disastrous and unpalatable
policies once again ;-)
whether that will eventually lead to a military coup in best LA style, we can only
guess.
AP-NORC
Poll national survey with 1,152 adults found 8 in 10 Americans believe the country is
divided regarding essential values, and some expect the division to deepen into 2020.
Only 20% of Americans said they think the country will become less divided over the next
several years, and 39% believe conditions will continue to deteriorate. A substantial majority
of Americans, 77%, said they are dissatisfied with the state of politics in the country , said
AP-NORC.
... ... ...
The nationwide survey was conducted on October 11-14, using the AmeriSpeak
Panel, the probability-based panel of NORC at the University of Chicago. Overall, 59% of
Americans disapprove of how Trump is handling his job as president, while 40% of Americans
approve.
More specifically, the poll said 83% of Republicans approve of how Trump is handling the
job, while 92% of Democrats and 61% of Independents strongly disagree.
More than half of Americans said they are not hearing nor seeing topics from midterm
campaigns that are important to them. About 54% of Democrats and 44% of Republicans said vital
issues, such as health care, education, and economic activity, Social Security and crime, were
topics they wanted to hear more.
Looking at their communities, most American (Republicans and Democrats) are satisfied with
their state or local community. However, on a national level, 58% of Americans are dissatisfied
with the direction of the country, compared to 25%, a small majority who are satisfied.
Most Americans are dissatisfied with the massive gap between rich and poor, race relations
and environmental conditions. The poll noticed there are partisan splits, 84% of Democrats are
disappointed with the amount of wealth inequality, compared with 43% of Republicans. On the
environment, 77% of Democrats and 32% Republicans are dissatisfied. Moreover, while 77%
Democrats said they are unhappy with race relations, about 50% of Republicans said the
same.
The poll also showed how Democrats and Republicans view certain issues. About 80% of
Democrats but less than 33% of Republicans call income inequality, environmental issues or
racism very important.
"Healthcare, education and economic growth are the top issues considered especially
important by the public. While there are many issues that Republicans and Democrats give
similar levels of importance to (trade foreign policy and immigration), there are several
concerns where they are far apart. For example, 80% of Democrats say the environment and
climate change is extremely or very important, and only 28% of Republicans agree. And while
68% consider the national debt to be extremely or very important, only 55% of Democrats
regard it with the same level of significance," said AP-NORC.
Although Democrats and Republicans are divided on most values, many Americans
consider the country's diverse population a benefit.
Half said America's melting pot makes the country stronger, while less than 20% said it
hurts the country. About 30% said diversity does not affect their outlook.
"However, differences emerge by party identification, gender, location, education, and
race . Democrats are more likely to say having a population with various backgrounds makes
the country stronger compared to Republicans or Independents. Urbanities and college-educated
adults are more likely to say having a mix of ethnicities makes the country stronger, while
people living in rural areas and less educated people tend to say diversity has no effect or
makes the country weaker," said AP-NORC.
Overall, 60% of Americans said accusations of sexual harassment with some
high-profile men forced to resign or be fired was essential to them. However, 73% of women said
the issue was critical, compared with 51% of men. The data showed that Democrats were much more
likely than Republicans to call sexual misconduct significant.
More than 40% of Americans somewhat or strongly disapprove of Supreme Court Justice Brett
Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court after allegations of sexual harassment in his
college years. 35% of Americans said they heartily approved of Kavanaugh's confirmation.
The evidence above sheds light on the internal struggles of America. The country is divided,
and this could be a significant problem just ahead.
Why is that? Well, America's future was outlined in a book called "The Fourth Turning: What
Cycles of History Tell Us About America's Next Rendezvous With Destiny."
In the book, which was written in the late 1990s, authors William Strauss and Niel Howe
theorize that the history of civilization moves in 80-to-100 year cycles called "saecula."
The idea behind this theory dates back to the Greeks, who believed that at given saeculum's
end, there would come "ekpyrosis," or a cataclysmic event.
This era of change is known as the Fourth Turning, and it appears we are in the midst of one
right now.
The last few Fourth Turnings that America experienced ushered in the Civil War and the
Reconstruction era, and then the Great Depression and World War II. Before all of that, it was
the Revolutionary War.
Each Fourth Turning had similar warning signs: periods of political chaos, division, social
and economic decay in which the American people reverted from extreme division and were forced
to reunite in the rebuild of a new future, but that only came after massive conflict.
Today's divide among many Americans is strong. We are headed for a collision that will rip
this country apart at the seams. The timing of the next Fourth Turning is now, and it could
take at least another decade to complete the cycle.
After the Fourth Turning, America will not be the America you are accustomed to today. So,
let us stop calling today the "greatest economy ever" and start preparing for turbulence.
The question is why the Deep State still is trying to depose him, if he essentially obeys the dictate of the Deep State ?
Notable quotes:
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in return. ..."
"... The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the general foreign policy outlook that spawned them. ..."
"... Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad. ..."
"... Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama. ..."
"... Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss. But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security. ..."
"... That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose philosophy and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for America to bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has never wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against North Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and has waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Bolton was put in power to ensure unswerving loyalty to the dictates of Bibi Netanyahu and local neocons. Have we forgotten Iraq and endless wars since? ..."
"... this is all about Israel's hold on the Oval Office. Bolton and Pompeo are far, far closer to Israel than Mattis and that's a problem for him. Sorry Robert Merry, but you clearly didn't catch Trump's first foreign "policy" speech in 2016. He suddenly revealed his priorities for all to see. There are four words that Trump apologists simply cannot bring themselves to utter: "Trump is a neo-con". Suckers. ..."
"... Military adventurism is another disappointment. We can't afford more neocon disasters. We don't need to be the world's police force. We should be shrinking the military budgets. It is dismaying to watch the neocons gaining power after the catastrophic failures of recent decades. ..."
"... "Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama." ..."
"... Come on, anyone listening to Trump before the election realized that he said whatever drew the most applause from the crowd. He never, in his entire life, has meant what he said. ..."
"... He will continue down the neo-con line until Fox News and NY Times run front-page articles about how Bolton and Pompeo are manipulating him and actually running US foreign policy, at which time he will dump them and make up something else. ..."
"... Arrest the warmongering "leaders" who create havoc around the world ..."
"... I guess DJT offered you a "Bad Deal" then? Past performance does predict future results. ..."
In covering President Donald Trump's recent pregnant comments about Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis, The Wall Street Journal tucked away in its story an observation that hints at
the president's foreign policy direction. In an interview for CBS's 60 Minutes , the
president described Mattis as "sort of a Democrat if you want to know the truth" and suggested
he wouldn't be surprised if his military chief left his post soon. After calling him "a good
guy" and saying the two "get along very well," Trump added, "He may leave. I mean, at some
point, everybody leaves . That's Washington."
Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in
return. In just his first 14 months as president, he hired three national security advisors,
reflecting the unstable relationships he often has with his top aides. Following the 60
Minutes interview, Washington was of course abuzz with speculation about what all this
might mean for Mattis's fate and who might be the successor if Mattis were to quit or be fired.
It was just the kind of fodder Washington loves -- human drama revealing Trump's legendary
inconstancy amid prospective new turmoil in the capital.
But far more significant than Mattis's future or Trump's love of chaos was a sentence
embedded in the Journal 's report. After noting that recent polls indicated that
Mattis enjoys strong support from the American people, reporter Nancy A. Youssef writes: "But
his influence within the administration has waned in recent months, particularly following the
arrival of John Bolton as national security adviser and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo as
secretary of state."
The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran
against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy
establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward
expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through
ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly
endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the
world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the
general foreign policy outlook that spawned them.
Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and
avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush
administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed
to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass
destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's
aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not
depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he
specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad.
The one area where he seemed to embrace America's post-Cold War aggressiveness was in his
attitude toward Iran. But even there he seemed less bellicose than many of his Republican
opponents in the 2016 primaries, who said they would rip up the Iran nuclear deal on their
first day in office. Trump, by contrast, said it was a bad deal but one he would seek to
improve.
Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would
have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's
post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Now we know he didn't mean what he said, and the latest tiff over the fate of Mattis
crystallizes that reality. It's not that Mattis represents the kind of anti-establishment
outlook that Trump projected during the campaign; in fact, he is a thoroughgoing product of
that establishment. He said Iran was the main threat to stability in the Middle East. He
supported sending arms to the Syrian rebels. He decried Russia's intent to "break NATO
apart."
Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might
have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss.
But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is
cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more
unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal
prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances
that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some
military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and
China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security.
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world affairs.
He brilliantly discerned the frustrations of many Americans over the foreign policy of the
previous 16 years and hit just the right notes to leverage those frustrations during the
campaign. But his actual foreign policy has manifested a lack of consistent and strong
philosophy. Consider his approach to NATO. During the campaign he criticized the alliance's
eastward push and aggressive approach to Russia; then as president he accepted NATO's inclusion
of tiny Montenegro, a slap at the Russians; then later he suggested Montenegro's NATO status
could force the U.S. into a major conflagration if that small nation, which he described as
aggressive, got itself into a conflict with a non-NATO neighbor. Such inconsistencies are not
the actions of a man with strong convictions. They are hallmarks of someone who is winging it
on the basis of little knowledge.
That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose
philosophy and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for
America to bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has
never wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against
North Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and
has waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia.
Thus a conflict was probably inevitable between Mattis and these more recent administration
arrivals. The New York Times speculates that Bolton likely undermined Mattis's
standing in Trump's eyes. Writes the paper: "Mr. Bolton, an ideological conservative whose
views on foreign policy are more hawkish than those of Mr. Mattis, appears to have deepened the
president's suspicions that his defense secretary's view of the world is more like those of
Democrats than his own."
The paper didn't clarify the basis of this speculation, but it makes sense. Bolton and
Pompeo are gut fighters who go for the jugular. Trump is malleable, susceptible to obsequious
manipulation. Mattis is an old-style military man with a play-it-straight mentality and a
discomfort with guile. Thus it appears we may be seeing before our eyes the transformation of
Trump the anti-establishment candidate into Trump the presidential neocon.
Bolton was put in power to ensure unswerving loyalty to the dictates of Bibi Netanyahu and
local neocons. Have we forgotten Iraq and endless wars since? We need more folks like Phil
Giraldi at TAC. Love him or hate him – but please bring him back. The First Amendment
needs him. And many of us still long for his direct and well-informed comments.
"Come on now!" as sports analysts say in a sarcastic segment about football blunders on ESPN.
Did GWB really make just an honest mistake based upon faulty intelligence? Does this writer
really believe his assertion? This intellectually dishonest essay comes on the heels of a
puff piece by another so-called "conservative" writer who asserted that had JFK not been
assassinated and won a second term, he would have surely withdrawn American soldiers from
South Vietnam. And then later in this essay the writer finally admits that these wars in the
global war on terror, excluding the war in Afghanistan, were unnecessary. But if these other
wars were unnecessary, then it historically follows they were illegal wars of aggression
against humanity. That was the legal basis under which we tried Nazi leaders as war criminals
at Numenberg. By the way, if Trump does get rid of Mattis, there are plenty more, one could
even say they are a dime a dozen, at the Pentagon who would be willing to toe the line under
Trump. They're basically professional careerists, corporate suits with misto salads of
colorful medals on their uniforms. They take their marching orders from the
military/industrial complex. I'm a Vietnam vet and realized long ago how clueless these
generals actually are when we crossed our Rubicon in Vietnam. The war on terror now rivals
the Vietnam War as a major foreign policy debacle. All these other unnecessary wars are part
of the endgame as we continue our decline as a constitutional republic and we eventually hit
bottom and go bankrupt by 2030.
Absolutely right General Manager, this is all about Israel's hold on the Oval Office. Bolton and Pompeo are far, far closer to Israel than Mattis and that's a problem for
him. Sorry Robert Merry, but you clearly didn't catch Trump's first foreign "policy" speech in
2016. He suddenly revealed his priorities for all to see. There are four words that Trump apologists simply cannot bring themselves to utter: "Trump is a neo-con". Suckers.
When was Trump's foreign policy anything but Neo-con? Oh, he had a few good lines when he was
running – that was the "con" part. I didn't fall for it but many did. But since he took
office, he's been across-the-board anti-Russian, anti-Iran, pro-Saudi, uber-Zionist, and
enthusiastic shill for the military-industrial complex.
Trump surprised many of us with some very positive conservative actions but has also
disappointed smaller government conservatives. The deficits and debt grows as the economy
improves. What in the world happens in the next recession?
Military adventurism is another disappointment. We can't afford more neocon disasters. We
don't need to be the world's police force. We should be shrinking the military budgets. It is dismaying to watch the neocons gaining power after the catastrophic failures of
recent decades.
"Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would
have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's
post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama."
Come on, anyone listening to Trump before the election realized that he said whatever drew
the most applause from the crowd. He never, in his entire life, has meant what he said.
He will continue down the neo-con line until Fox News and NY Times run front-page articles
about how Bolton and Pompeo are manipulating him and actually running US foreign policy, at
which time he will dump them and make up something else.
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world
affairs.
Fixed:
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions.
This is another article that attempts to overlay some sort of actual logical policy or
moral framework over the top of Trumps actions. Please stop. Next week or next month this
whole line of reasoning will be upended again and you will have to start over with another
theory that contradicts this one.
Are are you implying that Mattis is a slacker? Like, he isn't doing a good job? And,
specially, what is he failing to do?
Even if he wasn't doing anything at all, you don't fire Mattis. He is beloved among the
military. While a fair number revere and maybe even keep their own little "St. Mattis" shrine
as a joke, it is only half a joke.
Mattis is one of the few modern military generals with a cult of personality who, I have
little doubt, could declare crossing the Rubicon and would get a good number of veterans and
active marching in support.
I believe a good peaceful and appropriate "Foreign Policy" would be to:
"Arrest Them"
Arrest all those responsible for the plight of the Refugees
These people are in camps, or drowning in unfriendly seas
And when these unwanted, reach "safety," or a foreign land
They are treated like garbage and the rulers want them banned
Arrest these "rulers" who created this hell on earth
Who act, that human lives, don't have any worth
They are examples of evil and should not be in power
They really are disgraceful and an awful bloody shower
Arrest the warmongering "leaders" who create havoc around the world
Authorizing bombings and killings these "leaders" should be reviled
Instead we give them fancy titles and homes to park their asses
Will there ever be a day of reckoning and a rise up of the masses?
Arrest the financiers of these bloody wars of destruction
This is how these blood sucking parasites get their satisfaction
Drag them away in chains and handcuffs, and orange prison attire
These are the corporate cannibals who set the world on fire
Arrest the fat and plump little "honourable" Ministers of Wars
They are the "useful idiots" for the leading warmongering whores
They never fight in battle or sacrifice any of their rotten lives
They get others to do their evil work while they themselves thrive
Arrest the corporate chieftains who feed off death and destruction
And who count their bloodstained profits with smiling satisfaction
These are the well dressed demons who call their investments "creating jobs"
Meanwhile, around the world the oppressed are crying, and nobody hears their sobs
Arrest the uniformed generals who blindly obey their marching orders
To bomb, kill, maim and destroy: they are the brainwashed enforcers
Years ago there were trials for war crimes committed by those in charge
Now we need them again for we have war criminals at large
Arrest all the aforementioned, and help clean up the world
We cannot afford these people in power: Are they mentally disturbed?
They are a danger to all of us and we better wake up
Is it time to arrest all of them: Have you had enough?
[more info at links below]
"The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran
against during his 2016 presidential campaign. "
Yes. Those two names are the main reason that this lifelong Republican is voting against
Trump and the GOP in a few weeks. I voted against this kind of crap in 2016.
"[G]enerally speaking, anyone listening [..] before the election would have been justified in
concluding [Trump] would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by
George W. Bush and Barack Obama."
What did Judas Goat 43 say again?
"Fool me once, shame on me. Full me twice in the long run we'll all be dead."
I guess DJT offered you a "Bad Deal" then?
Past performance does predict future results.
If Trump loses at least one house of Congress this year, he can put it down to 1) failure on
immigration and border control, 2) failure to control government spending, and 3) failure to
get us out of the Middle East.
His new neocon friends are responsible for 3) and couldn't care less about 1) and 2).
No, Mr. Merry. We knew that long ago. I don't know how much attention you've been paying,
but it's been so obvious for so long. But better late than never, I suppose.
The question is why the Deep State still is trying to depose him, if he essentially obeys the dictate of the Deep State ?
Notable quotes:
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in return. ..."
"... The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the general foreign policy outlook that spawned them. ..."
"... Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad. ..."
"... Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama. ..."
"... Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss. But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security. ..."
"... That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose philosophy and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for America to bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has never wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against North Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and has waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Bolton was put in power to ensure unswerving loyalty to the dictates of Bibi Netanyahu and local neocons. Have we forgotten Iraq and endless wars since? ..."
"... this is all about Israel's hold on the Oval Office. Bolton and Pompeo are far, far closer to Israel than Mattis and that's a problem for him. Sorry Robert Merry, but you clearly didn't catch Trump's first foreign "policy" speech in 2016. He suddenly revealed his priorities for all to see. There are four words that Trump apologists simply cannot bring themselves to utter: "Trump is a neo-con". Suckers. ..."
"... Military adventurism is another disappointment. We can't afford more neocon disasters. We don't need to be the world's police force. We should be shrinking the military budgets. It is dismaying to watch the neocons gaining power after the catastrophic failures of recent decades. ..."
"... "Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama." ..."
"... Come on, anyone listening to Trump before the election realized that he said whatever drew the most applause from the crowd. He never, in his entire life, has meant what he said. ..."
"... He will continue down the neo-con line until Fox News and NY Times run front-page articles about how Bolton and Pompeo are manipulating him and actually running US foreign policy, at which time he will dump them and make up something else. ..."
"... Arrest the warmongering "leaders" who create havoc around the world ..."
"... I guess DJT offered you a "Bad Deal" then? Past performance does predict future results. ..."
In covering President Donald Trump's recent pregnant comments about Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis, The Wall Street Journal tucked away in its story an observation that hints at
the president's foreign policy direction. In an interview for CBS's 60 Minutes , the
president described Mattis as "sort of a Democrat if you want to know the truth" and suggested
he wouldn't be surprised if his military chief left his post soon. After calling him "a good
guy" and saying the two "get along very well," Trump added, "He may leave. I mean, at some
point, everybody leaves . That's Washington."
Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in
return. In just his first 14 months as president, he hired three national security advisors,
reflecting the unstable relationships he often has with his top aides. Following the 60
Minutes interview, Washington was of course abuzz with speculation about what all this
might mean for Mattis's fate and who might be the successor if Mattis were to quit or be fired.
It was just the kind of fodder Washington loves -- human drama revealing Trump's legendary
inconstancy amid prospective new turmoil in the capital.
But far more significant than Mattis's future or Trump's love of chaos was a sentence
embedded in the Journal 's report. After noting that recent polls indicated that
Mattis enjoys strong support from the American people, reporter Nancy A. Youssef writes: "But
his influence within the administration has waned in recent months, particularly following the
arrival of John Bolton as national security adviser and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo as
secretary of state."
The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran
against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy
establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward
expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through
ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly
endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the
world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the
general foreign policy outlook that spawned them.
Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and
avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush
administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed
to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass
destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's
aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not
depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he
specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad.
The one area where he seemed to embrace America's post-Cold War aggressiveness was in his
attitude toward Iran. But even there he seemed less bellicose than many of his Republican
opponents in the 2016 primaries, who said they would rip up the Iran nuclear deal on their
first day in office. Trump, by contrast, said it was a bad deal but one he would seek to
improve.
Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would
have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's
post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Now we know he didn't mean what he said, and the latest tiff over the fate of Mattis
crystallizes that reality. It's not that Mattis represents the kind of anti-establishment
outlook that Trump projected during the campaign; in fact, he is a thoroughgoing product of
that establishment. He said Iran was the main threat to stability in the Middle East. He
supported sending arms to the Syrian rebels. He decried Russia's intent to "break NATO
apart."
Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might
have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss.
But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is
cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more
unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal
prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances
that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some
military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and
China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security.
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world affairs.
He brilliantly discerned the frustrations of many Americans over the foreign policy of the
previous 16 years and hit just the right notes to leverage those frustrations during the
campaign. But his actual foreign policy has manifested a lack of consistent and strong
philosophy. Consider his approach to NATO. During the campaign he criticized the alliance's
eastward push and aggressive approach to Russia; then as president he accepted NATO's inclusion
of tiny Montenegro, a slap at the Russians; then later he suggested Montenegro's NATO status
could force the U.S. into a major conflagration if that small nation, which he described as
aggressive, got itself into a conflict with a non-NATO neighbor. Such inconsistencies are not
the actions of a man with strong convictions. They are hallmarks of someone who is winging it
on the basis of little knowledge.
That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose
philosophy and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for
America to bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has
never wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against
North Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and
has waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia.
Thus a conflict was probably inevitable between Mattis and these more recent administration
arrivals. The New York Times speculates that Bolton likely undermined Mattis's
standing in Trump's eyes. Writes the paper: "Mr. Bolton, an ideological conservative whose
views on foreign policy are more hawkish than those of Mr. Mattis, appears to have deepened the
president's suspicions that his defense secretary's view of the world is more like those of
Democrats than his own."
The paper didn't clarify the basis of this speculation, but it makes sense. Bolton and
Pompeo are gut fighters who go for the jugular. Trump is malleable, susceptible to obsequious
manipulation. Mattis is an old-style military man with a play-it-straight mentality and a
discomfort with guile. Thus it appears we may be seeing before our eyes the transformation of
Trump the anti-establishment candidate into Trump the presidential neocon.
Bolton was put in power to ensure unswerving loyalty to the dictates of Bibi Netanyahu and
local neocons. Have we forgotten Iraq and endless wars since? We need more folks like Phil
Giraldi at TAC. Love him or hate him – but please bring him back. The First Amendment
needs him. And many of us still long for his direct and well-informed comments.
"Come on now!" as sports analysts say in a sarcastic segment about football blunders on ESPN.
Did GWB really make just an honest mistake based upon faulty intelligence? Does this writer
really believe his assertion? This intellectually dishonest essay comes on the heels of a
puff piece by another so-called "conservative" writer who asserted that had JFK not been
assassinated and won a second term, he would have surely withdrawn American soldiers from
South Vietnam. And then later in this essay the writer finally admits that these wars in the
global war on terror, excluding the war in Afghanistan, were unnecessary. But if these other
wars were unnecessary, then it historically follows they were illegal wars of aggression
against humanity. That was the legal basis under which we tried Nazi leaders as war criminals
at Numenberg. By the way, if Trump does get rid of Mattis, there are plenty more, one could
even say they are a dime a dozen, at the Pentagon who would be willing to toe the line under
Trump. They're basically professional careerists, corporate suits with misto salads of
colorful medals on their uniforms. They take their marching orders from the
military/industrial complex. I'm a Vietnam vet and realized long ago how clueless these
generals actually are when we crossed our Rubicon in Vietnam. The war on terror now rivals
the Vietnam War as a major foreign policy debacle. All these other unnecessary wars are part
of the endgame as we continue our decline as a constitutional republic and we eventually hit
bottom and go bankrupt by 2030.
Absolutely right General Manager, this is all about Israel's hold on the Oval Office. Bolton and Pompeo are far, far closer to Israel than Mattis and that's a problem for
him. Sorry Robert Merry, but you clearly didn't catch Trump's first foreign "policy" speech in
2016. He suddenly revealed his priorities for all to see. There are four words that Trump apologists simply cannot bring themselves to utter: "Trump is a neo-con". Suckers.
When was Trump's foreign policy anything but Neo-con? Oh, he had a few good lines when he was
running – that was the "con" part. I didn't fall for it but many did. But since he took
office, he's been across-the-board anti-Russian, anti-Iran, pro-Saudi, uber-Zionist, and
enthusiastic shill for the military-industrial complex.
Trump surprised many of us with some very positive conservative actions but has also
disappointed smaller government conservatives. The deficits and debt grows as the economy
improves. What in the world happens in the next recession?
Military adventurism is another disappointment. We can't afford more neocon disasters. We
don't need to be the world's police force. We should be shrinking the military budgets. It is dismaying to watch the neocons gaining power after the catastrophic failures of
recent decades.
"Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would
have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's
post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama."
Come on, anyone listening to Trump before the election realized that he said whatever drew
the most applause from the crowd. He never, in his entire life, has meant what he said.
He will continue down the neo-con line until Fox News and NY Times run front-page articles
about how Bolton and Pompeo are manipulating him and actually running US foreign policy, at
which time he will dump them and make up something else.
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world
affairs.
Fixed:
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions.
This is another article that attempts to overlay some sort of actual logical policy or
moral framework over the top of Trumps actions. Please stop. Next week or next month this
whole line of reasoning will be upended again and you will have to start over with another
theory that contradicts this one.
Are are you implying that Mattis is a slacker? Like, he isn't doing a good job? And,
specially, what is he failing to do?
Even if he wasn't doing anything at all, you don't fire Mattis. He is beloved among the
military. While a fair number revere and maybe even keep their own little "St. Mattis" shrine
as a joke, it is only half a joke.
Mattis is one of the few modern military generals with a cult of personality who, I have
little doubt, could declare crossing the Rubicon and would get a good number of veterans and
active marching in support.
I believe a good peaceful and appropriate "Foreign Policy" would be to:
"Arrest Them"
Arrest all those responsible for the plight of the Refugees
These people are in camps, or drowning in unfriendly seas
And when these unwanted, reach "safety," or a foreign land
They are treated like garbage and the rulers want them banned
Arrest these "rulers" who created this hell on earth
Who act, that human lives, don't have any worth
They are examples of evil and should not be in power
They really are disgraceful and an awful bloody shower
Arrest the warmongering "leaders" who create havoc around the world
Authorizing bombings and killings these "leaders" should be reviled
Instead we give them fancy titles and homes to park their asses
Will there ever be a day of reckoning and a rise up of the masses?
Arrest the financiers of these bloody wars of destruction
This is how these blood sucking parasites get their satisfaction
Drag them away in chains and handcuffs, and orange prison attire
These are the corporate cannibals who set the world on fire
Arrest the fat and plump little "honourable" Ministers of Wars
They are the "useful idiots" for the leading warmongering whores
They never fight in battle or sacrifice any of their rotten lives
They get others to do their evil work while they themselves thrive
Arrest the corporate chieftains who feed off death and destruction
And who count their bloodstained profits with smiling satisfaction
These are the well dressed demons who call their investments "creating jobs"
Meanwhile, around the world the oppressed are crying, and nobody hears their sobs
Arrest the uniformed generals who blindly obey their marching orders
To bomb, kill, maim and destroy: they are the brainwashed enforcers
Years ago there were trials for war crimes committed by those in charge
Now we need them again for we have war criminals at large
Arrest all the aforementioned, and help clean up the world
We cannot afford these people in power: Are they mentally disturbed?
They are a danger to all of us and we better wake up
Is it time to arrest all of them: Have you had enough?
[more info at links below]
"The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran
against during his 2016 presidential campaign. "
Yes. Those two names are the main reason that this lifelong Republican is voting against
Trump and the GOP in a few weeks. I voted against this kind of crap in 2016.
"[G]enerally speaking, anyone listening [..] before the election would have been justified in
concluding [Trump] would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by
George W. Bush and Barack Obama."
What did Judas Goat 43 say again?
"Fool me once, shame on me. Full me twice in the long run we'll all be dead."
I guess DJT offered you a "Bad Deal" then?
Past performance does predict future results.
If Trump loses at least one house of Congress this year, he can put it down to 1) failure on
immigration and border control, 2) failure to control government spending, and 3) failure to
get us out of the Middle East.
His new neocon friends are responsible for 3) and couldn't care less about 1) and 2).
No, Mr. Merry. We knew that long ago. I don't know how much attention you've been paying,
but it's been so obvious for so long. But better late than never, I suppose.
It's nearly impossible to read major newspapers, magazines, or online publications in recent months without
encountering a
plethora
of articles
contending that the United States is
turning
inward
and "going alone," "abandoning Washington's global leadership role" or "retreating from the world."
These
trends
supposedly herald
the
arrival
of a new "isolationism." The chief villain in all of these worrisome developments is, of course, Donald
Trump. There is just one problem with such arguments; they are vastly overstated bordering on utterly absurd.
President Trump is not embracing his supposed inner isolationist. The policy changes that he has adopted regarding
both security and international economic issues do not reflect a desire to decrease Washington's global hegemonic
status. Instead, they point to a more unilateral and militaristic approach, but one that still envisions a
hyper-activist U.S. role.
For instance, it's certainly not evident that the United States is abandoning its security commitments to dozens of
allies and clients. Despite the speculation that erupted in response to Trump's negative comments about the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other alliances during the 2016 election campaign (and occasionally since
then), the substance of U.S. policy has remained largely unchanged. Indeed, NATO has continued to expand its
membership with Trump's blessing -- adding Montenegro and
planning
to
add Macedonia.
Indeed, Trump's principal complaint about NATO has always focused on European free-riding and the lack of
burden-sharing, not about rethinking the wisdom of the security commitments to Europe that America undertook in the
early days of the Cold War. In that respect, Trump's emphasis on greater burden-sharing within the Alliance is simply
a less diplomatic version of the message that previous generations of U.S. officials have tried sending to the
allies.
Moreover, Trump's insistence at the July NATO summit in Brussels that the European nations
increase
their military budgets
and do more for transatlantic defense echoed the comments of President Obama's Secretary
of Defense
Chuck
Hagel
in 2014. Hagel warned his European counterparts that they must step up their commitment to the alliance or
watch it become irrelevant. Declining European defense budgets, he emphasized, are "not sustainable. Our alliance can
endure only as long as we are willing to fight for it, and invest in it." Rebalancing NATO's "burden-sharing and
capabilities," Hagel stressed, "is mandatory -- not elective."
Additionally, U.S. military activities along NATO's eastern flank certainly have not diminished during the Trump
administration. Washington has sent forces to participate in a growing number of exercises (war games) along Russia's
western land border -- as well as in the Black Sea -- to demonstrate the U.S. determination to protect its alliance
partners. Trump has even escalated America's "leadership role" by authorizing the sale of
weapons
to Ukraine
-- a very sensitive step that President Obama carefully avoided.
Trump even seems receptive to establishing permanent U.S. military bases in Eastern Europe. During a state visit
to Washington in mid-September, Poland's president, Andrzej Duda, promised to provide $2 billion toward construction
costs if the United States built a military base in his country. Duda
even
offered
to name the base "Fort Trump." Trump's reaction was revealing. Noting that Poland "is willing to make a
very major contribution to the United States to come in and have a presence in Poland," Trump stated that the United
States would take Duda's proposal "very seriously."
American Conservative
columnist Daniel Larison
notes
that
while Trump often is accused of wanting to "retreat" from the world, "his willingness to entertain this proposal
shows that he doesn't care about stationing U.S. forces abroad so long as someone else is footing most of the bill."
U.S. military activism does not seem to have diminished outside the NATO region either. Washington persists in its
futile regime-change campaign in Syria, and it continues the shameful policy of
assisting
Saudi Arabia
and its Gulf allies pursue their atrocity-ridden war in Yemen. Both of those Obama-era ventures
should have been prime candidates for a policy change if Trump had wished to decrease America's military activism.
There are no such indications in Europe, the Middle East, or anywhere else. The U.S. Navy's
freedom
of navigation patrols
in the South China Sea have actually increased in size and frequency under Trump -- much to
China's
anger
. Washington's diplomatic support for Taiwan also has
quietly
increased
over the past year or so, and National Security Advisor John Bolton is on record suggesting that the
United States move some of its
troops
stationed on Okinawa
to Taiwan. The
U.S.
military presence
in Sub-Saharan Africa is increasing, both in overall size and the number of host countries.
Those are all extremely strange actions for an administration supposedly flirting with a retreat from the world to
be adopting. So, too, is Trump's push for increases in America's already bloated military budget, which now exceeds
$700 billion -- with even higher spending levels on the horizon.
Accusations of a U.S. retreat from the world on non-military matters have only slightly greater validity. True,
Trump has shown little patience for multilateral arrangements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris
climate agreement, or the United Nations Human Rights Council that he concluded did not serve America's national
interests. On those issues, the president's actions demonstrated that his invocation of "America First" was not just
rhetoric. However, regarding such matters, as well as the trade disputes with China and North Atlantic Free Trade
Agreement partners, the administration's emphasis is on securing a "better deal" for the United States, not
abandoning the entire diplomatic process. One might question the wisdom or effectiveness of that approach, but it is
a far cry from so-called isolationism.
Indeed, Americans would have been better off if Trump had been more serious about challenging the policy status
quo, especially with respect to security issues. A reconsideration of Washington's overgrown and often obsolete
security commitments to allies and clients around the world is long overdue. Abandoning the disastrous twin
strategies of humanitarian military intervention and regime-change wars is a badly needed step. And waging a new cold
war against Russia is the height of dangerous folly that needs to be reversed.
But contrary to Trump's shrill -- and sometimes hysterical -- critics, America has had no meaningful reconsideration of
such misguided policies or a willingness to adopt a more focused, limited, and prudent U.S. role in the world.
Notions that there has been a pell-mell U.S. retreat from global leadership -- i.e., Washington's hegemonic
pretentions -- under Donald Trump are a myth. What Trump has adopted is merely a more unilateral and militarized version
of a stale foreign policy that does not benefit the American people.
"... Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? ..."
"... Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and is no different than either professional football or wrestling. The public cheer on their teams and engage in meaningless battle while the controllers pilfer everything of value. ..."
"... Peter Hitchens has remarked that demonstrations are actually indicators of weakness rather than power or authority (something that seems to have eluded Flake and Murkowski), however shrill and enraged that they may be. ..."
"... I'm an aging New Deal Democrat. I have not changed but my former party changed with the tenure of the immoral and ethically challenged rapist, Bill Clinton and his enabler wife. In their previous lives, both were Goldwater Republicans. They switched to the Democrat Party to win elections but they never strayed too far from teats of the the Bushes and their destructive political roots. I"m willing to bet thousands of dollars that if given a fair chance at a quiz about the Clintons, most of the young SJW's, rabid homo's and the poor suckers who follow them know very little about the real Clintons. ..."
"... The Democrat party today is less a party than it is a mob of homosexuals and rabid social justice warriors duped into believing they are oppressed by the extremist college courses in Social Justice. Yet, what they have offer the world is not justice. They offer chaos and anarchy as we saw with the mob of racists black and stupid white kids attacking a man who looked lost and confused, and as it turns out, rightfully frightened by the crowd of social justice terrorists from the Alt-Left. ..."
"... The Democrat Party is gonzo, the same as Hillary and Bill Clinton's speaking tour is destined to be. ..."
Mr. Buchanan, you forgot the "treacherous" work of porn lawyer Michael Avenatti who offered
the straw that broke the camel's back by presenting such an abysmal "witness" such as Julie
Swetnick. Ms. Ramirez' alleged allegations also came down to nothing. Even the so-called Me
too movement suffered a big blow. They turned a fundamental democratic principle upside down:
The accused is innocent until proven guilty. They insisted instead that the accuser is right
because she is a woman!
I watched the whole confirmation circus on CNN. When Dr. Ford started talking my first
thought was; this entire testimony is a charade initiated by the Dems. As a journalist, I was
appalled by the CNN "colleagues." During the recesses, they held tribunals that were 95
percent staffed by anti-Trumpets. Fairness looks different.
For me, the Democratic Party and the Me too movement lost much of its credibility. To
regain it, they have to get rid of the demons of the Clinton's and their ilk. Anyone who is
acquainted with the history of the Clinton's knows that they belong to the most politically
corrupt politicians in the US.
@utu
You're thinking of Justice Kennedy, another Republican choice for whom young Mr. Kavanaugh
clerked before helping President Cheney with the Patriot Act to earn his first robe on the
Swampville Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts was the one who nailed down Big Sickness for the
pharmaceutical and insurance industries.
Like the "federal" elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4
decrees of the Court, these nailbiting confirmation hearings are another part of the show
that keeps people gulled into accepting that so many things in life are to be run by people
in Washington. Mr. Buchanan for years has been proclaiming each The Most Important Ever.
I'm still inclined to the notion that the Constitution was intended, at least by some of
its authors and supporters, to create a limited national government. But even by the time of
Marbury, those entrusted with the powers have arrogated the authority to redefine them. In my
lifetime, the Court exists to deal with hot potato social issues in lieu of the invertebrate
Congress, to forebear (along with the invertebrate Congress) the warmongering and other
"foreign policy" waged under auspices of the President, and to dignify the Establishment's
shepherding and fleecing of the people.
Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? Entrusted to
enforce the Constitutional limitations on the others? Sure, questions like these are posed
from time to time in a dissenting Justice's opinion, but that ends the discussion other than
in the context of replacing old Justice X with middle-aged Justice Y, as exemplified in this
cliche' column from Mr. Buchanan. Those of us outside the Beltway are told to tune in and
root Red. And there are pom pom shakers and color commentators just like him for Team
Blue.
Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and
is no different than either professional football or wrestling. The public cheer on their
teams and engage in meaningless battle while the controllers pilfer everything of value.
Buchanan knows this but is too afraid to tell "the other half of the story."
It was a costly victory, but not a Pyrrhic one. The Left will no doubt raise the decibel
and octave levels, but if they incur a richly-deserved defeat a month from now, they won't
even make it to the peanut gallery for at least the next two years.
Peter Hitchens has remarked that demonstrations are actually indicators of weakness
rather than power or authority (something that seems to have eluded Flake and Murkowski),
however shrill and enraged that they may be. Should the Left choose to up the ante, to
REALLY take it to the streets well as the English ditty goes: We have the Maxim Gun/And they
have not.
Pat, you are one of the few thinkers with real common sense.
I'm an aging New Deal Democrat. I have not changed but my former party changed with
the tenure of the immoral and ethically challenged rapist, Bill Clinton and his enabler wife.
In their previous lives, both were Goldwater Republicans. They switched to the Democrat Party
to win elections but they never strayed too far from teats of the the Bushes and their
destructive political roots. I"m willing to bet thousands of dollars that if given a fair
chance at a quiz about the Clintons, most of the young SJW's, rabid homo's and the poor
suckers who follow them know very little about the real Clintons.
The Democrat party today is less a party than it is a mob of homosexuals and rabid
social justice warriors duped into believing they are oppressed by the extremist college
courses in Social Justice. Yet, what they have offer the world is not justice. They offer
chaos and anarchy as we saw with the mob of racists black and stupid white kids attacking a
man who looked lost and confused, and as it turns out, rightfully frightened by the crowd of
social justice terrorists from the Alt-Left.
They all slept through the Obama disaster thinking the globalist open borders would make
the world Shang Ri La instead of crime ridden, diseased, and under attack from Muslims and
their twisted ides about God and Sharia Law. Look at the Imam who proclaimed yesterday they
Sharia is the law of Britain and that Muslims are at war with the British government. Yet,
Tommy Robinson gets jailed for pointing out their sated intentions. Messed up. We cannot let
this happen in America.
They ignore the fact that the emasculated Obama failed to fight to pick a Supreme Court
Justice. Even though he was going to choose Neil Gorsuch, not a leftist, the Alt-Left no
doubt would have remained silent if he had. Why? Because Obama was black. But the Alt-Left is
shallow and they could not see that the oreo president was black on the outside but rich and
creamy white on the inside. No doubt, Obama was more like a 1980′s Republican than he
was a Democrat as I understood them to be for decades.
The Democrat Party is gonzo, the same as Hillary and Bill Clinton's speaking tour is
destined to be.
@Ludwig
Watzal Vis-a-vis #PayAttentionToMeToo, it really was a win-win. Rightists successfully
defended the firewall and kept it contained to the left. Perfect. As far as leftists are
concerned, it's still perfectly legitimate – the leftist circular firing squads will
continue.
Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and
is no different than either professional football or wrestling.
Well I get it and have been saying so. Trump knows damn well that the people he has
surrounded himself with are Deep Staters Trump is a part of the Deep State. Trump has done
nothing of significance for the 99%. Trump hasn't prosecuted anyone for criminal activity
'against' his campaign or administration. Trump hasn't built a wall (he won't either).
Instead of reducing conflict and war Trump has been belligerent in his actions toward Russia,
China, Syria and Iran .risking all out war. All these things are being done to increase the
wealth and power of the Deep State. For the past ten years Republican House members have been
promising investigations and prosecutions of Democrats for criminal activities .not one god
damn thing changed. Kabuki theater is the name of the game. With such inane bullshit as
Dancing With The Stars on TV and the fake Republicans v Democrats game, it is all meant to
keep the proles from knowing how they are being screwed .a rather easy task at that.
@utu
Same sex marriage is basically irrelevant. Less than 10% of homosexuals co-habitate with a
partner. Perhaps 10% of the general population is openly homosexual (and that's definitely an
over-estimation.).
This means that if all homosexuals that cohabitate with a partner are married, it's less
than 1% of the population we're talking about.
This is a "who really cares?" situation. There's more important things to worry about when
the nation has been at war for 16 years straight, started over a bunch of lies starting with
George W. Bush and continuing with Barak Obama. We have lost the moral high ground because of
those two, identical in any important way, scumbags.
Democrats are enraged and have seen the GOP for the white supremacist evil institution
that it is
This from a group of people that have been endlessly complaining that the Butcher of
Libya, who voted for the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq (what you know as the 2nd Iraq
War) wasn't elected president just because she was running a fraudulent charity, was storing
classified information on an unsecured and compromised server illegally, and is telling you
absolutely morally bankrupt and unprincipled individuals that you have the moral high ground
because she's a woman after all, not just another war criminal like George W. Bush is, and
Obama is.
Caligula's horse would have beaten Hillary Clinton, if the voter base had any sense.
Clinton was the worst possible candidate ever. Anybody, and I mean anybody, that voted for
the Iraq War should be in prison, not in government. They are all traitors.
@Realist
Agree Big money interets have broguht us Trump not only for the tax cuts but to destroy
America's hemegomony. to start the final leg of the shift from west to east. A traitor of the
highest order Pat Buchanan has led the grievence brigade of angry white men for decades
distracted and deluded over the social issues meanwhile the Everyman/woman has lost ground
economically or stayed static no improvement.
@Jon
Baptist You can just about guarantee that the losers in the false 'Right' versus 'Left'
circus will be We The People.
Big Government/Big Insider Corporations/Big Banks feed parasitically off the population.
The role of the lawyers wearing black dresses on the SC, is to help hide the theft. They use
legal mumbo jumbo. The economists at the Fed use economics & mathematical mumbo
jumbo.
Much of current Western society is made up of bullsh*t.
"... Ship of Fools is no apology for Trumpism. Indeed, Carlson calls Trump "vulgar and ignorant." But he rightly points out that Trump "didn't invade Iraq or bail out Wall Street. He didn't lower interest rates to zero, or open the borders, or sit silently by as the manufacturing sector collapsed and the middle class died." Basically, Donald J. Trump is not your average American politician. Thank God. ..."
"... Well, Ship of Fools excoriates finance capitalism and the class that has constantly reaped economic benefits out of the labor of American workers without contributing anything of substance to the American body politic. The Democrats used to be the party of populist rabble rousers like Huey Long and Al Smith. ..."
"... Explicit in this critique of America's Ruling Class is the fact that democracies are unstable and prone to self-destruction. In modern America, the elite do not attend to the population, cynical race-mongering is used to win votes at the cost of internal peace, and chicken hawks like Max Boot and William Kristol still receive adulation in the Main Stream Media despite their disastrous record of cheering on military misadventures that kill thousands of Americans. (To say nothing of their fanatical opposition to Trump -- despite the fact that he won the presidency when their catspaws McCain and Romney ignominiously failed). Ship of Fools correctly notes that this is what an empire looks like in its final days. ..."
"... Jake Bowyer [ Email him ] is the pseudonym of an American college student. ..."
Since the late fall of 2016, Democrats and other Leftist types have been decrying President
Donald J. Trump as "not normal" and a "threat to democracy." Of course, this is hogwash of the
most rank sort. The same people lambasting Trump for his supposed " authoritarianism " are the
same people who have created the modern American oligarchy. Tucker Carlson , the popular Fox News who wrote
the single most brilliant and prescient Main Stream Media article on the Trump phenomenon:
Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right | And, my dear fellow Republicans,
he's all your fault, by Tucker Carlson, Politico, January 28, 2016.
For Carlson, moral and social rot in the United States starts at the very top -- the place
where Democrats and Republicans
https://vdare.com/posts/they-want-to-lose-gop-congress-sounds-retreat-on-border-wall-funds-democratic-priorities
to maintain unpopular elite rule. Carlson compares this American elite to blind drunk captains
steering a sinking ship. Making matters worse: the fact that, in keeping with Carlson's
nautical parallel, "Anyone who points out the consequences of what they're [the elite] doing
gets keelhauled." Gavin
McInnes (banned from Twitter ) and
Alex
Jones (banned from
everything ) would agree.
Ship of Fools is no apology for Trumpism. Indeed, Carlson calls Trump "vulgar and
ignorant." But he rightly points out that Trump "didn't invade Iraq or bail out Wall Street. He
didn't lower interest rates to zero, or open the borders, or sit silently by as the
manufacturing sector collapsed and the middle class died." Basically, Donald J. Trump is not
your average American politician. Thank God.
For much of Ship of Fools , Carlson comes off sounding like someone with his heart
in the center-left. Some cheeky Twitter users might even dub Carlson's latest book National
Bolshevism.
Why? Well, Ship of Fools excoriates finance capitalism and the class that has
constantly reaped economic benefits out of the labor of American workers without contributing
anything of substance to the American body politic. The Democrats used to be the party of
populist rabble rousers like Huey Long and Al Smith.
But Carlson points out that "the Democratic Party is now the party of the rich." Rather than
attacking mega-wealthy people
like Amazon's
Jeff Bezos or Apple's Tim Cook , the
modern American Left is completely in thrall to money and
corporate power. This hurts every American not in the upper income bracket.
Republicans are no better. They remain wedded to the idea of being the party of business,
and as such many Republican elected officials support Open Borders because that would provide
their donors with an endless supply of cheap labor. This support comes at the cost of angering
a majority of Republican voters.
In sum, both parties have given up on the native-born American workers. And, beginning in
2016, American workers began pushing back at the ballot box.
Ship of Fools is a bleak book. It is also much better than the usual fluff penned
(or signed) by Fox News pundits. Carlson tells uncomfortable truths and
engages with topics that until very recently were only considered fit for the fringe Right
(like VDARE.com ).
Take for instance the displacement of white Americans, especially white working-class
Americans. America is a nation of 200 million white people. Native-born whites pay more in
taxes, provide the majority of America's soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen, and are the
offspring of the people who built this country. For this hard work and loyalty,
foreign-born editors at the New York Times tweet
"#CancelWhitePeople." Hordes of
Antifa types cheer on the displacement of native-born whites, while the political elite do
nothing to combat rising drug overdose deaths and suicides in the Midwest, rural Northeast, and
South. As Carlson warns, " White
identity politics will be a response to a world in which identity politics is the only game
there is."
And, as anti-white vitriol increases and whites are demoted from majority status, Carlson
predicts that white interest groups will form and flex their muscles when they feel that their
backs are up against the wall.
At several points in Ship of Fools , Carlson sincerely grieves for the lost
Liberal-Left of his childhood. He misses the environmentalists who cared about littering, not
about some abstract thing called climate change. He misses those Leftists who cried about
injustice in the world rather than ranting and raving at the behest of the elite class. Without
an honest Left, America could further descend into corporate anarcho-tyranny
-- a place where businesses control free speech and only a small sliver of people enjoy the
benefits of the modern and high-tech economy.
Ship of Fools ends with a warning: either practice democracy or be prepared for
authoritarian rule.
"In order to survive, democracies must remain egalitarian," Carlson argues."When all the
spoils seem to flow upward, the majority will revolt in protest."
Explicit in this critique of America's Ruling Class is the fact that democracies are
unstable and prone to self-destruction. In modern America, the elite do not attend to the
population, cynical race-mongering is used to
win votes at the cost of internal peace, and chicken hawks like
Max Boot and William
Kristol still receive adulation in the Main Stream Media despite their disastrous record of
cheering on military misadventures that kill thousands of Americans. (To say nothing of their
fanatical opposition to Trump -- despite the fact that he won the presidency when their
catspaws McCain
and Romney ignominiously failed). Ship of Fools correctly notes that this is what an
empire looks like in its final days.
In this sense the elites may be right to characterize President Trump as a populist. After
all, Julius
Caesar gave the common man order, security, and bread in the face of a cold and sterile
system. By attempting to dismantle the elite consensus, Trump, Trumpism
, and America
First may just be the first entries in a new age of all-American Caesarism.
We should only be so lucky!
Jake Bowyer [ Email him ] is the pseudonym of an American college
student.
I enjoyed the book immensely even though I'm a socialist myself. Tucker's disdain for wars,
technology companies, and the ruling class are a breath of fresh air. I also enjoy his show
but I do wish he wouldn't talk over the guests he disagrees with.
There must be a reason why people like j g strijdom and curmudgeon, with their slimy
unsubstantiated charges, despise Tucker Carlson. I suspect it is this:
New Tucker book condemns both neoliberalism and neocon foreign policy
Notable quotes:
"... Tucker states that the USA's neoliberal elite acquired control of a massive chunk of the country's wealth. And then successfully insulated themselves from the hoi polloi. They send their children to the Ivy League universities, live in enclosed compounds with security guards, travel in helicopters, etc. Kind of like French aristocracy on a new level ("Let them eat cakes"). "There's nothing more infuriating to a ruling class than contrary opinions. They're inconvenient and annoying. They're evidence of an ungrateful population... Above all, they constitute a threat to your authority." (insert sarcasm) ..."
I think the US society is entering a deep, sustained political crisis and it is unclear
what can bring us back from it other then the collapse, USSR-style. The USA slide into
corporate socialism (which might be viewed as a flavor of neofascism) can't be disputed.
Looks like all democracies are unstable and prone to self-destruction. In modern America,
the elite do not care about lower 80% of the population, and is over-engaged in cynical
identity politics, race and gender-mongering. Anything to win votes.
MSM is still cheering on military misadventures that kill thousands of Americans,
impoverish millions, and cost trillions. Congress looks even worse. Republican House leader
Paul Ryan looks like 100% pure bought-and-paid-for tool of multinational corporations...
The scary thing for me is that the USA national problems are somewhat similar to the ones
that the USSR experienced before the collapse. At least the level of degeneration of
political elite of both parties (which in reality is a single party) is.
The only positive things is that there is viable alternative to neoliberalism on the
horizon. But that does not mean that we can't experience 1930th on a new level again. Now
several European countries such as Poland and Ukraine are already ruled by far right
nationalist parties. Brazil is probably the next. So this or military rule in the USA is not
out of question.
Ship of Fools is what the US empire and the US society looks like now. And that's not
funny. Look at <a
href="https://www.amazon.com/Ship-Fools-Selfish-Bringing-Revolution-ebook/dp/B071FFRJ48">"Ship
of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of
Revolution"</a> by Tucker Carlson hits the mark when he says that the career
politicians and other elites in this country have put the USA on a path of
self-destruction.
Some other factors are also in play: one is that a country with 320 million population
can't be governed by the same methods as a country of 76 million (1900). End of cheap oil is
near and probably will occur within the next 50 years or so. Which means the end of
neoliberalism as we know it.
Tucker states that the USA's neoliberal elite acquired control of a massive chunk of the
country's wealth. And then successfully insulated themselves from the hoi polloi. They send
their children to the Ivy League universities, live in enclosed compounds with security
guards, travel in helicopters, etc. Kind of like French aristocracy on a new level ("Let them
eat cakes"). "There's nothing more infuriating to a ruling class than contrary opinions.
They're inconvenient and annoying. They're evidence of an ungrateful population... Above all,
they constitute a threat to your authority." (insert sarcasm)
Donald Trump was in many ways an unappealing figure. He never hid that. Voters knew it.
They just concluded that the options were worse -- and not just Hillary Clinton and the
Democratic Party, but the Bush family and their donors and the entire Republican
leadership, along with the hedge fund managers and media luminaries and corporate
executives and Hollywood tastemakers and think tank geniuses and everyone else who created
the world as it was in the fall of 2016: the people in charge. Trump might be vulgar and
ignorant, but he wasn't responsible for the many disasters America's leaders created .
There was also the possibility that Trump might listen. At times he seemed interested in
what voters thought. The people in charge demonstrably weren't. Virtually none of their
core beliefs had majority support from the population they governed .Beginning on election
night, they explained away their loss with theories as pat and implausible as a summer
action movie: Trump won because fake news tricked simple minded voters. Trump won because
Russian agents "hacked" the election. Trump won because mouth-breathers in the provinces
were mesmerized by his gold jet and shiny cuff links.
From a reader review:
The New [Neoliberal] Elite speaks: "The Middle Class are losers and they have made bad
choices, they haven't worked as hard as the New Elite have, they haven't gone to SAT Prep
or LSAT prep so they lose, we win. We are the Elite and we know better than you because we
got high SAT scores.
Do we have experience? Uh....well...no, few of us have been in the military, pulled KP,
shot an M-16.... because we are better than that. Like they say only the losers go in the
military. We in the New Elite have little empirical knowledge but we can recognize patterns
very quickly."
Just look at Haley behavior in the UN and Trump trade wars and many things became more
clear. the bet is on destruction of existing international institutions in order to save the
USA elite. A the same time Trump trade wars threaten the neoliberal order so this might well
be a path to the USA self-destruction.
On Capital hill rancor, a lack of civility and derisive descriptions are everywhere.
Respect has gone out the window. Left and right wings of a single neoliberal party (much like
CPSU was in the USSR) behave like drunk schoolchildren. Level of pettiness is simply
amazing.
White people who voted for Trump for his Supreme Court list have been duped so many times.
First, when Trump promised us "America First!" Voters, apparently content to trust mere
words, have ignored Trump's apparent definition of "America First!" as "America has the right
to antagonize Iran and Russia, and launch pointless attacks upon Syria." Second, when Trump
added Kavanaugh's name to a list of judges after he had gotten into office. Third, when Trump
negotiated with scum Anthony Kennedy, who obviously demanded a Kavanaugh nomination in
exchange for his retirement.
Christine Ford is, quite frankly, a distraction from the real intrigue: how Donald Trump
motivated his base to support a candidate from the elitist wing.
But good luck finding conservatives with the balls to publicly point out the truth: the
President we elected has stabbed us in the back with an establishment nomination.
This is a really apt quote: "America's two mainstream political parties agree furiously with
one another on war, neoliberalism, Orwellian surveillance, and every other agenda which increases
the power and profit of the plutocratic class which owns them both."
Notable quotes:
"... The buzzword "bipartisan" gets used a lot in US politics because it gives the illusion that whatever agenda it's being applied to must have some deep universal truth to it for such wildly divergent ideologies to set aside their differences in order to advance it, but what it usually means is Democrat neocons and Republican neocons working together to inflict new horrors upon the world. ..."
"... America's two mainstream political parties agree furiously with one another on war, neoliberalism, Orwellian surveillance, and every other agenda which increases the power and profit of the plutocratic class which owns them both. The plutocrat-owned mass media plays up the differences between Democrats and Republicans to hysterical proportions, when in reality the debate over which one is worse is like arguing over whether a serial killer's arms or legs are more evil. ..."
If there's one thing that brings a tear to my eye, it's the inspiration I feel when watching
Republican-aligned neoconservatives and Democrat-aligned neoconservatives find a way to bridge
their almost nonexistent differences and come together to discuss the many, many, many, many,
many, many many many things they have in common.
In a conference at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, "Resistance" leader and
professional left-puncher Neera Tanden met with Iraq-raping neocon Bill Kristol to discuss
bipartisanship and shared values. While leprechauns held hands and danced beneath candy
rainbows and gumdrop Reaper drones, the duo engaged in a friendly, playful conversation with
the event's host in a debate format which was not unlike watching the Pillsbury Doughboy have a
pillow fight with himself in a padded room after drinking a bottle of NyQuil.
To get the event started, the host whose name I refuse to learn asked the pair to discuss
briefly what common ground such wildly different people could possibly share to make such a
strange taboo-shattering dialogue possible.
"Issues around national security and believing in democratic principles as they relate to
foreign policy," replied
Tanden . "And opposing authoritarianism, and opposing the kind of creeping populism that
undermines democracy itself."
Neera Tanden, in case you are unaware, is a longtime Clinton and Obama insider
and CEO of the plutocrat-backed
think tank Center for American Progress. Her emails featured prominently in the 2016
Podesta drops by WikiLeaks, which New Republic described as revealing "a
pattern of freezing out those who don't toe the line, a disturbing predilection for someone who
is a kind of gatekeeper for what ideas are acceptable in Democratic politics." Any quick glance
at Tanden's political activism and Twitter presence will render this unsurprising, as she often
seems more concerned with attacking the Green Party and noncompliant progressive Democrats than
she does with advancing progressive values. Her entire life is dedicated to keeping what passes
for America's political left out of the hands of the American populace.
Kristol co-signed Tanden's anti-populist rhetoric and her open endorsement of
neoconservative foreign policy, and went on to say that another thing he and Tanden have in
common is that they've both served in government, which makes you realize that nothing's black
and white and everything's kinda nebulous and amorphous so it doesn't really matter if you, say
for example, help deceive your country into a horrific blunder that ends up killing a whole lot
of people for no good reason.
"I do think if you've served in government -- this isn't universally true but somewhat true --
that you do have somewhat more of a sense of the complexity of things, and many of its
decisions are not black and white, that in public policy there are plusses and minuses to
most policies," Kristol said
.
"There are authentic disagreements both about values, but also just about how certain
things are gonna work or not work and that is what adds a kind of humility to one's belief
that one is kind of always right about everything."
I found this very funny coming from the man who is notoriously always wrong about
everything, and I'd like to point out that "complexity" is a key talking point that the
neoconservatives who've been consistently proven completely wrong about everything are fond of
repeating. Everything's complicated and nothing's really known and it's all a big blurry mess
so maybe butchering a million Iraqis and destabilizing the Middle East was a good thing . Check
out this short clip of John
Bolton being confronted by Tucker Carlson about what a spectacular error the Iraq invasion was
for a great example of this:
I listened to the whole conference, but it was basically one long smear of amicable
politeness which was the verbal equivalent of the color beige, so I had difficulty tuning in.
Both Tanden and Kristol hate the far left (or as those of us outside the US pronounce it, "the
center"), both Tanden and Kristol hate Trump, and hey maybe Americans have a lot more in common
than they think and everyone can come together and together together togetherness blah blah. At
one point Kristol said something about disagreeing with internet censorship, which was weird
because his Weekly Standard
actively participates in Facebook censorship as one of its authorized "fact checkers".
The buzzword "bipartisan" gets used a lot in US politics because it gives the illusion that
whatever agenda it's being applied to must have some deep universal truth to it for such wildly
divergent ideologies to set aside their differences in order to advance it, but what it usually
means is Democrat neocons and Republican neocons working together to inflict new horrors upon
the world.
America's two mainstream political parties agree furiously with one another on war,
neoliberalism, Orwellian surveillance, and every other agenda which increases the power and
profit of the plutocratic class which owns them both. The plutocrat-owned mass media plays up
the differences between Democrats and Republicans to hysterical proportions, when in reality
the debate over which one is worse is like arguing over whether a serial killer's arms or legs
are more evil.
Neera Tanden and Bill Kristol are the same fucking person. They're both toxic limbs on the
same toxic beast, feeding the lives of ordinary people at home and abroad into its gaping mouth
in service of the powerful. And populism, which is nothing other than support for the
protection of common folk from the powerful, is the only antidote to such toxins. Saying
populism undermines democracy is like saying democracy undermines democracy.
Keyser , 29 minutes ago
The only thing the neocons care about is money and dead brown people, in that order,
because the more dead people, the more $$$ they make...
Jim in MN , 28 minutes ago
You mean, neolibcon globalist elite sociopath traitors, right?
bshirley1968 , 38 minutes ago
I am confident that if I ever spent time around Caitlin there would be a whole host of
things we would disagree about......but this,
" America's two mainstream political parties agree furiously with one another on war,
neoliberalism, Orwellian surveillance, and every other agenda which increases the power and
profit of the plutocratic class which owns them both. The plutocrat-owned mass media plays up
the differences between Democrats and Republicans to hysterical proportions, when in reality
the debate over which one is worse is like arguing over whether a serial killer's arms or
legs are more evil."
.....is something we can absolutely agree on. This FACT needs to be expounded and driven
down the sheeple throats until they are puking it up. Why don't they teach that in screwls?
Because school is where the foundation for this lie of two parties is laid .
DingleBarryObummer , 29 minutes ago
It's funny that you say that. I was just thinking about how high school was a microcosm of
how the world is.
The football stars were the "protected class." They could park like assholes, steal food
from the cafeteria, and show up late, and wouldn't get in trouble.
That's just one of a multitude of examples. That's a whole nother article in itself.
DingleBarryObummer , 39 minutes ago
Tucker Carlson made Bolton look like the dingus he is in that interview. We all know
(((who))) he works for.
+1 to tucker
WTFUD , 43 minutes ago
Campaigns are funded, career Politicians become made-men, conduits for the scramble of
BILLIONAIRES gorging bigly on-the-public-teat, with a kick-back revolving door supernova
gratuity waiting at the end of the rainbow.
Of course they can ALL AGREE . . . eventually.
Chupacabra-322 , 54 minutes ago
"How many people have Kristol and his ilk murdered in their endless wars for israel?"
Countless.
ChiangMaiXPat , 58 minutes ago
As a Trump voter, I believe I have more in common with Caitlin Johnstone then "any"
Neocon. Her articles and writing are mostly "spot on." I imagine I would disagree on a couple
key social issues but on foreign policy I believe most conservatives are on the same page as
her.
ChiangMaiXPat , 54 minutes ago
I thought her piece was "spot on," she's a very good writer. The Neo CONS will be the
death of this country.
In these interesting times, we all need someone to admire. I have found such a one in
Benedict de Spinoza (1632-1677), the 17th-century rationalist liberal philosopher who advocated
freedom of thought and expression, toleration, and simple kindness.
Spinoza lived in what at the time was the most liberal place on earth, the Dutch Republic,
his Jewish Portuguese family having moved there after Portugal expelled its Jewish population
in 1497. He seems to have been a free thinker at an early age, and it apparently got him into
trouble with the Jewish community of Amsterdam. In 1656, at the tender age 23, his synagogue
banned him for life from the community for "abominable heresies and monstrous
deeds." The excommunication decree -- the charem -- left no doubt about how the Jews
of Amsterdam were to regard the young man:
By decree of the angels and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse
and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of
the entire holy congregation, and in front of these holy scrolls with the 613 precepts which
are written therein; cursing him with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho
and with the curse which Elisha cursed the boys and with all the castigations which are
written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he
when he lies down and cursed be he when he rises up. Cursed be he when he goes out and cursed
be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his
jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall
lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven. And the Lord shall
separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the
covenant that are written in this book of the law. But you that cleave unto the Lord your God
are alive every one of you this day.
It ordered "that no one should communicate with him neither in writing nor accord him any
favor nor stay with him under the same roof nor within four cubits [six feet] in his vicinity;
nor shall he read any treatise composed or written by him."
Spinoza was not upset with this development; he apparently thought his excommunication
merely saved him the trouble of leaving the community on his own initiative. So he changed his
name from the Hebrew word for blessed , Baruch, to the Latin equivalent, Benedictus.
However, he lived in a time and place in which being unaffiliated with any community had its
disadvantages.
What had he done to deserve this treatment? No one is really sure because he had not yet
written a word, and he would not publish a book for several years. But he must have been
talking to friends about the philosophy he was formulating. If so, we should have no problem
understanding why Spinoza would have outraged the Jewish authorities, who feared anything that
might jeopardize the community's relatively free status in the Protestant republic. His
writings, published between those of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, would reject the immortality
of the soul and the divine origin of the Bible, while arguing that God was nothing more than
nature, or existence, itself without a consciousness or will with which to command, reward,
punish, or listen to human beings. His famous phrase was Deus sive Natura , God or/as
Nature. For Spinoza, nothing could be beyond nature and logic; thus, no supernatural being or
realm existed.
When I (along with others) nominate Spinoza for hero status, I am thinking specifically of
his political philosophy, which he expressed in his anonymously published A
Theological-Political Treatise (1670), condemned as
"a book forged in hell." The authorship of the book soon became an open secret, and all but
his book on Descartes were banned in the Dutch Republic and elsewhere. Spinoza also lived in
interesting times, which were no doubt on his mind as he formulated his political philosophy:
the Thirty Years' War ended in 1648 and the English Civil War raged from 1642 to 1651.
As the libertarian philosopher Douglas Den Uyl notes in God, Man, and
Well-Being: Spinoza's Modern Humanism , Spinoza was very much in the tradition of Greek
philosophy, but he went the Greek thinkers one better by rejecting the state as a shaper of
souls and promoter of virtue. What Spinoza called "blessedness" cannot be achieved through
external forces but only through an internal process that individuals undertake. (Den Uyl's
earlier book on Spinoza, a doctoral dissertation, is Power, State, and
Freedom: An Interpretation of Spinoza's Political Philosophy .)
For Spinoza (alas, no anarchist, but see Daniel Garber's lecture at 44:00), the socially contracted
democratic-republican state had one task: to produce security -- full stop. Security enables
individuals to 1) live in safety, 2) pursue understanding, which is the key to activeness,
power in the sense of efficacy, virtue, and excellence, and 3) enjoy the benefits of
cooperation with others through the division of labor. But, properly, number two is neither the
state's direct nor indirect goal. Against the claim that Spinoza looked to the state to promote
virtue if only indirectly, Den Uyl refers to Spinoza's unfinished Political Treatise ,
where he writes, "The best way to organize a state is easily discovered by considering the
purpose of civil order, which is nothing other than peace and security of life." Virtue is not
even an indirect goal? No, because, Den Uyl points out, the failure of people to become more
virtuous would not indicate a deficiency in the state. Virtue is a private internal matter.
As an aside, I note that for Spinoza, living actively according to reason (understanding),
rather than passively according to appetites and (other) "external" forces, enables one to
accomplish more than one's own flourishing directly; it also encourages others to live
according to reason, which in turn further promotes one's own flourishing.
Another Spinoza scholar who finds this political philosophy especially worth studying today
is Steven Nadler. In his 2016 Aeon article "Why Spinoza
Still Matters" (from which many of the Spinoza quotes below are taken), Nadler writes:
At a time when Americans seem willing to bargain away their freedoms for security, when
politicians talk of banning people of a certain faith from our shores, and when religious
zealotry exercises greater influence on matters of law and public policy, Spinoza's
philosophy – especially his defence of democracy, liberty, secularity and toleration
– has never been more timely. In his distress over the deteriorating political
situation in the Dutch Republic, and despite the personal danger he faced, Spinoza did not
hesitate to boldly defend the radical Enlightenment values that he, along with many of his
compatriots, held dear. In Spinoza we can find inspiration for resistance to oppressive
authority and a role model for intellectual opposition to those who, through the
encouragement of irrational beliefs and the maintenance of ignorance, try to get citizens to
act contrary to their own best interests .
The political ideal that Spinoza promotes in the Theological-Political Treatise is a
secular, democratic commonwealth, one that is free from meddling by ecclesiastics. Spinoza is
one of history's most eloquent advocates for freedom and toleration.
In his treatise, Spinoza was quite clear: "The state can pursue no safer course than to
regard piety and religion as consisting solely in the exercise of charity and just dealing, and
that the right of the sovereign, both in religious and secular spheres, should be restricted to
men's actions, with everyone being allowed to think what he will and to say what he
thinks."
And: "Freedom to philosophise [on all things –SR] may not only be allowed
without danger to piety and the stability of the republic, but that it cannot be refused
without destroying the peace of the republic and piety itself."
Further: "A government that attempts to control men's minds is regarded as tyrannical, and a
sovereign is thought to wrong his subjects and infringe their right when he seeks to prescribe
for every man what he should accept as true and reject as false, and what are the beliefs that
will inspire him with devotion to God. All these are matters belonging to individual right,
which no man can surrender even if he should so wish."
Nadler elaborates: "No matter what laws are enacted against speech and other means of
expression, citizens will continue to say what they believe, only now they will do so in
secret. Any attempt to suppress freedom of expression will, once again, only weaken the bonds
of loyalty that unite subjects to sovereign. In Spinoza's view, intolerant laws lead ultimately
to anger, revenge and sedition."
For Spinoza, it was not enough to have the freedom to think any thoughts. "The more
difficult case," Nadler writes, "concerns the liberty of citizens to express those beliefs,
either in speech or in writing. And here Spinoza goes further than anyone else in the 17th
century":
Utter failure will attend any attempt in a commonwealth to force men to speak only as
prescribed by the sovereign despite their different and opposing opinions. The most
tyrannical government will be one where the individual is denied the freedom to express and
to communicate to others what he thinks, and a moderate government is one where this freedom
is granted to every man.
Alas, Spinoza was not what we would call a modern libertarian, although (as Nadler
emphasizes) he was a far better liberal than John Locke, whose Letter Concerning Toleration did not extend
the courtesy to the beliefs , not to mention the public activities, of atheists and
Catholics.
Spinoza thought one can be free "in any kind of state." How so? The free person is guided by
reason, he wrote, and reason favors peace; therefore, the reasonable person obeys the state's
laws because "peace cannot be attained unless the general laws of the state be respected.
Therefore the more he is free, the more constantly will he respect the laws of his country, and
obey the commands of the sovereign power to which he is subject." Now Spinoza might have been
thinking of a commonwealth in which the laws are perfectly appropriate to rational persons --
except that he says we can be free in any kind of state . Does it follow that ignoring
unjust statutes really risks general civil strife? I think Spinoza would reply, in a Hobbesian
way, that "justice is dependent on the laws of the authorities." However, while civil strife is
not conducive to the good life, neither are unjust statutes that prohibit or regulate peaceful
conduct.
Spinoza drew a line between the expression of thoughts and actions. As Nadler points out (in
this video ), Spinoza thought the
secular authority had a right to dictate how religion was publicly practiced in order to
safeguard the peace. Practitioners of alternative religions should be free to think and say
what they please, but their public rites were to be permitted only within prescribed limits. As
one can see, Spinoza is in some respects a Hobbesian though he was more liberal because Hobbes,
unlike Spinoza, had the sovereign serving as the arbiter of right opinion in religious and
other matters -- for the sake of civil peace, of course. The one time that Spinoza mentions
Hobbes is in a note in his treatise: "Now reason (though Hobbes thinks otherwise) is always on
the side of peace, which cannot be attained unless the general laws of the state be
respected."
Spinoza wrote:
The rites of religion and the outward observances of piety should be in accordance with
the public peace and well-being, and should therefore be determined by the sovereign power
alone. I speak here only of the outward observances of piety and the external rites of
religion, not of piety, itself, nor of the inward worship of God, nor the means by which the
mind is inwardly led to do homage to God in singleness of heart.
Moreover, Nadler says, "Spinoza does not support the absolute freedom of speech. He
explicitly states that the expression of seditious ideas is not to be tolerated by the
sovereign. There's to be no protection for speech that advocates the overthrow of the
government, disobedience to its laws, or harm to fellow citizens."
Citizens should be free to argue for repeal of laws, but that's about it; they may not rebel
or even express ideas that implicitly call for rebellion because it would undermine the
social contract and the peace. Nadler acknowledges that, despite Spinoza's definition of
seditious beliefs , the vagueness of that phrase and his notion of implicitly inciting
rebellion properly trouble civil libertarians.
Nevertheless, Spinoza ends his treatise on a high note: "The safest way for a state is to
lay down the rule that religion is comprised solely in the exercise of charity and justice, and
that the rights of rulers in sacred, no less than in secular matters, should merely have to do
with actions, but that every man should think what he likes and say what he thinks." Not bad
for 1670.
Spinoza knew he was not entirely politically safe in the world's freest state. (Friends had
been persecuted by the state for their ideas.) Besides not putting his name on the book, which
was written in Latin rather than the vernacular, he wrote in his final paragraph:
It remains only to call attention to the fact that I have written nothing which I do not
most willingly submit to the examination and approval of my country's rulers; and that I am
willing to retract anything which they shall decide to be repugnant to the laws, or
prejudicial to the public good. I know that I am a man, and as a man liable to error, but
against error I have taken scrupulous care, and have striven to keep in entire accordance
with the laws of my country, with loyalty, and with morality.
Whatever his limits, we have much to learn from and admire about Spinoza, especially these
days.
"... Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy of Islamists. ..."
"... The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump. For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty. ..."
"... But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness to be "presidential." ..."
"... Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day. ..."
"... Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning out to be just another agent of the power elite. ..."
"... Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? ..."
"... Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy ..."
"... Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion." ..."
"... " while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it without establishment support." ..."
Did the Deep State deep-six Trump's populist revolution?
Many observers, especially among his fans, suspect that the seemingly untamable Trump has already been housebroken by the Washington,
"globalist" establishment. If true, the downfall of Trump's National Security Adviser Michael Flynn less than a month into the new
presidency may have been a warning sign. And the turning point would have been the removal of Steven K. Bannon from the National
Security Council on April 5.
Until then, the presidency's early policies had a recognizably populist-nationalist orientation. During his administration's first
weeks, Trump's biggest supporters frequently tweeted the hashtag #winning and exulted that he was decisively doing exactly what,
on the campaign trail, he said he would do.
In a flurry of executive orders and other unilateral actions bearing Bannon's fingerprints, Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, declared a sweeping travel ban, instituted harsher deportation policies, and more.
These policies seemed to fit Trump's reputation as the "
tribune of poor white people
," as he has been called; above all, Trump's base calls for protectionism and immigration restrictions. Trump seemed to be delivering
on the populist promise of his inauguration speech (thought to be written by Bannon), in which he said:
"Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration
to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American
People.
For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories
closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their
triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling
families all across our land.
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January
20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country
will be forgotten no longer.
Everyone is listening to you now." [Emphasis added.]
After a populist insurgency stormed social media and the voting booths, American democracy, it seemed, had been wrenched from
the hands of the Washington elite and restored to "the people," or at least a large, discontented subset of "the people." And this
happened in spite of the establishment, the mainstream media, Hollywood, and "polite opinion" throwing everything it had at Trump.
The Betrayal
But for the past month, the administration's axis seems to have shifted. This shift was especially abrupt in Trump's Syria policy.
Days before Bannon's fall from grace, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley declared that forcing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad
from power was no longer top priority. This too was pursuant of Trump's populist promises.
Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They
are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending
American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also
saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy
of Islamists.
The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump.
For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies
of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these
libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the
state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty.
But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack
on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same
excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness
to be "presidential."
Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold
water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced
an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day.
Here I make no claim as to whether any of these policy reversals are good or bad. I only point out that they run counter to the
populist promises he had given to his core constituents.
Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning
out to be just another agent of the power elite.
Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? Or, after constant obstruction,
has he simply concluded that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
The Iron Law of Oligarchy
Regardless of how it came about, it seems clear that whatever prospect there was for a truly populist Trump presidency is gone
with the wind. Was it inevitable that this would happen, one way or another?
One person who might have thought so was German sociologist Robert Michels, who posited the "iron law of oligarchy" in his 1911
work Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy .
Michels argued that political organizations, no matter how democratically structured, rarely remain truly populist, but inexorably
succumb to oligarchic control.
Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable
of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of
persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion."
This practical limitation necessitates delegation of decision-making to officeholders. These delegates may at first be considered
servants of the masses:
"All the offices are filled by election. The officials, executive organs of the general will, play a merely subordinate part,
are always dependent upon the collectivity, and can be deprived of their office at any moment. The mass of the party is omnipotent."
But these delegates will inevitably become specialists in the exercise and consolidation of power, which they gradually wrest
away from the "sovereign people":
"The technical specialization that inevitably results from all extensive organization renders necessary what is called expert
leadership. Consequently the power of determination comes to be considered one of the specific attributes of leadership, and is gradually
withdrawn from the masses to be concentrated in the hands of the leaders alone. Thus the leaders, who were at first no more than
the executive organs of the collective will, soon emancipate themselves from the mass and become independent of its control.
Organization implies the tendency to oligarchy. In every organization, whether it be a political party, a professional union,
or any other association of the kind, the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly."
Trumped by the Deep State
Thus elected, populist "tribunes" like Trump are ultimately no match for entrenched technocrats nestled in permanent bureaucracy.
Especially invincible are technocrats who specialize in political force and intrigue, i.e., the National Security State (military,
NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.). And these elite functionaries don't serve "the people" or any large subpopulation. They only serve their own
careers, and by extension, big-money special interest groups that make it worth their while: especially big business and foreign
lobbies. The nexus of all these powers is what is known as the Deep State.
Trump's more sophisticated champions were aware of these dynamics, but held out hope nonetheless. They thought that Trump would
be an exception, because his large personal fortune would grant him immunity from elite influence. That factor did contribute to
the independent, untamable spirit of his campaign. But as I
predicted
during the Republican primaries:
" while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it
without establishment support."
No matter how popular, rich, and bombastic, a populist president simply cannot rule without access to the levers of power. And
that access is under the unshakable control of the Deep State. If Trump wants to play president, he has to play ball.
On these grounds, I advised his fans over a year ago, " don't hold out hope that Trump will make good on his isolationist rhetoric
" and anticipated, "a complete rapprochement between the populist rebel and the Republican establishment." I also warned that, far
from truly threatening the establishment and the warfare state, Trump's populist insurgency would only invigorate them:
"Such phony establishment "deaths" at the hands of "grassroots" outsiders followed by "rebirths" (rebranding) are an excellent
way for moribund oligarchies to renew themselves without actually meaningfully changing. Each "populist" reincarnation of the power
elite is draped with a freshly-laundered mantle of popular legitimacy, bestowing on it greater license to do as it pleases. And nothing
pleases the State more than war."
Politics, even populist politics, is the oligarchy's game. And the house always wins.
Dan Sanchez is the Digital Content Manager at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), developing educational and inspiring
content for FEE.org , including articles and courses. The originally appeared on the
FEE website and is reprinted with the author's permission.
"... Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy of Islamists. ..."
"... The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump. For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty. ..."
"... But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness to be "presidential." ..."
"... Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day. ..."
"... Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning out to be just another agent of the power elite. ..."
"... Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? ..."
"... Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy ..."
"... Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion." ..."
"... " while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it without establishment support." ..."
Did the Deep State deep-six Trump's populist revolution?
Many observers, especially among his fans, suspect that the seemingly untamable Trump has already been housebroken by the Washington,
"globalist" establishment. If true, the downfall of Trump's National Security Adviser Michael Flynn less than a month into the new
presidency may have been a warning sign. And the turning point would have been the removal of Steven K. Bannon from the National
Security Council on April 5.
Until then, the presidency's early policies had a recognizably populist-nationalist orientation. During his administration's first
weeks, Trump's biggest supporters frequently tweeted the hashtag #winning and exulted that he was decisively doing exactly what,
on the campaign trail, he said he would do.
In a flurry of executive orders and other unilateral actions bearing Bannon's fingerprints, Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, declared a sweeping travel ban, instituted harsher deportation policies, and more.
These policies seemed to fit Trump's reputation as the "
tribune of poor white people
," as he has been called; above all, Trump's base calls for protectionism and immigration restrictions. Trump seemed to be delivering
on the populist promise of his inauguration speech (thought to be written by Bannon), in which he said:
"Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration
to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American
People.
For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories
closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their
triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling
families all across our land.
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January
20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country
will be forgotten no longer.
Everyone is listening to you now." [Emphasis added.]
After a populist insurgency stormed social media and the voting booths, American democracy, it seemed, had been wrenched from
the hands of the Washington elite and restored to "the people," or at least a large, discontented subset of "the people." And this
happened in spite of the establishment, the mainstream media, Hollywood, and "polite opinion" throwing everything it had at Trump.
The Betrayal
But for the past month, the administration's axis seems to have shifted. This shift was especially abrupt in Trump's Syria policy.
Days before Bannon's fall from grace, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley declared that forcing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad
from power was no longer top priority. This too was pursuant of Trump's populist promises.
Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They
are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending
American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also
saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy
of Islamists.
The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump.
For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies
of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these
libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the
state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty.
But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack
on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same
excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness
to be "presidential."
Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold
water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced
an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day.
Here I make no claim as to whether any of these policy reversals are good or bad. I only point out that they run counter to the
populist promises he had given to his core constituents.
Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning
out to be just another agent of the power elite.
Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? Or, after constant obstruction,
has he simply concluded that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
The Iron Law of Oligarchy
Regardless of how it came about, it seems clear that whatever prospect there was for a truly populist Trump presidency is gone
with the wind. Was it inevitable that this would happen, one way or another?
One person who might have thought so was German sociologist Robert Michels, who posited the "iron law of oligarchy" in his 1911
work Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy .
Michels argued that political organizations, no matter how democratically structured, rarely remain truly populist, but inexorably
succumb to oligarchic control.
Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable
of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of
persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion."
This practical limitation necessitates delegation of decision-making to officeholders. These delegates may at first be considered
servants of the masses:
"All the offices are filled by election. The officials, executive organs of the general will, play a merely subordinate part,
are always dependent upon the collectivity, and can be deprived of their office at any moment. The mass of the party is omnipotent."
But these delegates will inevitably become specialists in the exercise and consolidation of power, which they gradually wrest
away from the "sovereign people":
"The technical specialization that inevitably results from all extensive organization renders necessary what is called expert
leadership. Consequently the power of determination comes to be considered one of the specific attributes of leadership, and is gradually
withdrawn from the masses to be concentrated in the hands of the leaders alone. Thus the leaders, who were at first no more than
the executive organs of the collective will, soon emancipate themselves from the mass and become independent of its control.
Organization implies the tendency to oligarchy. In every organization, whether it be a political party, a professional union,
or any other association of the kind, the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly."
Trumped by the Deep State
Thus elected, populist "tribunes" like Trump are ultimately no match for entrenched technocrats nestled in permanent bureaucracy.
Especially invincible are technocrats who specialize in political force and intrigue, i.e., the National Security State (military,
NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.). And these elite functionaries don't serve "the people" or any large subpopulation. They only serve their own
careers, and by extension, big-money special interest groups that make it worth their while: especially big business and foreign
lobbies. The nexus of all these powers is what is known as the Deep State.
Trump's more sophisticated champions were aware of these dynamics, but held out hope nonetheless. They thought that Trump would
be an exception, because his large personal fortune would grant him immunity from elite influence. That factor did contribute to
the independent, untamable spirit of his campaign. But as I
predicted
during the Republican primaries:
" while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it
without establishment support."
No matter how popular, rich, and bombastic, a populist president simply cannot rule without access to the levers of power. And
that access is under the unshakable control of the Deep State. If Trump wants to play president, he has to play ball.
On these grounds, I advised his fans over a year ago, " don't hold out hope that Trump will make good on his isolationist rhetoric
" and anticipated, "a complete rapprochement between the populist rebel and the Republican establishment." I also warned that, far
from truly threatening the establishment and the warfare state, Trump's populist insurgency would only invigorate them:
"Such phony establishment "deaths" at the hands of "grassroots" outsiders followed by "rebirths" (rebranding) are an excellent
way for moribund oligarchies to renew themselves without actually meaningfully changing. Each "populist" reincarnation of the power
elite is draped with a freshly-laundered mantle of popular legitimacy, bestowing on it greater license to do as it pleases. And nothing
pleases the State more than war."
Politics, even populist politics, is the oligarchy's game. And the house always wins.
Dan Sanchez is the Digital Content Manager at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), developing educational and inspiring
content for FEE.org , including articles and courses. The originally appeared on the
FEE website and is reprinted with the author's permission.
If you don't know all the local issues and controversies -- and I'll admit I don't -- it
makes the mid-terms hard to call.
In general–about 80% of the time–midterms go against a sitting president. But
in this case, I agree with the Derb: I think the Dims are in a rude awakening.
It's nice that our Israeli embassy has been moved to Jerusalem
Nice? Speak for yourself!
It's nice that Senator Graham has found his high dudgeon at last. Now that he's found
it, though, how long will it be before he turns it against immigration patriots?
That's probably the only reason Graham was chosen to publicly throw a fit: he's
inside-the-Beltway safe. He can huff and puff and talk tough on this hearing, precisely
because the Establishment knows he'll never really go against them on issues like immigration
or foreign policy. Remember the Clarence Thomas hearings? Remember how Arlen Specter was the
Republican standard-bearer back then? Nuff said.
@ advancedatheist It is difficult in these trying times to find good entertainers.
I thought confirmation hearings,were to test for qualifications required to be a
Supreme?
Such things as ability to write, understanding of the complexities of the constitution,
beliefs and past rulings, convictions about the bill of rights, and things like that? The
Constitution is supposed to create the structure of government, authorize payment of fat
salaries to 527 elected entertainers and limit the scope of the personal financial activities
while in office. I can't image a confirmation hearing that would review the judicial history
of the past rulings and professional activities of a candidate. The audience would not be
interested to hear what those who practice law and interact with the candidate had to say
about him and his legal abilities. When and in which tent are those hearings to begin?
Where are the opinions by Judge Kavanaugh? Why have they not been produced for inspection
in the hearings? What does this man think? Why did Trump select Judge Kavanaugh to be a
supreme? At the moment it looks like the the hearings have been conducted to cover for the
attacks by Israel on Russian Airplanes in Syria. I can think of no other reason for such a
circus?
What I have seen, heard and read describe another propaganda guided privately owned media
production with side shows by two of the best known acts in circus life ( shows by the Gods
of poop and by the Democraps were featured).
I still don't know anything about Judge Kavanaugh do you?
I hereby claim that Lindsey Graham and Larry Kudlow are horrible whores for the GOP Cheap
Labor Faction. Both Lindsey Graham and Larry Kudlow push wage-reducing open borders mass
immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders.
I also strongly suggest that Larry Kudlow and Lindsey Graham were big backers of the Iraq
War debacle.
Larry Kudlow and Lindsey Graham both push sovereignty-sapping trade deal scams.
Larry Kudlow has no memory whatsoever of any guest ever at his house. Is Larry Kudlow a
ruling class louse?
Trump brought on board his ship of state all sorts of louts such as Larry Kudlow, Gary
Cohn, Steve Mnuchin, Nikki Haley, John Bolton and many other no good bastards. Trump invited
the swamp into the White House.
"... Christine Ford has taken the false allegations racket a bit too far. She is probably lying, as how come she did not call 911 or file a police report if this happened? She comes from a family of lawyers. She has an army of attorneys who would have rushed and filed police reports and filed civil suits if any man had dared touch her. ..."
Christine Ford has taken the false allegations racket a bit too far. She is probably
lying, as how come she did not call 911 or file a police report if this happened? She comes
from a family of lawyers. She has an army of attorneys who would have rushed and filed police
reports and filed civil suits if any man had dared touch her.
That did not happen for 3 decades for one reason -- nothing happened on the night in
question.
The Democrats, who are a criminal party, must have coached her and offered her a few 100K
under the table, disguised as speaking fees, or scholarship, for manufacturing this
racket.
Kavanaugh has proved himself unfit for the position of supreme court justice. Under heavy
fire, he has shown that he is a spineless coward, a crying baby incapable of fighting back
like a man. Moreover, he is a total idiot.
What did he expect, that the baby killers were going to accept even the possibility of a
supreme court justice who may vote to overturn Wade VS Roe and the end of Planned Parenthood?
He has shown that this totally expected attack took him by surprise. What a fool!
Courage under fire? Call the Marines, but not Kavanaugh.
The key word there is of course "gentlemanly." Could any concept be more at odds with
the zeitgeist than gentlemanliness? It's hard not to think there's a demographic dimension
to this. That older style of courtesy, forbearance, and compromise that used to inform our
politics was a white-European thing, perhaps particularly an Anglo-Saxon-Celtic thing.
I agree that politics in the US is coarsening like our pop culture and increasingly
looking like 3rd world politics. This is where America is headed as we become more culturally
enriched:
The neocons and neolibs has always been the indignant, end justifies the means crowd.
Since Trump's election they've completely gone off the rails....
You're right about Trump being a big disappointment so far in immigration. Caving here and
calling for an FBI investigation makes him look as stupid as Flake. Fat chance FBI will close
it in a week. This is the same agency that gave us Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Ohr, Strzok, Page,
the Steele Dossier, owned by Deep State and corrupt to the core. These GOP fools are once
again playing right into the hands of the (((Dems))) – Feinstein, Blumenthal, Schumer
and Ford's lawyer Bromwich, already complaining about the 'artificial timeline'. No one can
ever outcon the financial elite.
Those are signs of political crisis, not the other way around
Notable quotes:
"... The historical parallel is American social and political polarization in the decades prior to the American Civil War. It is conceivable martial law and military power will resolve the conflict and contradictions not reconciled by rule of law and politics. ..."
I am concerned about dysfunction and incivility
in American culture and politics.
The historical parallel is American social and political polarization in the decades
prior to the American Civil War. It is conceivable martial law and military power will resolve
the conflict and contradictions not reconciled by rule of law and politics.
This topic was raised when Senator Lindsey Graham questioned Judge Brett Kavanaugh in the
confirmation hearings.
See YouTube video: Senator Lindsey Graham Questions Brett Kavanaugh Military Law vs Criminal Law.
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 .
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 .
"... Luckily there are still groups of our species that don't live totally controlled by the Western way and the cancer it represents to humanity. They on the outside and "us" on the inside are trying our hardest to shine lights on all the moving parts in hopes that humanity can throw off the shackles of ignorance about private/public finance. ..."
Which is the cohort of voters who allegedly are leaning toward voting Republican in the
mid-terms but who allegedly would refrain if Trump accepted Rosenstein's resignation? And
which is the cohort not already motivated to turn out to vote Democrat but who allegedly
would be motivated by a Rosenstein resignation? Is there real data on these?
I think if I had been a 2016 Trump voter I'd be feeling pretty disappointed about how he's
unable to enforce the most basic discipline and loyalty even among his closest administration
members, and this Rosenstein episode would be yet another egregious example.
If the Republicans do lose either/both houses, the main reason will be that for once
they've taken on the normal Democrat role of being confused and feckless about what they want
to do (they can't bring themselves to whole-heartedly get behind Trump; but a major
Republican strength has been how they normally do pull together an present a united front).
And Trump himself, in his inability to control his own immediate administration, also gives
an example of this fecklessness.
@ Circe who is writing that any who like any of what Trump is doing must be Zionists.
Get a grip. I didn't vote for Trump but favored him over Clinton II, the war criminal.
Trump represents more clearly the face of the ugly beast of debauched patriarchy, lying,
misogyny, bullying and monotheistic "everybody else is goyim" values. Trump very clearly
represents the folks behind the curtain of the Western private finance led "culture". He and
they are both poor representations of our species who are in power because of heredity and
controlled ignorance over the private finance jackboot on the lifeblood of the species.
Luckily there are still groups of our species that don't live totally controlled by
the Western way and the cancer it represents to humanity. They on the outside and "us" on the
inside are trying our hardest to shine lights on all the moving parts in hopes that humanity
can throw off the shackles of ignorance about private/public finance.
I am taking a beginning astronomy class and just learned that it took the monotheistic
religions 600 years to accept the science of Galileo Galilei. We could stand to evolve a bit
faster as we are about to have our proverbial asses handed to us in the form of extinction,
IMO.
"... It does seem to me that Rosenstein is an agent of those opposed to Trump or is another part of the Jewish control apparatus in the US. He is the one who appointed Mueller as the Special Prosecutor. Mueller is definitely a minion of the "Deep State". ..."
"... It seems obvious to me that Trump had real estate dealings with the Russian Mafia. This will never be investigated. These would mostly be about money. So this would be the Jewish Russian Mafia contingent. ..."
I assume the Awan brothers and their scandalous spying on the US congress through all
those democrats has been bipartisanly removed from public eye. If Trump has the cards to
play to keep his team in majority NOW is the time to play them.
This is the biggest scandal since Hillary and her crappy email server.
The USA is a dopes circus.
it is obvious that Trump is not in charge. Or he is as stupid as the Dems would
like to think he is. It would be obvious to most politicians that Sessions was a terrible
choice as attorney General. Just like Agnew was deposed as VP before Nixon was deposed as
President, Rosenstein would have to go before Sessions would be replaced. It would take quite
a while to get the new AG confirmed. Rosenstein would then be acting AG.
It does seem to me that Rosenstein is an agent of those opposed to Trump or is another
part of the Jewish control apparatus in the US. He is the one who appointed Mueller as the
Special Prosecutor. Mueller is definitely a minion of the "Deep State".
It seems obvious to me that Trump had real estate dealings with the Russian Mafia.
This will never be investigated. These would mostly be about money. So this would be the
Jewish Russian Mafia contingent.
There is Israeli collusion in meddling with American election outcomes. Somehow this will
never be investigated.
"... Trump's worldview is dominated by a zero-sum view of international relations in which the U.S. is constantly being ripped off by everyone. ..."
"... Trump is a militarist by instinct and as a matter of policy, and his progressive critics repudiate that as well. ..."
"... Trump's critique of past U.S. foreign policy boils down to complaining that other countries don't pay us for protection and that the U.S. doesn't plunder resources from the countries it invades. This is not, to put it mildly, what progressives consider to be wrong with U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... The key failing in Brands' column is that he buys into the falsehood that Trump is in favor of "global retreat," and so he worries that both parties will soon be led by candidates advocating for that. For one thing, there has been no "retreat" under Trump, and everything he has done since taking office has been to mire the U.S. more deeply in the multiple wars he inherited. ..."
"... Literally never heard a Democratic Socialist advocate for anything other than what you summarized – threat de-escalation, reduce US military footprint abroad, don't use the threat of military force as a "diplomatic tool", stop the drone war, end the war in Afghanistan, etc. ..."
"... Of course right now Dem Socialists are just as marginalized within the Democratic party as you are within the Trumpian Neocon hellscape of the current Republican leadership. Maybe one day the Senate will have more Rand Pauls and Chris Murphys but right now we've just got a bunch of Grahams and Schumers perfectly happy to let Trump continue down this dark path. ..."
According to Brands, "the ideas at the heart of Trump's critique of U.S. foreign policy are also the ideas at the heart of the
progressive critique," but that's also simply not true. Trump's worldview is dominated by a zero-sum view of international relations
in which the U.S. is constantly being ripped off by everyone.
The progressive critics he cites specifically reject that assumption and emphasize the importance of international institutions.
Trump is a militarist by instinct and as a matter of policy, and his progressive critics repudiate that as well.
Trump's critique of past U.S. foreign policy boils down to complaining that other countries don't pay us for protection and
that the U.S. doesn't plunder resources from the countries it invades. This is not, to put it mildly, what progressives consider
to be wrong with U.S. foreign policy.
The key failing in Brands' column is that he buys into the falsehood that Trump is in favor of "global retreat," and so he
worries that both parties will soon be led by candidates advocating for that. For one thing, there has been no "retreat" under Trump,
and everything he has done since taking office has been to mire the U.S. more deeply in the multiple wars he inherited.
For another, progressives aren't calling for a "retreat" from international engagement, either. They are opposed to certain aggressive
and destructive policies, but they don't eschew engagement and cooperation with other states.
On the contrary, they are advocating
for more of that while rejecting the militarism that Trump embraces. Indeed, Bessner anticipates Brands' silly criticism and explicitly
says, "None of this means the United States should retreat from the world."
Anthony M says: September 26, 2018 at 5:30 pm
Literally never heard a Democratic Socialist advocate for anything other than what you summarized – threat
de-escalation, reduce US military footprint abroad, don't use the threat of military force as a "diplomatic tool", stop the
drone war, end the war in Afghanistan, etc.
Of course right now Dem Socialists are just as marginalized within the Democratic party as you are within the Trumpian
Neocon hellscape of the current Republican leadership. Maybe one day the Senate will have more Rand Pauls and Chris Murphys
but right now we've just got a bunch of Grahams and Schumers perfectly happy to let Trump continue down this dark path.
"It is past time for Donald Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to pull the plug on
American engagement in Syria and terminate the seemingly endless cycle of wars in the Middle
East."
Orange Clown's a liar whose presidential campaign was a calculated bait and switch fraud
from the beginning. Our presidential poseur obviously had no intention of following through
on most of his pre-election intimations and campaign promises.
Netanyahu might have considered it all a win-win either way, with the Russian plane
masking and enabling the Israeli attack without consequence for Israel or, perversely,
producing an incident inviting retaliation from Moscow, which would likely lead to a
shooting war with the United States after it inevitably steps in to support Israel's
government.
There we go! Glad someone gets it.
I had to read Saker's article suggesting that just maybe it could have been an
actual accident on Israel's part through my fingers as I could not manage to lift my face
from my palm the entire time.
It is past time for Donald Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to pull the plug on
American engagement in Syria and terminate the seemingly endless cycle of wars in the
Middle East.
I'd love to see this happen, but let's be real. If we pulled out of Israel's terror wars,
Mossad would stage a false flag to bring us right back in less than 12 months later. There's
only one way to stop fighting wars for Israel and that's to end Israel. We've got to strike
at the roots, not the branches.
If
Russia shot down Israeli aircraft or bombed the airbase from which they took off, or even
obliterated Israel, America would do nothing but bitch and complain. The American military
does not want a war with Russia, because they know they cannot win a conventional war with
Russia. I would go so far as to say that even if Russia sank American warships including an
aircraft carrier America would not go to war.
America does not go to war with countries that have nuclear weapons and the means to
deliver them to the continental United States. That is why she would bend over backwards to
prevent a war with countries like Russia, China or North Korea, and the reason these
countries need not fear America. The prevention of nuclear war is the underlying premise of
American foreign policy. It has been since the nuclear age began. America would only use its
nuclear weapons if the American mainland is hit with nuclear weapons.
America would accept the loss of hundreds or even thousands of its servicemen rather than
have the continental USA turned into a wasteland. I'm inclined to agree with your assessment
of US unwillingness to fight a nuclear power, but .I also can't forget that the US ruling
elites are pathological. Psychotic with hubris, greed & egoism. The "exceptional", the
"indispensable" nation .& worse, the wagging dog to the Israeli tail.
Trump
is owned by israel, I wish I was wrong, but there is no way around it. I mean, I expect him
any day to convert to judaism.
No way around it. Trump's infamous campaign slogan of MAGA
quickly mutated into MIGA which is the originally intended version anyways. Obedience to
Israel has become a norm in presidential election campaigns. Even the disenfranchised
minority caucuses, including and especially the Black one is firmly in Israel's pockets now.
The Black leadership role has now been essentially reduced to making the odd noise after the
shooting of an unarmed Black by a White cop.
Trump is presently at the U.N. repeating all the American foreign policy propaganda. The hubris he's delivering is off the
charts. Disgusting doesn't begin to cover how deceptive and slimy his zionist-authored rhetoric is. He's a sad, pathetic
mouthpiece for his masters in Israel.
If Trump is a Deep State puppet, then why Deep stat fight it with such intensity. Why "Steele dossier", w3hy Mueller, why "Mistressgate"
But it is true that Trump essentially conduct typical Republican President policy, like Obama betraying his electorate.
Notable quotes:
"... So the Deep State which is far more than entrenched bureaucrats as the naive define it (it includes the ruling elite in finance, MIC, oil, MSM, retired intelligence/military/state/congress, etc), brought in a controlled Trojan horse pretending to be a populist who was all about the working class and anti establishment, anti war and anti globalist while those he served were opposites. Look at what he has done and who he has surrounded himself with. Lol ..."
"... offshore money coming home due to tax breaks and of course the plunge protection team removing the risk of a major drop until after the mid term elections. We are already seeing the beginning of the next housing market collapse. ..."
Stormy Daniels supposedly said she was surprised to hear Trump was running for President
because he had said to her he didnt want to be be President. After all, why would he? Rich
guy with maybe 5 years left to live. Who needs it?
So why did he run. He had no choice. Look at the ease in which government can bring dawn
anyone with tax and money laundering charges and look at his partners and a number of his
dodgy financial dealings not to mention the ongoing audit firing his campaign. His buddy
Felix Sater cut a deal and so didn't Trump. Run and serve and keep your wealth and stay out of
jail, and make a few billion with insider deals while you are at it.
So the Deep State which is far more than entrenched bureaucrats as the naive define it (it
includes the ruling elite in finance, MIC, oil, MSM, retired
intelligence/military/state/congress, etc), brought in a controlled Trojan horse pretending
to be a populist who was all about the working class and anti establishment, anti war and
anti globalist while those he served were opposites. Look at what he has done and who he has
surrounded himself with. Lol
So what is the endgame for this Russiagate and this phony Deep State vs Trump nonsense?
Why Trump?
Not sure I know for sure. Polarizing and dividing the US with perhaps a civil war when
Trump gets impeached and resigns, or at least imposition of permanent martial law. Get
support for massive censorship which all authoritarian regimes need. And of course as the US
goes down this path its puppet states in EU, UK and elsewhere will follow. I guess we will
have to wait and see.
In the meantime, Trump will feed the beast (tax cuts for rich, tarrifs for middle class,
higher Military spending, cuts to Medicare/Medicaid/social security, higher insurance
premiums/HC costs, phony economic figures to mask deteriorating economic conditions for the
median (remember when Trump said the same of Hillary using the same bogus figures)
Fewer people are working in the US under Trump as more people are disappeared from the
work force. GDP growth per MH is due to higher extraction of wealth from middle class by the
rentier class, and stock market growth is due to central bank purchases, offshore money
coming home due to tax breaks and of course the plunge protection team removing the risk of a
major drop until after the mid term elections. We are already seeing the beginning of the
next housing market collapse.
"... If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be. ..."
"... The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget since the height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen. ..."
"... They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. ..."
"... US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give the illusion of competition. ..."
"... In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push. ..."
"... The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride toward war, ecocide and oppression. ..."
"... Reprinted with author's permission from Medium.com . ..."
"... Support Ms. Johnstone's work on Patreon or Paypal ..."
A new article from the Wall Street
Journal reports that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
lied to congress about the measures Saudi Arabia is taking to minimize the civilian
casualties in its catastrophic war on Yemen, and that he did so in order to secure two billion
dollars for war profiteers.
This is about as depraved as anything you could possibly imagine. US-made bombs have
been conclusively tied to civilian deaths in a war which has caused the single worst
humanitarian crisis on earth, a crisis which sees
scores of Yemeni children dying every single day and has
placed five million children at risk of death by starvation in a nation where families are
now eating
leaves to survive . CIA veteran Bruce Riedel
once said that "if the United States of America and the United Kingdom tonight told King
Salman that this war has to end, it would end tomorrow, because the Royal Saudi Airforce cannot
operate without American and British support." Nobody other than war plutocrats benefits from
the US assisting Saudi Arabia in its monstrous crimes against humanity, and yet Pompeo chose to
override his own expert advisors on the matter for fear of hurting the income of those very war
plutocrats.
If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this
administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for
days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for
days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be.
It would be so very, very easy for Democratic party leaders and Democrat-aligned media to
hurt this administration at the highest level and cause irreparable political damage based on
this story. All they'd have to do is give it the same blanket coverage they've given the
stories about Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort which
end up leading nowhere remotely near impeachment or proof of collusion with the Russian
government. The footage of the starving children is right there, ready to be aired to pluck at
the heart strings of rank-and-file Americans day after day until Republicans have lost all hope
of victory in the midterms and in 2020; all they'd have to do is use it. But they don't. And
they won't.
The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by
a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and
Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget
since the
height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential
damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal
parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as
Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen.
The reason for this is very simple: President Trump's ostensible political opposition does
not oppose President Trump. They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. This is the
reason they attack him on Russian collusion accusations which the brighter bulbs among them
know full well will never be proven and have no basis in reality. They don't stand up to Trump
because, as Julian Assange once said , they are
Trump.
In John Steinbeck's The Pearl, there are jewelry buyers set up around a fishing community
which are all owned by the same plutocrat, but they all pretend to be in competition with one
another. When the story's protagonist discovers an enormous and valuable pearl and goes to sell
it, they all gather round and individually bid far less than it is worth in order to trick him
into giving it away for almost nothing. US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream
parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give
the illusion of competition.
In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give
their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote
for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of
a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that
government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to
care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video
game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push.
The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start
waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them
the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace
whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride
toward war, ecocide and oppression.
If enough of us keep throwing sand in the gears of the lie
factory, we can wake
the masses up from the oligarchic lullaby they're being sung. And then maybe we'll be big
enough to have a shot at grabbing one of the real video game controllers.
Reprinted with author's permission from
Medium.com .
"... If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be. ..."
"... The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget since the height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen. ..."
"... They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. ..."
"... US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give the illusion of competition. ..."
"... In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push. ..."
"... The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride toward war, ecocide and oppression. ..."
"... Reprinted with author's permission from Medium.com . ..."
"... Support Ms. Johnstone's work on Patreon or Paypal ..."
A new article from the Wall Street
Journal reports that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
lied to congress about the measures Saudi Arabia is taking to minimize the civilian
casualties in its catastrophic war on Yemen, and that he did so in order to secure two billion
dollars for war profiteers.
This is about as depraved as anything you could possibly imagine. US-made bombs have
been conclusively tied to civilian deaths in a war which has caused the single worst
humanitarian crisis on earth, a crisis which sees
scores of Yemeni children dying every single day and has
placed five million children at risk of death by starvation in a nation where families are
now eating
leaves to survive . CIA veteran Bruce Riedel
once said that "if the United States of America and the United Kingdom tonight told King
Salman that this war has to end, it would end tomorrow, because the Royal Saudi Airforce cannot
operate without American and British support." Nobody other than war plutocrats benefits from
the US assisting Saudi Arabia in its monstrous crimes against humanity, and yet Pompeo chose to
override his own expert advisors on the matter for fear of hurting the income of those very war
plutocrats.
If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this
administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for
days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for
days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be.
It would be so very, very easy for Democratic party leaders and Democrat-aligned media to
hurt this administration at the highest level and cause irreparable political damage based on
this story. All they'd have to do is give it the same blanket coverage they've given the
stories about Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort which
end up leading nowhere remotely near impeachment or proof of collusion with the Russian
government. The footage of the starving children is right there, ready to be aired to pluck at
the heart strings of rank-and-file Americans day after day until Republicans have lost all hope
of victory in the midterms and in 2020; all they'd have to do is use it. But they don't. And
they won't.
The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by
a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and
Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget
since the
height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential
damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal
parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as
Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen.
The reason for this is very simple: President Trump's ostensible political opposition does
not oppose President Trump. They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. This is the
reason they attack him on Russian collusion accusations which the brighter bulbs among them
know full well will never be proven and have no basis in reality. They don't stand up to Trump
because, as Julian Assange once said , they are
Trump.
In John Steinbeck's The Pearl, there are jewelry buyers set up around a fishing community
which are all owned by the same plutocrat, but they all pretend to be in competition with one
another. When the story's protagonist discovers an enormous and valuable pearl and goes to sell
it, they all gather round and individually bid far less than it is worth in order to trick him
into giving it away for almost nothing. US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream
parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give
the illusion of competition.
In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give
their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote
for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of
a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that
government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to
care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video
game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push.
The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start
waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them
the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace
whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride
toward war, ecocide and oppression.
If enough of us keep throwing sand in the gears of the lie
factory, we can wake
the masses up from the oligarchic lullaby they're being sung. And then maybe we'll be big
enough to have a shot at grabbing one of the real video game controllers.
Reprinted with author's permission from
Medium.com .
Actually, it was b h o who opened the Fed borrowing window to the Wall Street
investment crowd who were able to borrow at 1/4 % interest so that they could play the
markets with impunity.
b h o played both sides against the middle telling folks to vote for him and 'hope and
change' bullshit and to shake his fist at Wall Street -- all the while enabling them to make
more money than they thought existed.
Like so many of his predecessors in the White House, Trump has surrounded himself with
Zionists in almost every important position imaginable and they're more than willing to screw us
into the ground -- just because they can.
That's true only in sense of using "bait and switch" with the electorate. Trump partially
destroyed previous model created by Clinton-Bush-Obama and introduced "national naoliabralism" --
neoliberalism without globalization. He also openly rely on brute force.
Notable quotes:
"... Partisan battles focusing on personalities get people to invest emotionally in "the system". A system which is NOT democratic and doesn't work for the people. ..."
"... Draining the Swamp cannot be taken seriously. Trump installed in the Trump Cabinet, Swamp Creatures through and through, most notably Goldman Sachs dudes we've seen in Dubya Bush, Obama and now Drumpf. ..."
"... Trump is his own man and just like Obama he has minions spread garbage that he is being undermined and the bad stuff is not his fault. Trump showed his true colors when he stocked up on neocons and warmongers and gave the military $100 billion when they were asking for 50. ..."
"... His meetings with Kim and Putin were just theater as Trump gleefully puts more sanctions on Russia and has done nothing but threaten pain for those cheating on sanctions to help North Korea. ..."
Partisan battles focusing on personalities get people to invest emotionally in "the
system". A system which is NOT democratic and doesn't work for the people.
Agree completely. There's nothing political about these "politics", fake-populist
politicians are just another kind of celebrity (thus Trump fits in well), cable news is a
(highly toxic) genre of entertainment, and partisan Repbots and Dembots aren't political people
at all, but competing celebrity or sports fan clubs. None of them cares about any aspect of
reality, which is why the system can commit such horrendous real-world crimes; for the
political class these crimes aren't real. They're all sociopaths, which is the only way it's
possible to be a partisan of either flavor of the Corporate One-Party.
And that's how unelected operatives and the NYT can openly express such contempt for
democracy and the open society without fear of provoking any significant reaction from the
people: For the kinds of people who read the NYT, such things are meaningless abstractions. Any
of them would happily endorse Hitler-level crimes (which the US is very close to anyway) on the
part of their "team".
If Trump is a fourth of fifth grader, looks like we have a third grade coup d etat. As you
pointed out, these people are not the brightest lights but perhaps the most easily
bribed/threatened? I suspect a hidden hand behind the insurrection rather than a stunning
example of bureaucratic unity. Ditto for the rash of anti Trump 'literature'. Woodward crawled
in bed with the ruling elite decades ago.
Trump is probably not the first president to be 'Trumped' by his bureaucratic minions?n
Obama didn't keep a single campaign promise.during his eight disappointing years. Perhaps not
all of his betrayal of the electorate is because he was just another lying weasel.
Jr @ 19 said:"Trump and Obama are only heros if you believe that USA is democracy and the
democratically elected 'populist' truely represents his/her base. That is a fantasy."
"Partisan battles focusing on personalities get people to invest emotionally in "the
system". A system which is NOT democratic and doesn't work for the people."
Jr, you nailed it.
Forget ideology, follow the $, you'll understand more..
Draining the Swamp cannot be taken seriously. Trump installed in the Trump Cabinet, Swamp
Creatures through and through, most notably Goldman Sachs dudes we've seen in Dubya Bush, Obama
and now Drumpf.
Also, we see nothing of any draining at this point and but simply an assault on the commons
(and a gift giving for the rich) as would be expected from any boilerplate Republican
asshole.
Now foreign policy may be his strong suit but, there has been nothing much to impress here
either. Just follow Israel.
Trump is his own man and just like Obama he has minions spread garbage that he is being
undermined and the bad stuff is not his fault. Trump showed his true colors when he stocked up
on neocons and warmongers and gave the military $100 billion when they were asking for
50.
His meetings with Kim and Putin were just theater as Trump gleefully puts more sanctions
on Russia and has done nothing but threaten pain for those cheating on sanctions to help North
Korea.
His body language and emphatic delivery, and sometimes glee, when announcing these new
sanctions, and his telling Russia to get out of Syria and give back Crimea, belie the fiction
that Trump is being forced to do so.
If that was the case he could have had his minions announce it. One can see the insincerity
when he claims the US is getting out of Syria and his confident matter of fact delivery when
threatening to bomb Syria over what he knows is a fake gas attack. It was no accident that
Trumps 2 hurried missile strikes on Syria happened as Israel was butchering Palestinians thus
diverting attention from the dastardly deeds. Trump has been best buddies with Israel and Saudi
Arabia and stays mum on Israel bombing Syria and Saudi Arabia killing over tens of thousands of
innocent people in Yemen and creating the humanitarian crisis there.
There's the bonus of weapons sales to those "humanitarian" regimes. Up until recently
organizations have ignored the inhumane UN sanctions that forbade sending medicines into North
Korea and nothing was said. Suddenly last month ALL of them stopped. Somebody gave them the
word stop or else. Trump says nothing of the efforts to scuttle better relations between the US
and North Korea or the fake news that the Norks are still making missiles and nukes offered
with no proof.
While the US is sabotaging the efforts North and South Korea are making great progress which
makes me expect South Korea is going to be hit sanctions for "unfair trade." South Korea could
defuse the whole thing and announce they are taking possession of the Norths nukes but they
know the US would punish them badly as the the US does not want any nukes in the Korea's and
needs a boogie man north to justify it's out sized military presence in the area.
Once Trump sat in the big boy chair in the oval office the focus of Making America Great
Again switched to continue the drive for US world domination by destroying the economies of the
competition and create world wide chaos with sanctions, tariffs, and local currency destruction
making the world come crawling to the US to save them. Thus turning the cleanest dirty shirt in
the laundry to snow white.
b: "Why is no public figure expressing concern about this subversion of democracy? How
come no one protests?"
Trump is the Republican Obama.
'Trumptards' blame others for the failings of their hero just like 'Obamabots' did. This
is not an accident. Apologists are an important part of the faux populist leadership
model.
Trump and Obama are only heros if you believe that USA is democracy and the
democratically elected 'populist' truely represents his/her base. That is a fantasy.
Partisan battles focusing on personalities get people to invest emotionally in "the
system". A system which is NOT democratic and doesn't work for the people.
I have made these points many times over the last year. Sadly, people nod their heads
and continue to engage on terms set by the establishment.
You don't have to get into any deep conspiratorial rabbit hole to consider the
possibility that all this drama and conflict is staged from top to bottom. Commentators
on all sides routinely crack jokes about how the mainstream media pretends to attack
Trump but secretly loves him because he brings them amazing ratings. Anyone with their
eyes even part way open already knows that America's two mainstream parties feign intense
hatred for one another while working together to pace their respective bases into
accepting more and more neoliberal exploitation at home and more and more neoconservative
bloodshed abroad. They spit and snarl and shake their fists at each other, then
cuddle up and share candy when it's time for a public gathering. Why should this
administration be any different?
...
The more I study US politics, the less useful I find it to think of it in political
terms. The two-headed one party system exists to give Americans the illusion of choice
while advancing the agendas of the plutocratic class which owns and operates both
parties , yes, but even more importantly it's a mechanism of narrative control. If
you can separate the masses into two groups based on extremely broad ideological
characteristics, you can then funnel streamlined "us vs them" narratives into each of the
two stables, with the white hats and black hats reversed in each case. Now you've got
Republicans cheering for the president and Democrats cheering for the CIA, for the FBI,
and now for a platoon of covert John McCains alleged to be operating on the inside of
Trump's own administration. Everyone's cheering for one aspect of the US power
establishment or another .
"... A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics." ..."
"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and
bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class.
Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking
complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while
serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue
to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill
any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."
Linh Dinh, as published at The Unz Review, June 12, 2016
The election's only apparent benefit to the people of this country has been the exposure
of corruption and sedition within the Establishment. But that, too, may be part of the show,
another way to channel dissidence into another meaningless election. Even here at The Unz
Review, some columnists and many commenters tell the readership that this November is
critical to protecting President Trump and his agenda, blah, blah, blah.
@Diversity Heretic I applied through the GreatAgain website and never received the
courtesy of a reply despite having conributed to the Trump campaign before Iowa, nine years
working on Capitol Hill (for Republicans) and seven years in a regulatory commission (working
for a Republicaén commissioner), a JD and an MBA. So I'm not surprised to hear that
applications through the website were not even considered and jobs filled with Washington
insiders. (The first inclination that I had that something was seriously wrong in the
staffing area was when Calista Gingrich was named as ambassador to the Vatican.) Trump has
the classic problem of the outsider: no institutional mechanism to staff an administration.
(Jesse Ventura had a similar problem when he was elected as governor of Minnesota as an
independent). He compounds that problem by making poor choices that involve his personal
judgment and consideration (e.g., John Bolton and Nikki Haley?!).
Increasingly, I see no electoral way to influence or remove the Deep State. I think we're
in for a rough ride and hope that things don't get nuclear with Russia.
Increasingly, I see no electoral way to influence or remove the Deep State. I think
we're in for a rough ride and hope that things don't get nuclear with Russia.
It is astonishing that after all the fraudsters and con masters masquerading as politicians
there are huge numbers who claim to believe in the system where humans have voluntarily given
away their freedoms.
Hope and Change, replaced by MAGA.
Do you honestly believe that your Founding Fathers would rebel against King's Tyranny if it
were possible to change it by peaceful means?
@anonymous None of this should have come as a surprise.
"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and
bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class.
Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking
complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as
a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war
abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his
election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."
Linh Dinh, as published at The Unz Review, June 12, 2016
The election's only apparent benefit to the people of this country has been the exposure
of corruption and sedition within the Establishment. But that, too, may be part of the show,
another way to channel dissidence into another meaningless election. Even here at The Unz
Review, some columnists and many commenters tell the readership that this November is
critical to protecting President Trump and his agenda, blah, blah, blah. Voting in our
national elections has become another example of evil paraded before us as a moral duty. It
ironically results in disenfranchisement by perpetually legitimizing a federal government as
much at war with its own citizens as with every other people who oppose the new American
Proposition -- the antithesis of a fulfilling human culture wherever it's found, and which
today amounts to claiming that freedom and democracy equate to owning stuff and vicariously
participating in unbridled avarice, sexual depravity, war, torture, and mass murder. Either
party and all that horror is a constant.
So, instead of girding middle America mentally, spiritually, and physically to fight to
the death for what's worth living for, and while there's still some chance to save ourselves
and our nation, we get the Republican leadership, Fox News, and Conservatism Inc blowing
smoke in our eyes, temporizing on behalf of the Deep State by pretending these veiled and
overt calls for white genocide are just in bad taste or that curtesy and cowardice are an
effective policy toward a wildly homicidal left.
This is a very weak article, but it raises several important questions such as the role or neoliberal MSM in color revolution
against Trump and which social group constituted the voting block that brought Trump to victory. The author answers incorrectly on
both those questions.
I think overall Tremblay analysis of Trump (and by extension of national neoliberalism he promotes) is incorrect. Probably the largest group
of voters which voted for Trump were voters who were against neoliberal globalization and who now feel real distrust and aversion to
the ruling neoliberal elite.
Trump is probably right to view neoliberal journalists as enemies: they are tools of intelligence agencies which as agents of
Wall Street promote globalization
At the same time Trump turned to be Obama II: he instantly betrayed his voters after the election. His
election slogan "make Ameraca great again" bacem that same joke as Obama "Change we can believe in". And he proved to be as
jingoistic as Obama (A Nobel Pease Price laureate who was militarists dream come true)
In discussion of groups who votes for Trump the author forgot to mention part of professional which skeptically view neoliberal
globalization and its destrction of jobs (for example programmer jobs in the USA) as well as blue color
workers decimated by offshoring of major industries.
Notable quotes:
"... "Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. " ..."
"... Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas City, July 24, 2018) ..."
"... "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." ..."
"... This is a White House where everybody lies ..."
"... I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ..."
"... The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda. ..."
"... ad hominem' ..."
"... Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical showman diva , behaving in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians. ..."
"... He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication. ..."
"... checks and balance ..."
"... The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current administration and for future ones. ..."
"Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what
you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. "
Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas
City, July 24, 2018)
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) (1903-1950), English novelist, essayist, and social critic, (in '1984', Ch. 7, 1949)
" This is a White House where everybody lies ." Omarosa Manigault Newman (1974- ), former White House aide to President
Donald Trump, (on Sunday August 12, 2018, while releasing tapes recording conversations with Donald Trump.)
" I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ." Benjamin Franklin (
1706 –
1790 ), American inventor and US Founding Father, (in 'Words of
the Founding Fathers', 2012).
***
In this day and age, with instant information, how does a politician succeed in double-talking, in bragging, in scapegoating and
in shamefully distorting the truth, most of the time, without being unmasked as a charlatan and discredited? Why? That is the mysterious
and enigmatic question that one may ask about U. S. President Donald Trump, as a politician.
The most obvious answer is the fact that Trump's one-issue and cult-like followers do not care what he does or says and whether
or not he has declared a
war on truth and reality , provided he delivers the political and financial benefits they demand of him, based on their ideological
or pecuniary interests. These groups of voters live in their own reality and only their personal interests count.
1- Four groups of one-issue voters behind Trump
There are four groups of one-issue voters to
whom President Donald Trump has delivered the goodies:
Christian religious right voters, whose main political issue is to fill the U. S. Supreme Court with ultra conservative
judges. On that score, Donald Trump has been true to them by naming one such judge and in nominating a second one.
Super rich Zionists and the Pro-Israel Lobby, whose obsession is the state of Israel. Again, on that score, President
Donald Trump has fulfilled his promise to them and he has unilaterally moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in addition
to attacking the Palestinians and tearing up the 'Iran Deal'.
The one-percent Income earners and some corporate owners, whose main demand to Trump was substantial tax cuts and
deregulation. Once again, President Trump has fulfilled this group's wishes with huge tax cuts, mainly financed with future public
debt increases, which are going to be paid for by all taxpayers.
The NRA and the Pro-Gun Lobby, whose main obsession is to have the right to arm themselves to the teeth, including
with military assault weapons, with as few strings attached as possible. Here again President Donald Trump has sided with them
and against students who are increasingly in the line of fire in American schools.
With the strong support of these four monolithic lobbies -- his electoral base -- politician Donald Trump can count on the indefectible
support of between 35 percent and 40 percent of the American electorate. It is ironic that some of Trump's other policies, like reducing
health care coverage and the raising of import taxes, will hurt the poor and the middle class, even though some of Trump's victims
can be considered members of the above lobbies.
Moreover, some of Trump's supporters regularly rely on
hypocrisy and on excuses to exonerate their favorite
but flawed politician of choice. If any other politician from a different party were to say and do half of what Donald Trump does
and says, they would be asking for his impeachment.
There are three other reasons why Trump's rants, his
record-breaking lies , his untruths, his deceptions and his dictatorial-style attempts to
control information , in the eyes of his fanatical supporters, at least, are like water on the back of a duck. ( -- For the record,
according to the
Washington Post , as of early August, President Trump has made some 4,229 false claims, which amount to 7.6 a day, since his
inauguration.)
The first reason can be found in Trump's view that politics and even government business are first and foremost another form
of
entertainment , i.e. a sort of TV reality show, which must be scripted and acted upon. Trump thinks that is
OK to lie
and to ask his assistants to
lie
. In this new immoral world, the Trump phenomenon could be seen a sign of
post-democracy .
The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and
manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda.
When Trump attacks the media, he is in fact coaxing them to give him free coverage to spread his
insults , his fake accusations, his provocations, his constant
threats , his denials or reversals, his convenient
changes of subject or his political spins. Indeed, with his outrageous statements, his gratuitous accusations and his attacks
' ad hominem' , and by constantly bullying and insulting adversaries at home and foreign heads of states abroad, and
by issuing threats in repetition, right and left, Trump has forced the media to talk and journalists to write about him constantly,
on a daily basis, 24/7.
That suits him perfectly well because he likes to be the center of attention. That is how he can change the political rhetoric
when any negative issue gets too close to him. In the coming weeks and months, as the Special prosecutor
Robert Mueller's report is likely to be released, Donald Trump is not above resorting to some sort of "
Wag the Dog " political trickery, to change the topic and to possibly push the damaging report off the headlines.
In such a circumstance, it is not impossible that launching an illegal war of choice, say against Iran (a
pet
project of Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton), could then look very convenient to a crafty politician like Donald
Trump and to his warmonger advisors. Therefore, observers should be on the lookout to spot any development of the sort in the
coming weeks.
That one man and his entourage could whimsically consider launching a
war of aggression is a throwback to ancient times
and is a sure indication of the level of depravity to which current politics has fallen. This should be a justified and clear
case for impeachment .
Finally, some far-right media outlets, such as
Fox News and
Sinclair Broadcasting , have taken it upon themselves to systematically present Trump's lies and misrepresentations as some
'alternative' truths and facts.
Indeed, ever since 1987, when the Reagan administration abolished the
Fairness Doctrine for licensing public radio
and TV waves, and since a Republican dominated Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed for the
mass conglomeration of local broadcasting
in the United States, extreme conservative news outlets, such as the Fox and Sinclair networks, have sprung up. They are well
financed, and they have essentially become powerful
political propaganda machines , erasing the line between facts and fiction, and regularly presenting fictitious alternative
facts as the truth.
In so doing, they have pushed public debates in the United States away from facts, reason and logic, at least for those listeners
and viewers for whom such outlets are the only source of information. It is not surprising that such far-right media have also
made Donald Trump the champion of their cause, maliciously branding anything inconvenient as 'fake' news, as Trump has done in
his own anti-media campaign and his sustained assault on the free press.
2- Show Politics and public affairs as a form of entertainment
Donald Trump does not seem to take politics and public affairs very seriously, at least when his own personal interests are involved.
Therefore, when things go bad, he never volunteers to take personal responsibility, contrary to what a true leader would do, and
he conveniently
shifts the blame on somebody else. This is a sign of immaturity or cowardice. Paraphrasing President Harry Truman, "the buck
never stops at his desk."
Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical
showman diva , behaving
in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than
a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians.
3- Trump VS the media and the journalists
Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who rarely holds scheduled press conferences. Why would he, since he considers journalists
to be his "enemies"! It doesn't seem to matter to him that freedom of the press is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by the First
Amendment. He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if
he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication.
The ABC News network
has calculated that, as of last July, Trump has tweeted more than 3,500 times, slightly more than seven tweets a day. How could he
have time left to do anything productive! Coincidently, Donald Trump's number of tweets is not far away from the number of outright
lies and misleading claims that he has told and made since his inauguration.
The Washington Post has counted no less than 3,251 lies or misleading claims of his, through the end of May of this year, --
an average of 6.5 such misstatements per day of his presidency. Fun fact: Trump seems to accelerate the pace of his lies. Last year,
he told 5.5 lies per day, on average. Is it possible to have a more cynical view of politics!
The media in general, (and
not only American ones), then serve more or less voluntarily as so many resonance boxes for his daily 'tweets', most of which
are often devoid of any thought and logic.
Such a practice has the consequence of demeaning the public discourse in the pursuit of the common good and the general welfare
of the people to the level of a frivolous private enterprise, where expertise, research and competence can easily be replaced by
improvisation, whimsical arbitrariness and charlatanry. In such a climate, only the short run counts, at the expense of planning
for the long run.
Conclusion
All this leads to this conclusion: Trump's approach is not the way to run an efficient government. Notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution
and what it says about the need to have " checks and balance s" among different government branches, President Donald Trump
has de facto pushed aside the U.S. Congress and the civil servants in important government Departments, even his own
Cabinet
, whose formal meetings under Trump have been little more than photo-up happenings, to grab the central political stage for himself.
If such a development does not represent an ominous threat to American democracy, what does?
The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current
administration and for future ones.
'Hypocrisy', though a tendentious sort of word, is the key, I think. In electoral politics
40% on either side are going to vote the way they vote regardless of how persuasive the
electoral campaign of candidate A, or the unfittedness of candidate B; so the game is:
persuading those 20% who used to be called 'floating voters'.
And the way you do that is by blank-screening yourself and letting the electors project
onto you, by presenting yourself as Conservative even though you're Labour (as Blair did), or
conversely presenting yourself as radical even though you're a straight-down-the-line
tax-cutting defense-budget-ballooning Republican.
Trump's campaign persuaded many that he would in no way 'conserve', but would rather tear
down the establishment.
Brexit was masterminded by a group of elite hard right wingers who somehow managed to
persuade a large tranche of the electorate that it Remain were all metropolitan elites and
that they were the true voice of the people.
The real challenge is not finding a definition of conservatism that can bracket a genius
like Burke with a moron like Sarah Palin; it's finding a definition that enables a
billionaire playboy to define himself as a man of the people; that allows him to promise eg
free healthcare for all and kicking Wall Street out of politics on the campaign trail without
losing his Conservative bona fides.
Mostly reflexively, not always consciously, The Powers That Be seek to retain and
enlarge their sphere of influence. Nothing, not even the venerated vote, is allowed to
alter that "balance."
That's why the 'Deep State' or whatever one wants to call that malignant organism that has
taken over DC–and much of the West–needs professional toadies like Woody, who
will dutifully report whatever smelly lump of fertilizer the PTB are trying to sell. Bet
Woody's the best paid stenographer in the world, doing a good job of confusing Americans,
keeping them anxious of the unknown, so the PTB can keep herding us towards the NWO
slaughterhouse.
The washed-out journalist then blurted out this in disbelief: "Trump said the 'World
Trade Organization is the worst organization in the world.'"
Another bit of propaganda, as those central banks–like the toxic FED–keep the
world under their thumb by controlling the money flow, printing currencies out of thin air,
then getting paid outrageous sums of interest each year–around 500 Billion in the
US–for their counterfeiting scheme.
That kind of power can and does crash stock markets and wreck economies, as the FED has
been doing since it was spawned in 1913. They and their buddies then buy homes, businesses,
MSM outlets and costly toys for pennies on the dollar, while us 'deplorables' wonder if
they're going to be able to keep making their mortgage payments if they lose their job.
To repeat, this was promised on the campaign trail and in Trump position papers. We now
know who stole those promises from the American people.
"We know?" Some do, but many don't, as they rally around Tubby the Grifter to protect
their savior from those nasty Democrats.
"Drain the Swamp" and "MAGA" were skillfully crafted psyops, most likely from the inner
sanctum of the most pernicious lobbying outfit on Capitol Hill, AIPAC. RT, a news outlet, got
mugged by a sold-out Congress and forced to register as a lobbying outfit, but not AIPAC. No
Sir, why that would be anti-Semitic and only foul, Jew hating Neo-Nazis would even think
about making AIPAC follow the law.
What AIPAC has and continues to do needs to be kept hidden from the American public, lest
they engage in the dangerous behavior of actually wondering if Israel is an ally or a
well-disguised enemy.
Trump was bought and paid for a LONG time ago, and 2016 was when the bill came due. He was
'Chosen,' not be We the People, but AIPAC and Israel as the best POTUS to do their bidding,
since Hillary carried way too much baggage.
Trump has been the best POTUS for Israel since the traitorous liar LBJ.
All Trump has to do to get rid of the Op Ed guy is to fire all those who want to go to war
withRussia. That would leave him with no staff.
But Trump is not fooling me. You do not make a campaign promise to cooperate with Russia,
and then hire all these people who want to go to war with Russia.
It tells me that Trump was lying during his campaign.
He told us Iraq was the wrong decision, and now he has bombed Syria twice and is ready to
bomb them again; he told us that he wants out of the mid-east; he told us he wanted to
cooperate with Russia.
So I voted for him, but he was lying. I already found out he is a brazen liar. He took
those Clinton women to his debate to humiliate Hillary and Bill Clinton, when all the while
he was doing the same thing with women. That is what I call a brazen liar.
He is a pawn of the State of Israel, nothing more and nothing less. They probably told him
to hire Bolton and all the other war-mongers around him. He's not surrounded by the enemy. He
is surrounded by his friends.
The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the
GOP foreign policy establishment turned over those policy positions to them, instead of
putting people into office who actually looked favorably on him and shared areas of agreement
with him (paleocons, realists, non-interventionists, etc.). The only foreign policy promise
he's kept is the one that happened to align with the neocon preferences: backing out of the
Iran deal.
I guess it must come down to Jared Kushner and his close ties with Israel and the Gulf
Arabs, but still find it bizarre that Trump never reached out to Pat Buchanan, Rand Paul,
Steve Bannon, etc., in selecting foreign policy officials.
@Admiral
Assbar The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle
against the GOP foreign policy establishment turned over those policy positions to them,
instead of putting people into office who actually looked favorably on him and shared areas
of agreement with him (paleocons, realists, non-interventionists, etc.). The only foreign
policy promise he's kept is the one that happened to align with the neocon preferences:
backing out of the Iran deal.
I guess it must come down to Jared Kushner and his close ties with Israel and the Gulf
Arabs, but still find it bizarre that Trump never reached out to Pat Buchanan, Rand Paul,
Steve Bannon, etc., in selecting foreign policy officials. "The biggest mystery of this whole
presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the GOP foreign policy establishment
turned over those policy positions to them "
It seems fairly clear that, whenever a new President is sworn in, he immediately receives
a "pep talk" in which he is informed what he will and will not say and do, and what will
happen to him, his family, their pets, and everyone they have ever spoken to if he disobeys.
Probably this "offer that he can't refuse" is concluded by words along the lines of: " and if
you want to get what the Kennedys got, just try stepping out of line".
J. Edgar Hoover used to do something of the kind when he was head of the FBI, but that was
relatively benign – just a threat of blackmail accompanied by kindly advice never to
fight the FBI.
@AlbionRevisited I was
referring to the campaign, of course we're in a different situation now. It's amazing the way
in which they were able to co-oped his administration. AlbionRevisted wrote: "It's amazing
the way in which they (Neoconservatives) were able to co-oped his (Trump)
administration."
Greetings AlbionRevisited!
Many were disappointed with Trump and that might even include a percentage of the voting bloc
known as "Deplorables."
Nonetheless, after honing into candidate Donald Trump's awful 2017 homage to AIPAC, it
becomes dramatically less amazing how Neoconservatives crept into the White House.
Recall how rabid leftist Neoconservatives wanted Hillary, and how suddenly the naysayer,
Extra-Octane Neoconservative, John Bolton, stuck with the phoney populist, "America
First-After-Israeli-Interests," talkin' Donald J. Trump?
The essence of American presidential campaigns/elections boil down to powerful international
Jewry needs & timing, and disemboweled citizens must take-it or leave-it. Uh, support the
immoral wars and pay the bill!
Thanks, AlbionRevisted.
Herald says: September 12, 2018 at 10:53 am GMT • 100 Words
@Tom Welsh
I am not convinced that Trump started out with good intentions but quickly bowed to threats. Trump was never a principled
person and it seems much more likely that he was always a stooge for the Israel lobby and the MIC.
I used to think that things would have been worse under Hillary but these days I'm even beginning to have doubts on that
score.
jacques sheete, September 12, 2018 at 11:19 am GMT • 100 Words
@Admiral Assbar
The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the GOP foreign policy establishment
turned over those policy positions to them
No mystery at all. It was all campaign rhetoric like the Shrub's promises of "a humble foreign policy" and "compassionate
conservatism," O-bomba-'s "hope and change"and Woody 'n Frankies promises to keep the US out of war.
KenH, September 12, 2018 at 12:20 pm GMT
Trump is now becoming more "patriotic" by the day with his willingness to get us into another no-win, forever war in Syria
for Israel. I say we air drop John Brennan into Idlib so he can fight and die like a real man.
"... I agree that this is possibly the case, but what about Rosenstein's Monster? ..."
"... IOW, why is Mueller being allowed to run amok? Does Trump have a plan to contain the damage, however fabricated, other than (rightly) criticizing Jeff Sessions for recusing himself? ..."
"... I agree with Bob. It's all of them. Dump them all, including Trump, his creepy family and cronies, and the garbage GOP who passed the biggest deficit budget in US history. ..."
"... Trump already totally betrayed voters like me, who wanted our troops out of the Middle East and our resources and focus back on America, Americans, and American infrastructure. ..."
"... Liam, the "suckers who voted for Trump" happen to be the electorate. A similar group of suckers voted for Obama, Bush and Clinton. This trio who preceded Trump were not golden gods of leadership as I recall. The last two doubled and redoubled the total national debt, and squandered trillions in pointless wars. ..."
"But a savvy Donald Trump saw the conspiracy right away. And he realized immediately that in
order to carry his campaign agenda to Make America Great Again he must of necessity first
preserve his presidency from the conspiracy of the Deep State, the mainstream media, and the
establishment elites of both political parties"
I agree that this is possibly the case, but what about Rosenstein's Monster?
IOW, why is Mueller being allowed to run amok? Does Trump have a plan to contain the
damage, however fabricated, other than (rightly) criticizing Jeff Sessions for recusing
himself?
I agree with Bob. It's all of them. Dump them all, including Trump, his creepy family and
cronies, and the garbage GOP who passed the biggest deficit budget in US history.
Trump already totally betrayed voters like me, who wanted our troops out of the Middle
East and our resources and focus back on America, Americans, and American infrastructure.
The smell coming from Washington, Wall Street, the MSM, and Silicon Valley is
overpowering.
Liam, the "suckers who voted for Trump" happen to be the electorate. A similar group of
suckers voted for Obama, Bush and Clinton. This trio who preceded Trump were not golden gods
of leadership as I recall. The last two doubled and redoubled the total national debt, and
squandered trillions in pointless wars.
Trump had the sense to encourage development and transport of natural resources. He
slashed mindless regulations and reduced taxes. The economy is growing after the long Obama
depression. His was the worst economy in my lifetime. In the Carter years of stagflation
companies would not hire young grads. In the Obama years that was also the case but many
middle aged workers were let go as well. We might now be seeing real wage increases across
the board. If Trump is a clown, as so many describe, perhaps we should recruit future
presidents from clown schools.
The negligence with which he selected his cabinet is pretty telling
Notable quotes:
"... I've been saying for over a year that Trump is the Republican Obama. He is a faux populist front man. ..."
"... Just like "Obamabots", "Trumptard" apologists blame hardliners for the failings of their hero. It's all a game. It's part of the faux populist political model. Faux populists SERVE THE ESTABLISHMENT so they destined to betray their 'base'. ..."
"... Party and Personality are the masks used to keep us divided and maintain the illusion of democracy. ..."
At some point even the most ardent Trump acolyte will have to admit this [Syria]
is now Trump's policy. It is not something done by the neocons, the deep state, the
anonymous resister or the ghost of John McCain without Trump's acquiescence. [And]
He is not ... clueless, oblivious ...
Pat is half right.
I've been saying for over a year that Trump is the Republican Obama. He is a faux
populist front man.
Just like "Obamabots", "Trumptard" apologists blame hardliners for the failings of
their hero. It's all a game. It's part of the faux populist political model. Faux populists
SERVE THE ESTABLISHMENT so they destined to betray their 'base'.
There are two other fallacies that keep cropping up to confuse things:
1) Triumph of Democracy. While some may recognize that USA is no longer a democracy, others continue to insist that
"Trump won" and are incline to suspect Russian interference (even while acknowledging the
flaws in that theory). Few care to delve much deeper (i.e. engage brain cells).
2) President's Constitutional power. You see this mistake made as Pat Lang declares that Trump 'owns' the Syrian mess now. The
President has great power in the US Constitutional system and (sadly) that is why it is so
important to the establishment that it be controlled. Trump was SELECTED, not ELECTED.
Party and Personality are the masks used to keep us divided and maintain the illusion of
democracy.
"... 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?
"... "Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as President." No need for that Diana – for what you describe is what we presently enjoy in the form of the current President, most especially as it relates to his efforts to bring "peace" to regions such as the Mideast. ..."
"... It is becoming something of a dark joke listening to Trump's apologists endlessly repeat the meme that those opposed to him represent "war" – while he is our hope for "peace" (despite his never demonstrating one iota of that sort of behavior). ..."
"... With every further, obvious display of the President's shocking belligerence towards countries that do not threaten the United States and in areas and matters where it possesses no valid security interests, the Diana Johnstones of this world spin the prayer wheel faster, repeat their mantras more urgently and come up with some silly excuses for why what we observe from Trump is not really what we observe. "It's not Trump – it's every one around him. You must believe us!" ..."
"... There's no need for 4- and 5-D chess masters to interpret Trump – what we sees is what we gots. If there's a "conspiracy" anywhere, it's among those unwilling to remark the obvious ..."
We gave Trump the presidency, what he does with it is his responsibility. He was warned
repeatedly about the neocons et al, but has chosen to staff up with the same swamp creatures
he ostensibly meant to expurgate.
We are left to wonder how much of this "reality" TV?
"Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as
President." No need for that Diana – for what you describe is what we presently enjoy in the
form of the current President, most especially as it relates to his efforts to bring "peace"
to regions such as the Mideast.
It is becoming something of a dark joke listening to Trump's apologists endlessly repeat
the meme that those opposed to him represent "war" – while he is our hope for "peace"
(despite his never demonstrating one iota of that sort of behavior).
With every further, obvious display of the President's shocking belligerence towards
countries that do not threaten the United States and in areas and matters where it possesses
no valid security interests, the Diana Johnstones of this world spin the prayer wheel faster,
repeat their mantras more urgently and come up with some silly excuses for why what we
observe from Trump is not really what we observe. "It's not Trump – it's every one
around him. You must believe us!"
There's no need for 4- and 5-D chess masters to interpret Trump – what we sees is
what we gots. If there's a "conspiracy" anywhere, it's among those unwilling to remark the
obvious.
"... When the center does fail to hold, it is usually in periods of political and perhaps also social upheaval. In those conditions, centrist parties, along with the constituencies they represent, often radicalize – generally merging into the side that wins the day. ..."
"... The jury is still out on how effective Trump's verbal assaults on the institutions that regulate global trade will be. No matter what Trump says, tweets, or thinks, those institutions were fashioned to work to America's advantage, and still generally do. Evidently, though, they do not conform well enough to his or his base's understanding of American "greatness"; thus they have become imperiled. ..."
"... It wasn't always so, but nowadays, almost without exception, Democrats occupy left or center positions on that spectrum; Republicans line up on its right. In a relational sense, the center is replete with Democrats; the left not so much. Centrist Republicans, long a vanishing breed, are, by now, as rare as snowstorms in July. ..."
"... In this respect, the United States is an exceptional case. There are few, if any, liberal democratic regimes in modern capitalist states in which notionally leftwing political forces have played such a negligible role. ..."
"... s was evident in the Clinton campaign's efforts to fight back the Sanders insurgency in 2016, it has forged robust political machines in the process. Their ability to mobilize voters on behalf of mainstream Democratic candidates has been disappointing however; what they have been mainly good at is tamping down radical dissent. ..."
"... Thus conditions are now in place for a revival of Left politics at the electoral level. This frightens the party's leaders. They and the pundits who serve them speak of unity. But is plain as can be that they are determined to quash whatever they cannot turn to their own advantage. Corporate media's role in this endeavor is crucial. They are already hard at work – pushing the all-too-familiar line that the way to win, especially in "red" states and districts, is to occupy the (relational) center. ..."
"... That center in today's Democratic Party is a dead center; it is where progressive impulses go to die. And, like a vampire on a mission, that dead center is gearing up for a fight – against those who would challenge the Democratic Party from the left. Witness the weeklong spectacle that accompanied the departure of John McCain from the land of the living. What a nauseating display of veneration for a man supremely unworthy, and of nostalgia for the good old (actually bad old) pre-Trump days! ..."
When the center does fail to hold, it is usually in periods of political and perhaps
also social upheaval. In those conditions, centrist parties, along with the constituencies they
represent, often radicalize – generally merging into the side that wins the day.
Thus it is mainly in situations in which the regime itself is undergoing fundamental
transformations that the center is depleted of its former occupants. In time, though, a new
mainstream is constituted, and its center again becomes the point on the left/right continuum
where the majority of positions and policies in play at the time cluster.
***
To everyone living through it, it feels as if the Trump presidency has turned the political
scene topsy-turvy. This is what happens when there is an imbecilic president whose governing
style is a low-grade imitation of a mob boss's.
The fact is, though, that the Trump presidency, destructive as it has been, has changed a
good deal less than meets the eye. The foundations of the regime remain the same as before;
fundamental neoliberal economic structures remain intact, and the perpetual war regime that
went into overdrive after 9/11 continues to flourish.
The jury is still out on how effective Trump's verbal assaults on the institutions that
regulate global trade will be. No matter what Trump says, tweets, or thinks, those institutions
were fashioned to work to America's advantage, and still generally do. Evidently, though, they
do not conform well enough to his or his base's understanding of American "greatness"; thus
they have become imperiled.
What is disturbingly clear is that for all but the filthy rich, and especially for anyone
not white as the driven snow, life in Trump's America has taken a turn for the worse.
Trump has been a godsend for "white nationalists," the current euphemism for nativists and
racists. He has legitimated them and their views to an extent that no one would have imagined
just a few years ago.
Also, to the detriment of the health and well being of the vast majority of Americans, Trump
and his minions have done serious harm to America's feeble welfare state institutions.
And even this is not the main reason why there will be hell to pay when the next economic
downturn happens, as it inevitably will, more likely sooner than later. By giving Wall Street
free rein again, and by cutting taxes for the rich, depleting the treasury of financial
resources that could be put to use in a crisis, Trump has all but guaranteed that most
Americans will soon find themselves in straits as bad or worse than ten years ago.
Worst of all, by watering down or setting aside the weak but nevertheless indispensible
environmental regulations in place before their arrival on the scene, Trump has hastened the
day when the world will be hit with, and perhaps be undone by, grave, possibly irreparable,
ecological catastrophes.
There are many other lesser harms for which, directly or indirectly, Trump is responsible.
This is all serious stuff, but while they make life worse for many people and shift the
political spectrum to the right, they do not shake the foundations of the regime in a way that
puts the center in jeopardy -- at least not yet.
In short, what we are living through is not a Trumpian "revolution," not even in the "Reagan
Revolution" sense, but a degeneration of much of what is worth preserving in the old regime.
Trump didn't start the process, but he has come to dominate it, and his mindless and mean
spirited antics accelerate it.
***
If "left," "right," and "center" are understood in relational terms, American politics
plainly does have a left, right, and center. These designations overlay the deeply entrenched,
semi-established duopoly party system that structures the American political scene.
It wasn't always so, but nowadays, almost without exception, Democrats occupy left or
center positions on that spectrum; Republicans line up on its right. In a relational sense, the
center is replete with Democrats; the left not so much. Centrist Republicans, long a vanishing
breed, are, by now, as rare as snowstorms in July.
Understood notionally, where "left," "right," and "center" designate positions on an
historically evolving, widely understood, ideal political spectrum, the situation is much the
same, but with a major difference: there is hardly any left at all.
There have always been plenty of (notional) leftists in the United States, but there has
never been much of an intersection between the left of the political spectrum, understood
relationally, and anything resembling a notional Left.
In this respect, the United States is an exceptional case. There are few, if any,
liberal democratic regimes in modern capitalist states in which notionally leftwing political
forces have played such a negligible role.
This unfortunate state of affairs has become worse in recent decades under the aegis of
(notionally) center-right Democrats like the Clintons and their co-thinkers. Thanks to them,
the Democratic Party today is a (notionally) centrist party through and through.
They succeeded as well as they did partly because our party system stifles progressive
politics more effectively than it is stifled in other ways in other liberal democracies.
The duopoly is still going strong, but, even so, times change. Largely thanks to Trump,
there are now inklings of a notional Left in formation that stands a chance of avoiding
marginalization.
Thus Democrats all along the (relational) spectrum now consider themselves embattled,
challenged from the Left by anti-Trump militants. Many of the challengers come from
under-represented, Democratic-leaning constituencies – the young, women, and "persons of
color" – with traditionally low levels of political participation. In view of the
abundant, well meaning but generally toothless "diversity" blather for which Democrats are
notorious, this is delightfully ironic.
The challengers include African Americans, of course, but also people drawn from sectors of
the population that Trump has targeted and demeaned with particular malice -- Hispanics and
Muslims especially.
The Democratic Party has been actively courting – and colonizing – African
American and other subaltern constituencies for a long time. A s was evident in the Clinton
campaign's efforts to fight back the Sanders insurgency in 2016, it has forged robust political
machines in the process. Their ability to mobilize voters on behalf of mainstream Democratic
candidates has been disappointing however; what they have been mainly good at is tamping down
radical dissent.
But because race and ethnicity intersect with age and gender – and because, in the
final analysis, "it's the politics, stupid" -- many of the African Americans, Hispanics,
Muslims and others now being drawn into the electoral fold will likely not be as amenable to
being coopted by Democratic Party grandees as persons who "look like them" have been in the
past. The danger of cooptation remains formidable, but it is almost certainly surmountable if
the will to resist the pressure is strong.
Thus conditions are now in place for a revival of Left politics at the electoral level.
This frightens the party's leaders. They and the pundits who serve them speak of unity. But is
plain as can be that they are determined to quash whatever they cannot turn to their own
advantage. Corporate media's role in this endeavor is crucial. They are already hard at work
– pushing the all-too-familiar line that the way to win, especially in "red" states and
districts, is to occupy the (relational) center.
In this context, "red," of course, doesn't mean red; it means almost the opposite,
Republican. Only in America!
... ... ...
What passes for a "resistance" in liberal or "democratic socialist" circles nowadays is a
pale approximation of the genuine article. This is not just because the spirit of rebellion has
been bred out of us or because of any failure of imagination; it is because in the
circumstances that currently obtain, resistance, like "revolution," even in the anodyne "Our
Revolution" sense, just isn't on the agenda.
But there is something now that can and should be resisted by any and all appropriate means
– the illusion that the way to defeat Trump and Trumpism and, more generally, to advance
progressive causes, is to tack to the relational center.
That center in today's Democratic Party is a dead center; it is where progressive
impulses go to die. And, like a vampire on a mission, that dead center is gearing up for a
fight – against those who would challenge the Democratic Party from the left. Witness the
weeklong spectacle that accompanied the departure of John McCain from the land of the living.
What a nauseating display of veneration for a man supremely unworthy, and of nostalgia for the
good old (actually bad old) pre-Trump days!
How pathetic! The whole country's, not just the Democratic Party's, left, right, and center
– minus Donald Trump, of course -- heaping praise on a Navy pilot who, heeding McCain
family traditions and the call of Lyndon Johnson, killed a lot of Vietnamese peasants for no
defensible reason, before becoming a "hero" after the Vietnamese shot his plane down, and who,
after repatriation, embarked on a legislative career in which, despite a few "maverick"
exceptions, he promoted every retrograde Republican cause that arose, war mongered vociferously
at every opportunity, and did all he could, even before Hillary Clinton took a notion, to get
the Cold War revved up again.
They were all there, every rotten one of them -- from Barack Obama and Joe Biden and, their
brother-in-arms, George W. Bush, the man who, but for Trump, could now boast of being the worst
president in modern times, all the way to the decrepit Henry Kissinger, the never to be
indicted war criminal whom liberals have learned to stop loathing and to call upon for advice
instead.
Even that malevolent airhead couple Jarvanka showed up, invited, it seems, by Senator
Lindsey Graham, McCain's hapless sidekick. This was no popular front. It was a festival of the
dead Center, a blight on the political landscape, and, with Trump sucking up all the air, a
harbinger of things to come.
"... Tucker Carlson went off last week on how the US welfare system is gamed by major corporations like Amazon and Walmart to keep workers' wages below a basic level of being able to support one's self and family. ..."
"... How about reducing these companies' tax deductions for wages by an estimate of the welfare benefits, e.g. "Food Stamps," etc., their workers use to stay afloat? ..."
You missed the pithiest soundbite that succinctly sums it all up:
We privatised profits and we socialised risk and losses.
We continue to do so in a major way to prop up our oligarch class.
Capitalism died a long time ago in the US, and its death is not just evident in the way
banks are coddled.
Tucker Carlson went off last week on how the US welfare system is gamed by major
corporations like Amazon and Walmart to keep workers' wages below a basic level of being able
to support one's self and family.
How about reducing these companies' tax deductions for wages by an estimate of the welfare
benefits, e.g. "Food Stamps," etc., their workers use to stay afloat?
"We can look to Iceland for an example of how to handle the next crisis."
No, we should follow the example of Vietnam and execute a few bankers and other
oligarchs.
The Asian country that best overcame the 1997 crisis was Malaysia.
Under then PM Mahathir, the country defied the IMF and refused to take loans from it.
Instead of obeying the Washington Consensus rules, Malaysia applied completely unorthodox
measures: fixing the peg of the ringgit to the dollar, selective foreign exchange controls,
de- internationalisation of the ringgit. As a consequence, Malaysia preserved all her
assets.
Ironically, such unorthodox crisis measures are now recognised as innovative and efficient
by the same vulture IMF.
The 1997 crisis followed the trademark asset rip off script set up by the financial
industry loan sharks. The same script has repeated time and again over decades.
On a slightly related topic, "Let's put forward a People's Agenda."
India just created one of the worlds largest Public Banks.
The mother of all banks is coming today
. . .
A banking behemoth will take birth at Delhi's Talkatora Stadium today when Prime
Minister Narendra Modi inaugurates the India Post Payments Bank (IPPB).
"... "The Russia Hoax Theme Got Started As a Dirty Trick by Hillary's 2016 Campaign ..."
"... "The seed was planted and significant parts of the American voting public noticed, particularly those who believed that Hillary Clinton had the God-given right to take control of the Oval Office. One way or another, Team Hillary was going to cram the Russian narrative down our collective throats." ..."
"The Russia Hoax Theme Got Started As a Dirty Trick by Hillary's 2016 Campaign
"The seed was planted and significant parts of the American voting public noticed,
particularly those who believed that Hillary Clinton had the God-given right to take control of
the Oval Office. One way or another, Team Hillary was going to cram the Russian narrative down
our collective throats."
No question, the woman fits the description "evil," but that sure doesn't make Trump a saint
by comparison.
America's tragedy – one shared by the entire world – is that this is the kind of
choice American voters get, a Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump.
No matter who wins or loses each American presidential election, the people in general lose
and the establishment wins.
And right now, the American establishment likes and embraces the Clinton nonsense about
Russia. It serves its current purposes. Actually, it wasn't truly Clinton's own nonsense. She
was definitely feeding off a pre-existing set of attitudes in her Washington set.
So, it is more threatening than just a residual from an election campaign.
Another sign that the political divisions are 'pretend' is that the 'Dems', the ostensive
losers re. Trump, have not behaved like a political party who loses. These generally disband,
retire, fold, or make efforts at reform, re-orientation etc. Renewal may be tough but they
often try. (As did the Repubs after Obama's election, though the effort was incredibly weak.)
Nothing like that is going on, because the fight is not political. It is based on tribal
desperate angst at the 'surprise' election of an outsider who holds cards in his hands nobody
can speak about.
To 'True Believers', if [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] seems equivocal, or even confused, about
the nature of (Democratic) socialism or expresses anodyne, conformist, safe positions, they
will justify this as sensible reticence. AOC has to appeal to the elusive "center", and
charm skeptical voters by not appearing unduly extreme or, God forbid, radical.
As with Obama and others similarly situated, they pretend that once the ostensible Third
Way newcomer is accepted and established, they can and will gradually disclose their true
political selves, and act accordingly. Regardless of how often this scenario fails to work
as hoped, they remain convinced that it's both unavoidable and prudent.
Ocasio-Cortez is merely a willing actress poster-babe (she will earn a LOT). The role is
not different from prancing about in lovely swish skirts on some MSM-TV series. She was
selected for her looks / background (not the best re. the background, but there aren't many
candidates, which is very hopeful imho), her naiveté, ignorance, and submissive
stance. Some 'fake' younger figures -only women and male gays, girls are more acceptable to
the general public- have to be pictured as up-n-coming Dems, in a kind of sketchy and
unconvincing parade of 'diversity' and so on.
Posted by b on August 30, 2018 at 01:07 PM | Permalink
JR is spot on; The Orange Buffoon and the "witchhunt" against him (just like the "Qanon"
Hollywood-style drama-thriller) are smoke and mirrors to keep the peasants occupied with
bullcrap, while the
cleptofascists are done robbing you blind...
The simple truth is that all "western" societies and democracies are hijacked by
(((Transformer Borgs))) and, contrary to what (((snake-oil salesmen))) in $5 000 suits tell
you, there is no way out of this mess through a ballot.
Sorry Mike, what do you mean by saying the goal is to "create a center-right" Democratic
Party? The Clinton's accomplished this in the 1990s -- what we have here is a full scale
enfoldment of the Dems into the National Security State
Not that it matters much -- both Republicans and Democrats have been on the same page for
a few decades now (since the 1940s IMHO). Inter-party politics don't matter much, except
insofar as the voting public can be conned into supporting one or the other, because no
matter which party holds the Congress or Presidency the same Deep State agenda is their top
priority.
Why? It's simple really -- money. Big campaign donors expect "value" in return for their
"political contributions". And if value isn't had for their money, the Deep State's
intelligence community can usually dig up something "useful" in the offender's background to
"persuade" him or her to support the current bipartisan agenda
If it's really true that to find out who has power, just take note of whom is above
criticism, perhaps we ought to consider that Rockefeller and JPMorgan money founded the CFR
in 1921 and it took root and bloomed in government "service" during and after WWII.
If you doubt the CFR's power as the Deep State personified, I suggest reading historian
Quigley's Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time and sociologist Tom
Dye's Who Is Running America series.
Paraphrasing Quigley, writing when Bill Clinton was his student at Georgetown, the two
parties should be as alike as two sides of a coin so that voters can "throw the rascals out"
in any election without significantly changing governmental priorities and policies because
the policies the US is and ought be pursuing are not subject to significant dispute (or
at the least not by the voting public).
Which begs the question -- who is (and has been since the 1940s) setting US policy? If we,
the voters, cannot alter or change our national policies, then democratic oversight of the
Republic is nothing but a sham. The US is, in this view, just another Banana Republic which
Tom Dye ably documents from Watergate to Shrub's administration.
The two party "uniparty" is alive and well. In fact, while the party's supporters still
may include self- described "leftists" the party itself has gone further right than the
traditionally rightwing GOP. The dual party structure relies on the "Democrats" to gut
"entitlements", that is Social Security or Medicare.
It was the "Democrats" who put in Obamacare, which mandated people to spend an arm and a
leg on crappy medical insurance the cost of which was massively inflated which they could
only use when they had spent way more than average on medical bills. Meanwhile it was the
democrats' harpy candidate who proposed a no-fly zone in Syria on behalf of raghead
mercenaries hired by the yankee imperium.
While Trump has largely caved in to the deep state, in part perhaps because of the
pressure applied by the phony deep state witch hunt taking over the "justice" department of
the yankee regime, we know what the democrats, exponents of the fraudulent "Russia-gate"
stories, now espouse: a new cold war far more dangerous than the old one.
Meanwhile, the commercial media in the US and satellite countries, has degenerated into a
Goebbels-like propaganda apparat. Trump's clumsiness actually may have the accidental
salutary effect of enabling the satellite countries to slip the yankee leash, at least to
some extent.
The situation brought about by this unprecedented two faction version of fascism is
profoundly depressing, in addition to being seriously dangerous.
Why is this article entitled: "Dems Put Finishing Touches on One-Party 'Surveillance
Superstate'"
This website seems to have articles that show their authors are awake and yet, this article
shows quite the opposite. Who today, with the slightest modicum of common sense, who has made
the effort in understanding how the system works, still plays the left-right paradigm,
Hegelian Dialectic, political game nonsense?
I mean, let's get real here; the Democrats and the Republicans, like their UK counterparts of
Labour and Conservative are merely wings on the same bird, ultimately flying to a
destination. Both parties are taking the USA towards a one-party, surveillance, super state.
You do not enter American politics unless you bow to Zionism and International Jewry. Unless
you show 100% support to Israel then forget a career in politics.
Incidentally, to many who may have heard of her; the new luvey of the conservatives is
none other than black, Candace Owens, who is better known as Red Pill Black. She has been
this new voice who has entered into the 'alternative right', itself nothing more than
controlled opposition, speaking out against feminism, white privilege, rape culture,
transgender culture etc etc and has gained a large following. Other than being a complete
fraud, as information has appeared that she tried to launch a 'doxing' website, targeting
youngsters, she has appeared at the opening of the American Embassy in Jerusalem:
Why on earth, would some nobody, who has had an incredibly fast rise on YouTube (most
certainly her subscriber base and video view has been doctored) and more so a black
conservative, be invited to attend the opening of the American embassy in Jerusalem? Bottom
line? She's being groomed for a career in politics and I wouldn't be surprised if they wheel
her out, some time in the future, as a presidential hopeful to capture the black vote in the
USA.
Again, this is controlled opposition.
You never vote in a new party in politics. You vote out the old one. 326 million is the
population of the USA and there are only two political parties? Are you serious? It's bad
enough, here in the UK with three (liberal party along with Labour and Conservative), with a
66 million population but only two in the USA?
Both parties are heavily controlled.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has been putting presidents into power now for over a
hundred years. The CFR is the sister organization of the Royal Institute for International
Affairs, which has been doing the same, here in the UK for the same time. All politicians are
groomed from an early age, taught how to avoid answering any question directly, how to lie
and of course who their masters are. By implementing their wishes, politicians are then
granted a seat on some board, within some multi conglomerate, a six figure salary, a fat
pension on top of their political one and of course umpteen houses spread across wherever.
Blair and Obama epitomize this.
Both political parties are left wing, hiding under the right wing and classic liberal
monikers.
Kai Weiss offered up some
food for thought last week when he attempted to explain why any plan for a transatlantic
union of populists is doomed. And he's largely correct: the integration of right-wing populist
governments and parties in Europe into their own umbrella organizations give them a
specifically European orientation, which seems to defeat the purpose of nationalism.
Further, the continued economic relations of populist governments in Italy, Hungary, and
Poland with other EU countries would render their shift towards a new political configuration
based on shared ideological proclivities with American populists highly unlikely. These
assumptions are certainly well-founded, and Kai is correct that we shouldn't interpret any
change in the European populist Right as aligning with their American counterpart.
But there's another, perhaps deeper, reason that American and European populists are
unlikely to cooperate: they show only superficial similarities. Both are obviously concerned
with the globalist threat to their national economies and cultivate a rhetorical style that
appeals to the plain folk while ostentatiously bypassing the "uppers." All so-called populists
invoke national symbols and colors (thus Trump tells us that all Americans, no matter their
race, "bleed red, white, and blue"). All ridicule multinational corporations and their usually
socially leftist advocates as rootless. All have antagonistic relationships with left-wing
media and devote considerable energy to contending with them.
And of course, both oppose mass immigration. But in Europe more than in the U.S., this
opposition stems from widespread concern about a growing Muslim presence and the violent crime
and cultural dislocation it's brought about.
That said, the differences between European and American populism may be more critical than
the overlaps. Put simply: European populism looks real, while its American counterpart seems
contrived. Vehicles of American populism with nationwide followings -- for example, the
American Greatness website, Steve Hilton's Sunday night defenses of American populism on Fox
News, and the West Coast-Straussian Claremont Review -- identify the American nation with an
"idea." This "idea" is found explicitly in the passage of the Declaration of Independence that
tells us that "all men are created equal." Lincoln's victory over the slave-holding South and
America's military crusades for democracy in two world wars are often viewed as efforts to
advance this founding ideal of equality.
While other, presumably inferior, nations are based on ethnic membership, shared religious
traditions, and histories going back millennia, the U.S. is supposedly morally superior because
of our universal founding principles. Those who argue this are entitled to their beliefs, but
out of such abstract universals it is hard to fashion a specifically populist movement. That is
because populism, for better or worse (I'm not being judgmental here), depends on very
different unifying factors, like all the stuff that our would-be populists keep throwing on the
junk heap. Hungarian, Polish, French, and Italian populists happily invoke everything that our
populists are not supposed to believe.
One could hardly imagine an American populist saying what Viktor Orban
repeatedly stated before the Hungarian national election that he won overwhelmingly in the
spring. Orban vowed to " keep
Hungary safe and Christian ," and called for the country -- and Europe more widely -- to
embrace "a modernized version of Christian democracy" in the decades ahead. "Christian
democracy protects us from migration, defends the borders, supports the traditional family
model of one man, one woman, and considers the protection of our Christian culture as a natural
thing," he said.
In some ways, European populists are more generous than their American imitation. They don't
engage in trade wars with their fellow Europeans and generally work toward unity with others on
the continent as members of a shared culture and history. European populists reserve their bile
for those whom they see as Muslim interlopers and the Cultural Marxist Left. From reading the
European right-wing press and knowing leaders of the Swedish Democrats, the National Front, and
Alternative for Germany, I am hardly struck by the European Right's affinity for the American
ruling class, including self-described American nationalists.
It seems that, as soon as one moves beyond the Atlanticist crowd, European populists, like
other Europeans, believe that American political elites are bullying the Old World. Loose talk
about American exceptionalism, regime change aimed at conservative European governments, and
the raising of tariffs on European products arouse concern among European populists over
unwanted American hegemony.
In a tour of the United States in February, the former head of the National Front, Marine
Le Pen, praised Trump's defiance of the left-wing media but then criticized his increasingly
confrontational relations with Russia.
Clearly she was concerned with American dominance over Europe, a problem that European
populists can't imagine will go away even if self-styled populists come to power in the U.S.
Confirming this impression was the reluctance of Italian president Sergio Mattarella to name as
Italian premier Matteo Salvini, the populist leader of the Lega Nord, after Salvini's stunning
electoral victory in a national election in early March. It was the Trump administration that
put pressure on Mattarella not to authorize a coalition led by someone who might not be obedient to
the American government on foreign affairs. It was only after this American "veto" was
removed and proper assurances were offered that Salvini in May was allowed to form a
government. If this is what American populist leadership looks like, it may not be the case
that Steve Bannon's alliance is just around the corner.
By the way: the American populist website American Greatness quotes
approvingly passages taken from National Review that justify American meddling in
foreign elections and foreign regimes. Our government "has done so to promote democracy and
political liberty and human rights." No doubt Signor Salvini will appreciate this
explanation.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College,
where he taught for 25 years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale Ph.D. He is the author of
13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a
Concept and Revisions and Dissents .
"... The "soft" neoliberal bloc in the US, individuals and organizations alike, have become so pathologically consumed with the conviction that Donald Trump is the Great Orange Satan who must be removed from office forthwith, and by any means necessary, that they hysterically embrace any public figure who opposes (opposed) Trump. ..."
"... Now, the Democratic Party establishment and fellow-traveling organizations have realigned– flipped their lids– to a point in which they reflexively support everything that purports to oppose and undermine Trump. They even regard the nefarious state-security apparatchiks in the FBI and CIA, and the "brutal fixers" in the Department of "Justice" who have been assiduously working to construct a frame-up job, or crucifix upon which to hang Trump, as heroes. ..."
"... As with Obama and others similarly situated, they pretend that once the ostensible Third Way newcomer is accepted and established, they can and will gradually disclose their true political selves, and act accordingly. Regardless of how often this scenario fails to work as hoped, they remain convinced that it's both unavoidable and prudent. ..."
The "soft" neoliberal bloc in the US, individuals and organizations alike, have
become so pathologically consumed with the conviction that Donald Trump is the Great Orange
Satan who must be removed from office forthwith, and by any means necessary, that they
hysterically embrace any public figure who opposes (opposed) Trump.
I frequent prog-lib sites in the US, where I live, principally to read and post in the
comments threads. The prog-lib moderates are not really of the "left", a term which has
become a semantic placeholder for anyone or anything that doesn't explicitly identify as
right-wing or politically conservative.
But before they were traumatized by, in their view, the abominable Trump usurping the
imperial Oval Office Throne, they used to be reliably antiwar, anti-imperialist,
anti-military, anti-police state, etc.
Now, the Democratic Party establishment and fellow-traveling organizations have
realigned– flipped their lids– to a point in which they reflexively support
everything that purports to oppose and undermine Trump. They even regard the nefarious
state-security apparatchiks in the FBI and CIA, and the "brutal fixers" in the Department of
"Justice" who have been assiduously working to construct a frame-up job, or crucifix upon
which to hang Trump, as heroes.
@ karlof1 | 15
The self-proclaimed Social-Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's words praising the late
War Criminal John McCain prove she's not what she declares. _____________________________
So many bees have accumulated in my bonnet that by now I should be drenched in a
perpetually-flowing coating of honey. One of the bees is what I call Progressive-Liberal
Electoral Politics 101.
This refers to the tendency of "lesser-evil" moderates to rebut and reject doubts and
criticisms of politicians with supposedly knowing, savvy "inside politics" rationales that
explain away the criticisms.
It really hit home during Obama's 2008 campaign, when an intelligent but moderate
"progressive" relative, "Joe", became infatuated with Bonnie Prince Barry; he vainly hoped
I'd become enthralled too. Just a couple of examples:
I was outraged (but not surprised) when Obama reneged on his repeated "vows" to oppose
draconian FISA legislation that gave carte blanche to government/corporate surveillance, and
immunized corporations who'd illegally and illicitly assisted in conducting such
surveillance. Joe responded to my outrage by superciliously explaining, "Oh, he had to
do that! He can't just say and do things to keep progressives happy-- he has to reassure a
fearful and desperate public that he's 'tough' on national security issues!"
Joe also whipped out this "Oh, he had to do that!" justification at the drop of a
hat every time Obama did or didn't do something that seemed to conflict with his progressive
"Third Way" image; when nominee and president-elect Obama packed his transition team and
cabinet with reactionary Clintonista retreads and Goldman-Sachs banksters, Joe praised this
as a shrewd "pragmatic" gambit to "consolidate his support within the party". There was
always some pat prog-lib catechism blurb explaining why "he had to do that", case closed.
I've seen exactly this logic applied to AOC. To True Believers, if she seems equivocal, or
even confused, about the nature of (Democratic) socialism-- or, as here, expresses anodyne,
conformist, safe positions, they will justify this as sensible reticence. AOC has to
appeal to the elusive "center", and charm skeptical voters by not appearing unduly extreme
or, God forbid, radical.
As with Obama and others similarly situated, they pretend that once the ostensible Third
Way newcomer is accepted and established, they can and will gradually disclose their true
political selves, and act accordingly. Regardless of how often this scenario fails to work as
hoped, they remain convinced that it's both unavoidable and prudent.
Trump definitely is hell-bent of destroying the dollar system. He
created four powerful allied: China, Russia, Iran and Turkey that will work
to weaken dollar hegemony and create alternative systems. It is unclear why.
Smartphones present a viable alternative to credit cards and it is just
a matter of time that credit cards became obsolete.
Despite his promises of restraint, America has become a cat's paw in a Middle East intrigue
likely to lead to war.
Notable quotes:
"... Editor's note: This is the editorial from the July/August 2018 print edition of ..."
"... So now Israel and those Gulf states want to put Iran back in its box, and they want America to supply the muscle. Pompeo demonstrated Trump is prepared to do so with demands that no sovereign nation could accept. As our Dan Larison wrote, they would require Iran "to surrender its foreign policy decision-making to Washington and U.S. clients and to abandon all of the governments and groups that have relied on its support." ..."
"... The New Yorker piece leaves no doubt that Trump and his team welcome the new alliance aborning among Israel, the Saudis, and the UAE, pulled together by their fear and animosity directed at Iran ..."
"... So America under Trump has become a cat's paw in a Middle East intrigue that is very likely to lead to war. This is not how he campaigned in 2016, and it is not what the American people want. If Trump doesn't veer away from this path to war and the result is further Mideast blood and woe, he likely will go down in flames. That would be fitting and proper. But the rest of the world wouldn't deserve the result. ..."
Editor's note: This is the editorial from the July/August 2018 print edition of The
American Conservative.
We must confess that we never read Donald Trump's famous book, The Art of the Deal .
And we don't know if there is a chapter called "Bait and Switch." But that's precisely what
Trump perpetrated upon the American people when he crafted a campaign decrying America's
destructive and costly military Middle East involvement -- and then, as president, set in
motion events seemingly calculated to get us into another war there.
The president also promised to pull the United States out of the Iranian nuclear deal.
However foolish, it was at least an honest representation of what his intention. And ultimately
he did it. Thus it was possible to conclude that Trump was sincere on both his resolve to avoid
further Mideast wars and his intention to exit the Iranian deal. Voters could draw their own
conclusions about whether the two campaign promises were mutually exclusive or not.
But voters had no reason to conclude during the campaign that he would deal with Iran so
aggressively as to force a dangerous showdown. Two significant developments suggest Trump's
intentions far surpass his campaign rhetoric. One is the recent ultimatum delivered to Iran by
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He listed 12 demands on what Iran must do to avoid
"unprecedented" economic pressure designed to crush Iran's ability to play a major role in its
home region. The other is a remarkable New Yorker story by Adam Entous detailing how the
Trump administration has joined hands with Iran's regional enemies -- Israel, Saudi Arabia, and
the United Arab Emirates -- to strip Iran of its regional influence.
As Pompeo put it, "Iran will never again have carte blanche to dominate the Middle East." Of
course Iran has not dominated the region in any serious way for centuries, but it does have
significant influence there by dint of its size, population, economy, and military. And its
geopolitical influence expanded exponentially when America destroyed Iraq's Sunni regime and
removed a major impediment to Iran's freedom of action.
So now Israel and those Gulf states want to put Iran back in its box, and they want America
to supply the muscle. Pompeo demonstrated Trump is prepared to do so with demands that no
sovereign nation could accept. As our Dan Larison wrote, they would require Iran "to surrender
its foreign policy decision-making to Washington and U.S. clients and to abandon all of the
governments and groups that have relied on its support."
Indeed, they are reminiscent of Austria's 1914 demands of Serbia after the assassination of
Arch-Duke Ferdinand and the aggressive ultimatum delivered to Japan by U.S. Secretary of State
Cordell Hull on November 26, 1941. Both were were designed to induce war.
The New Yorker piece leaves no doubt that Trump and his team welcome the new alliance
aborning among Israel, the Saudis, and the UAE, pulled together by their fear and animosity
directed at Iran. The headline: "How the President, Israel, and the Gulf states plan to fight
Iran -- and leave the Palestinians and the Obama years behind." One Trump friend said
Netanyahu, mastermind of the anti-Iranian alliance, encountered at the White House a "blank
canvas" for his bold brush strokes. This person added: "Israel just had their way with us."
So America under Trump has become a cat's paw in a Middle East intrigue that is very
likely to lead to war. This is not how he campaigned in 2016, and it is not what the American
people want. If Trump doesn't veer away from this path to war and the result is further Mideast
blood and woe, he likely will go down in flames. That would be fitting and proper. But the rest
of the world wouldn't deserve the result.
"... not all forms of economic liberalization are equally good: some reforms can be so inadequately designed as to harm the interests of the poor, especially in the short term. ..."
"... This raises the questions: Are the poor better off under a market economy? Is the invisible hand conducive to giving people a hand? Pope Francis's assessment is often negative. "[U]nbridled capitalism," he has claimed, "has taught the logic of profit at any cost, of giving in order to receive, of exploitation without looking at the person." ..."
Societies marked by oligarchy, that is, rigged to help the privileged elites at the expense of everyone else, require more than
merely the removal of anti-competitive rules and regulations. The reason, according to Martinez, is that not all forms of economic
liberalization are equally good: some reforms can be so inadequately designed as to harm the interests of the poor, especially in
the short term.
This raises the questions: Are the poor better off under a market economy? Is the invisible hand conducive to giving people a
hand? Pope Francis's assessment is often negative. "[U]nbridled capitalism," he has claimed, "has taught the logic of profit at any
cost, of giving in order to receive, of exploitation without looking at the person."
...Although the pope is on target in his admonition against worshipping the false god of a "deified market," according to Waterman,
his encyclical Laudato si' is flawed, due in no small measure to its failure to acknowledge the good that markets do by
channeling self-interest to serve the common good.
"... Thus ends another episode in the seemingly interminable serial, "Bernie Sanders Tries, and Fails, to Put a Progressive Coat of Paint on the Democratic Party." Since he rocketed to political prominence in 2016 in his challenge to Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, Sanders has played this role again and again. ..."
"... First, he appeals to the idealism of young people and the economic grievances of working people, claiming to represent a genuine alternative to the domination of American politics by the oligarchy of "millionaires and billionaires." Then he diverts those who have responded to his campaign back into the existing political framework, endorsing whatever right-wing hack emerges from the Democratic wing of the corporate-controlled two-party system. ..."
"... In the 2018 campaign, where he is not a candidate except for reelection in Vermont, Sanders has endorsed and campaigned for a number of supposedly left-wing candidates in the Democratic primaries, always based on the same pretense, that the Democratic Party can be reformed and pushed to the left, that this party of corporate America can be transformed into an instrument of social reform and popular politics. ..."
"... The requirements for receiving Sanders' support and that of "Our Revolution," the political operation formed by many of his 2016 campaign staffers, are not very demanding. The self-proclaimed socialist does not demand that his favored candidates oppose capitalism or pay lip service to socialism -- and almost none of them do. ..."
"... In other words, Sanders uses the image of radicalism and opposition to the status quo that surrounded his 2016 campaign to lend support to very conventional, pro-capitalist candidates, whose policies are well within the mainstream of the Democratic Party -- a party whose leadership has embraced most of the measures cited above, secure in the knowledge that it will not keep a single one of these promises and can always blame the Republicans for blocking them. ..."
"... In Michigan, Sanders spoke at rallies for El-Sayed, and his supporters were quite active on college campuses and on social media, mobilizing support among young people. But as in 2016, there was little effort to reach the working class, particularly minority workers in Detroit, Flint, Saginaw and other devastated industrial cities. ..."
"... Sanders and the supposedly "left" Democrats he promotes all fervently support the trade union bureaucracy, which is working overtime this year to prevent strikes by angry and militant workers -- as at United Parcel Service -- and to isolate, terminate and betray them where they break out -- as with the state-wide teachers' strikes in West Virginia, Oklahoma and Arizona earlier this year. ..."
"... Under these conditions, the Democratic Party is not a party that can or will can carry out social reforms in order to save capitalism, as in Roosevelt's day. It is a party that will carry out the dictates of the ruling class for war and austerity while using the services of "left" politicians like Sanders to confuse and disorient working people and youth. ..."
Michigan gubernatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed went down to a double-digit defeat Tuesday in the Democratic primary, overwhelmed
by the near-unanimous support of the Democratic Party establishment for former state senator Gretchen Whitmer. The daughter of
former Blue Cross/Blue Shield CEO Richard Whitmer won every county in the state and will go on to face Republican State Attorney
General Bill Schuette in the November general election.
In a tweet to his supporters, El-Sayed declared: "The victory was not ours today, but the work continues. Congratulations to
@gretchenwhitmer on her primary win. Tomorrow we continue the path toward justice, equity and sustainability."
When tomorrow came, however, that "path" led to a unity luncheon at which El-Sayed and the third candidate in the race, self-funding
millionaire Shri Thanedar, pledged their full support to Whitmer. "Today we all retool and figure out how we make sure that Bill
Schuette does not become governor. I'm super committed to that," El-Sayed said. "Never has it been more important to have a Democrat
lead state government."
Thus ends another episode in the seemingly interminable serial, "Bernie Sanders Tries, and Fails, to Put a Progressive
Coat of Paint on the Democratic Party." Since he rocketed to political prominence in 2016 in his challenge to Hillary Clinton,
the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, Sanders has played this role again and again.
First, he appeals to the idealism of young people and the economic grievances of working people, claiming to represent
a genuine alternative to the domination of American politics by the oligarchy of "millionaires and billionaires." Then he diverts
those who have responded to his campaign back into the existing political framework, endorsing whatever right-wing hack emerges
from the Democratic wing of the corporate-controlled two-party system.
In 2016, this involved appealing to his supporters to back Hillary Clinton, the candidate of Wall Street and the military-intelligence
apparatus. The Clinton campaign refused to make the slightest appeal to the working class in order to preserve its support within
corporate America and, in the process, drove millions of desperate workers to stay home on Election Day or vote for Trump, allowing
the billionaire demagogue to eke out an Electoral College victory.
In the 2018 campaign, where he is not a candidate except for reelection in Vermont, Sanders has endorsed and campaigned
for a number of supposedly left-wing candidates in the Democratic primaries, always based on the same pretense, that the Democratic
Party can be reformed and pushed to the left, that this party of corporate America can be transformed into an instrument of social
reform and popular politics.
The requirements for receiving Sanders' support and that of "Our Revolution," the political operation formed by many of
his 2016 campaign staffers, are not very demanding. The self-proclaimed socialist does not demand that his favored candidates
oppose capitalism or pay lip service to socialism -- and almost none of them do.
Their platforms usually include such demands as raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, implementing "Medicare for all," interpreted
in various fashions, establishing free public college education for families earning less than $150,000 a year, and enacting universal
pre-K education. They usually promise not to accept corporate money and to support campaign finance reform.
These Sanders-backed candidates, like Sanders himself in 2016, have very little to say about foreign policy and make no appeal
whatsoever to the deep anti-war sentiment among American youth and workers. There is no discussion of Trump's threats of nuclear
war. As for trade war, most, like Sanders himself, embrace the economic nationalism that is the foundation of Trump's trade policy.
In other words, Sanders uses the image of radicalism and opposition to the status quo that surrounded his 2016 campaign
to lend support to very conventional, pro-capitalist candidates, whose policies are well within the mainstream of the Democratic
Party -- a party whose leadership has embraced most of the measures cited above, secure in the knowledge that it will not keep
a single one of these promises and can always blame the Republicans for blocking them.
In Michigan, Sanders spoke at rallies for El-Sayed, and his supporters were quite active on college campuses and on social
media, mobilizing support among young people. But as in 2016, there was little effort to reach the working class, particularly
minority workers in Detroit, Flint, Saginaw and other devastated industrial cities.
Sanders and the supposedly "left" Democrats he promotes all fervently support the trade union bureaucracy, which is working
overtime this year to prevent strikes by angry and militant workers -- as at United Parcel Service -- and to isolate, terminate
and betray them where they break out -- as with the state-wide teachers' strikes in West Virginia, Oklahoma and Arizona earlier
this year.
The real attitude of Sanders and El-Sayed to genuine socialism was made clear when they sought to ban supporters of the Socialist
Equality Party and SEP candidate for Congress Niles Niemuth from distributing leaflets and holding discussions outside campaign
rallies for El-Sayed.
This year, Sanders has been campaigning with a sidekick, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of
America who won the Democratic congressional nomination in the 12th District of New York, defeating incumbent Representative Joseph
Crowley, the fourth-ranking member of the Democratic leadership in the House.
Ocasio-Cortez campaigned for El-Sayed in Michigan and also for several congressional candidates, including Brent Welder in
Kansas and Cori Bush in Missouri, who also went down to defeat on August 7. Like Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez claims that the Democratic
Party can be transformed into a genuinely progressive "party of the people" that will implement social reforms.
But at age 28, Ocasio-Cortez has less practice in performing the song-and-dance of pretending to be independent of the Democratic
Party establishment while working to give it a left cover and prop it up. She was clumsier in her execution, attracting notice
as she walked back a campaign demand to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and sought to downplay her previous
criticism of Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people.
After her campaign swing through the Midwest, Ocasio-Cortez traveled to the Netroots Nation conference in New Orleans, an annual
assemblage of the left flank of the Democratic Party. She told her adoring audience that her policies were not radical at all,
but firmly in the Democratic mainstream. "It's time for us to remember that universal college education, trade school, a federal
jobs guarantee, a universal basic income were not all proposed in 2016," she said. "They were proposed in 1940, by the Democratic
president of the United States."
The reference to Franklin D. Roosevelt was inadvertently revealing. Roosevelt adopted reform policies, including many of those
suggested by the social democrats of his day such as Norman Thomas. He was no socialist, but rather a clever and conscious bourgeois
politician who enacted limited reforms in a deliberate effort to save the capitalist system.
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez likewise seek to save the capitalist system, but under conditions where no such reforms are possible.
The American ruling class no longer dominates the world economy, but is beset by powerful rivals in both Europe and Asia. It is
pouring resources into the military to prepare for world war. And at home, even the most modest measures run up against the intransigent
opposition of the super-rich, who control both parties and demand even greater wealth for themselves at the expense of working
people.
Under these conditions, the Democratic Party is not a party that can or will can carry out social reforms in order to save
capitalism, as in Roosevelt's day. It is a party that will carry out the dictates of the ruling class for war and austerity while
using the services of "left" politicians like Sanders to confuse and disorient working people and youth.
Thus, at Netroots Nation, the assembled "left" Democrats gave a loud ovation to Ocasio-Cortez, but also to Gina Ortiz Jones,
the Democratic nominee in the 23rd Congressional District of Texas, also young, nonwhite and female. Ortiz Jones has another characteristic,
however. She is a career Air Force intelligence officer who was deployed to Iraq, South Sudan and Libya -- all the scenes of US-instigated
bloodbaths.
Ortiz Jones is one of nearly three dozen such candidates chosen to represent the Democratic Party in contested congressional
districts around the country. Another such candidate is Elissa Slotkin, who won the Democratic nomination Tuesday in Michigan's
Eighth Congressional District. Slotkin served three tours with the CIA in Baghdad before being promoted to high-level positions
in the Pentagon and the Obama-era National Security Council.
The fake leftism of Bernie Sanders in alliance with the CIA: That is the formula for the Democratic Party in 2018.
"... In 2004, the historian Walter McDougall concluded that as early as the Civil War, America was a "nation of hustlers." During Reconstruction, Walt Whitman wrote that "genuine belief" seemed to have left America. "The underlying principles of the States," Whitman said, "are not honestly believed in, nor is humanity itself believed in." ..."
"... Accumulation of capital is the dominant, even definitional, American idea, which is why Calvin Coolidge famously remarked, "The chief business of the American people is business." ..."
"... Christopher Lasch had a slightly more prosaic way of measuring the pain of progress. "The triumph of corporate capitalism," he wrote, "has created a society characterized by a high degree of uniformity, which nevertheless lacks the cohesiveness and sense of shared experience that distinguish a truly integrated community from an atomistic society." ..."
"... Rather than a "marketplace of ideas," the United States is a mere marketplace, and just like at any store in the shopping mall, whatever fails to sell is removed from the shelves. Today's trend is tomorrow's garbage. ..."
"... We focus on immigration because it is a clear threat to the American tradition with clear and obvious solutions. ..."
"... While I appreciate that the writer is trying to link immigration with big business and culture, the argument as a whole doesn't come together. He needs to define what he means by "corporate capitalism," "identity," and "culture"; otherwise, this is nothing more than a incoherent rant. Is he talking about popular entertainment, the arts, academic institutions, civil society, religion? How exactly is the existence of a Walmart or the popularity of smartphones to blame? Quoting Walt Whitman and Calvin Coolidge doesn't really get us anywhere. ..."
"... Yes of course a commercial culture is prosperous, dynamic, cosmopolitan, rootless, greedy, materialistic, cynical, plebian and vulgar. And yes, of course in a market-dominated culture, all other systems of indoctrination (i.e. church and state) are constantly on the defensive. ..."
"... That is not 'no' culture; it is a highly distinctive culture. It tends to neglect the high arts and excel at the low arts; it favors novelty over tradition, spectacle over reflection, passion over balance. Again, 'twas ever thus; as is the inevitable cooling of these innovations to new formalisms for the next generation to rebel against, and enrich. ..."
"... So, what should replace corporate capitalism -- socialism, distributism, non-corporate capitalism, what? ..."
Donald Trump, during a recent stop on his "Anarchy in the UK" tour, argued that the mass influx of immigrants into Europe is causing
Great Britain and other nations to "lose their culture." The fear of cultural dilution and transformation as a consequence of shifting
demographics is widespread, and it resonates in the United States, too, especially among those who support the current president.
Stephen Bannon, Tucker Carlson, and other popular right-wing figures have warned of threats to national identity in an American
context, contending that Mexicans will not assimilate and that Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy and secular governance.
Liberals and libertarians often respond by recalling the long tradition of assimilation in American history, along with the outrage
that often accompanies new arrivals. Nearly every ethnic group, from the Italians to the Chinese, has been the target of political
and social hostility. It is an old story, but one worth telling, and it is an old debate, but one worth having. Border sovereignty,
even to someone like me who probably favors more liberal immigration laws than most TAC readers, is a legitimate issue and
not to be easily dismissed.
The current conversation about traditionalism, national identity, and cultural preservation, however, is so narrow to render it
counterproductive and oblivious. For those truly worried about the conservation of traditional culture, to focus solely, or even
primarily, on immigration is the equivalent of a gunshot victim rushing to the barber for a haircut.
Rather than asking whether American culture is at risk of ruination, it is more salient to inquire, after decades of commercialization,
Madison Avenue advertising onslaughts, the erasure of regional differences, and the "Bowling Alone" collapse of community, whether
America even has a culture.
In 2004, the historian Walter McDougall concluded that as early as the Civil War, America was a "nation of hustlers." During
Reconstruction, Walt Whitman wrote that "genuine belief" seemed to have left America. "The underlying principles of the States,"
Whitman said, "are not honestly believed in, nor is humanity itself believed in."
Prophesizing with his pen that democratic structures and procedures would prove insufficient to cultivate a truly democratic culture,
Whitman likened the American obsession with commercial conquest and pecuniary gain to a "magician's serpent that ate up all the other
serpents." Americans, Whitman warned, were dedicating themselves to creating a "thoroughly-appointed body with no soul."
When Whitman wrote the essay in question -- "Democratic Vistas" -- the United States had open borders and immigrants freely entered
the "new world" for reasons of freedom and financial ambition. Even if they attended churches in their native languages and lived
in ethnic enclaves, they often found that they could matriculate into the mainstream of Americana through pursuit of the "American
dream," that is, hope for monetary triumph. Accumulation of capital is the dominant, even definitional, American idea, which
is why Calvin Coolidge famously remarked, "The chief business of the American people is business."
Capitalism is a formidable engine, enabling society to advance and allowing for high standards of living. But to construct an
entire culture around what Coolidge identified as "buying, selling, investing, and prospering," especially when capitalism becomes
corporate and cronyist, is to steadily empty a culture of its meaning and purpose.
Few were as celebratory over the potential for meaning and purpose in American culture as Whitman, who drew profound inspiration
from America's natural beauty and regional diversity. So what force was most responsible for the widespread desecration of America's
own Garden of Eden? All arguments about immigration aside, changing demographics did not transform the country into the planetary
capital of asphalt and replace its rich terrain with the endless suburban sprawl of office complexes, strip malls, and parking lots.
The reduction of the American character to a giant Walmart and the mutation of the American landscape, outside of metropolitan areas,
to the same cloned big box stores and corporate chains is not a consequence of immigration.
The degradation of the American arts and the assault on history and civics in public school and even higher education curricula
is not the result of immigrants flooding American streets. Amy Chua has argued quite the opposite when it comes to America's increasingly
imbecilic and obscene pop culture. Many immigrant families try to keep their children away from the influence of reality television,
the anti-intellectual reverence for celebrities, and the vigilant commercialization of every aspect of life.
The same cultural killer is responsible for all the assaults on American identity visible as daily routine, from environmental
destruction to the endangerment of independent retailers and "mom and pop" shops. That culprit is corporate capitalism. It is a large
entity that, like any killer, justifies its death toll with dogmatic claims of ideology. "Progress," everyone from the owner of the
local diner to the out-of-work art teacher is told, has no room for you.
In his song "The West End," John Mellencamp gives an angry account of the disappearance of a small town:
For my whole life
I've lived down in the West End
But it sure has changed here
Since I was a kid
It's worse now
Look what progress did
Someone lined their pockets
I don't know who that is
Progress, as Mellencamp succinctly captures in song, often comes at someone else's expense, and translates to enrichment for the
few who benefit.
Christopher Lasch had a slightly more prosaic way of measuring the pain of progress. "The triumph of corporate capitalism,"
he wrote, "has created a society characterized by a high degree of uniformity, which nevertheless lacks the cohesiveness and sense
of shared experience that distinguish a truly integrated community from an atomistic society."
The irony Lasch describes is tragic. A culture of corporate capitalism demands conformity, and most people cooperate. But because
its center is hollow, few people feel any sense of connection to each other, even as they parrot the same values. It is no wonder
that most forms of rebellion in the United States are exhibitions of stylized individualism -- inspiring theater and often enlivening
to observe, but politically fruitless.
Rather than a "marketplace of ideas," the United States is a mere marketplace, and just like at any store in the shopping
mall, whatever fails to sell is removed from the shelves. Today's trend is tomorrow's garbage.
Those concerned about tradition and cultural longevity can lament immigration and condemn "open borders." But if they are serious
about American identity, they should begin and end with the villainous corporate enterprise that has waged war on it since the late
19th century.
Whatever culture remains in this country can often be found in the places where people still maintain at least a symbolic link
with their immigrant roots.
Many of the immigrants came to the dream of America believing the myth. That they could be anything hard work would bring them,
regardless of rank or class of birth, title, family name, or religious prejudice. For the most part, this was sufficiently true
that they prospered. They became "us". This [perhaps naive] belief in the dream made most of them, and their children, our most
loyal and law-abiding citizens.
It was indeed the robber barons of the 19th century that pushed us down the path of self-destruction.
I feel vindicated. Some years ago, Rod Dreher pilloried me for being obsessed with how destructive corporate capitalism had become
to American culture, values and social cohesion. I think his epiphany came, when supposedly "conservative" big business turned
out to be on the other side in the culture wars.
I hear you, Mr. Masciotra. I'm not especially fond of large for-profit corporations. But they wouldn't occupy monopolistic positions
and enjoy rapacious profits and latitude for enormous misdeeds if the public were firmly opposed to that sort of thing. Americans
generally love a winner, even if the "winning" is fraudulent or coerced, as long as they personally aren't coerced or defrauded.
It's all about the money, or at least the belief that the money might come.
Thank you for this refreshing piece which points the finger to a place where those on the left and right can actually make a difference.
Of course, making any changes will require dismantling some the mythology of the American prosperity gospel, but it starts with
great articles like these.
The system didn't become corrupt in the 80s, it's been that way for much longer. And there have been hustlers and " well meaning
" Corporate yes men making dishonest money off of their compatriots for centuries (everywhere, I might add).
So the question is, do we want to continue to encourage this behavior or do we dare to dream of another reality ?
Well crafted and thoughtful. Years ago, Walker Percy observed that America was unique among nations in that it was simultaneously
the most religious country and the most materialistic country in the world. Fast forward to 2018 and while religion appears to
be in decline "getting and spending" continues apace.
Agreed but lets be honest with ourselves. We have to go where the kindling is dry and abundant to start a proverbial fire. America
does have a culture. To see that all one need do is visit Nashville, the Ozarks or farm country in nebraska. Where there are still
people the culture survives. That is a stoical dispensation. The culture does go back to Hellenism but Americana does have it's
own ways. Go visit Europe for any amount of time or dare I say it Asia and American culture becomes obvious.
Thanksgiving is a uniquely American holiday that, in my opinion, best represents American culture and how it is different from
all else.
Corporate Capitalism has always been American culture and life. Basic Taylorism on the assembly line was over 100 years in which
men spent 50 -- 60 hours a week performing a single task very quickly.
What is American art? Would we consider Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley great American art and music? I do but the original reaction
of older Americans was 1950s R&R was complete degradation of music. (Some of the racial language was very colorful by good citizens.)
Or what Star Wars or Godfather. Or maybe the modern Marvel 'universe' has a degree of great pop art.
Certainly well argued but for one important element that has been omitted; one ingredient which bundles everything together into
one integrated picture. That necessary item can be summed with these two words, "buy in." Corporate capitalism would never hold
sway except for the acquiescence of the populace which wanting the quantity of commodities had gathered in the shopping malls
but now remain isolated in the front of their computer screens or cell phones.
Rather than there being the tyranny of the marketplace bringing forth this dominance of goods over people and the legerdemain
of monetized value displacing our organic relationship to the land, it is this anonymous accommodation to the denigration of the
high arts and the erosion to our culture which is the ultimate culprit.
In a word, it is the tyranny of the masses which pulls apart any endeavor at creating and sustaining a hierarchy of value rewarding
all enterprise which appeases public taste by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Fore it is through this tyranny that
capitalism has built its avaricious edifice.
Suffice it to say that the target "corporate capitalism" remains the straw man, that ethereal and empty concept devoid of blood
and sinews. Where then does one find the source to this dilemma but in that which is of both flesh and blood namely humanity.
The problem lies with the populace.
What is called for here is an awakening but not through a reckoning as that would only cause humanity to roll over and return
to its slumber. And if crisis and collapse serves not the catalyst for such an awakening what then will provide such an arousal?
Until such a time, we remain asleep and the institutions of our dream life will rule us.
Corporate capitalism is not the source. It is not even at the source. We are the source until such a time as we awaken.
excellent points. oh, and ironically (or not), from the Middle Ages (Europe) through the 19th century (American West), it was
not uncommon for a barber to also perform ad hoc surgery/medical procedures, or to share space with the town's 'doctor', so in
some instances it was prudent to go to the barbershop if shot
"Liberals and libertarians often respond by recalling the long tradition of assimilation in American history, along with
the outrage that often accompanies new arrivals."
Apples and oranges. The welfare state didn't exist then, so it was assimilate or fail. 1/3 of all culturally similar to existing
US culture Europeans returned to Europe.
Today, "Press 2 for Spanish", the welfare state (give birth on US soil to a US citizen for family access to benefits [or steal
an ID], then chain migrate the rest of your family), the Internet, and identity politics discourage assimilation and allow extremely
large cultural enclaves which are politically divisive as pointed out MANY years ago by the not exactly "right wing" former WH
press secretary for LBJ, Bill Moyers, in one of his many excellent documentaries.
We focus on immigration because it is a clear threat to the American tradition with clear and obvious solutions. The
author paints this focus of the Trumpian and dissident right as exclusionary, but it is not; at the same time arguing for his
own exclusionary anti-capitalist platform. Quite frankly, I don't know what it's doing on TAC, but I will take the time to respond.
The criticism of anti-immigration on the right is a straw man argument. The dissident right is not merely anti-immigration,
it is more broadly anti-multiracialist. Many understand and agree with the author on the problems of capitalism, but also see
racial and cultural integration as an additional threat to the American tradition. His point about how the immigration (into America)
didn't cause the hellspace of suburbia is true, since only up until 1965 did we make sure immigrants were white and could integrate
well into society. However, he ignores the history of black empancipation and subsequent desegregation that led to massive internal
migration from the South into cities like Detroit, Chicago, and Baltimore. There weren't always majority black, my friend. The
very real problems that this internal migration presented to ethnically homogenous, culturally rich, urban white neighborhoods
in the 20th century were the driving force behind the suburban sprawl. We colloquially refer to this phenomenon as "white flight,"
and many on the left and the right see it as unjustified "racism."
The curious reader would do well to investigate this claim to see if maybe white flight might have actually been very justified,
maybe a gross historical injustice was done to those now ethnically cleansed communities, and maybe racial desegregation is partly
to blame for the author's perceived lack of (white) culture in America.
Thank you for reading.
"Capitalism" is cronyist by nature. "Capitalism" itself requires an extensive set of laws that benefit some economic arrangements
over others. Now the reason for this is because nations need development, and that means they need capital, and that means they
need to create laws that ensure that the people who have capital feel willing and confident enough to invest it in that country.
But once you've opened the pandora's box of bankruptcy laws, limit liability, and other "terms and conditions" of investment
and capital, you're going to have a system that lends itself to cronyism when you have no other counter-balancing power from labor.
My brilliant iPad just deleted my response. So, quickly, capitalism is partly curable by antitrust and protectionism, but proto-amnesty
mass immigration is not curable, and it more quickly distorts national identity than does capitalism, which takes a very long
time to alter society's frame. Mass immigration does that relatively quickly. Also, immigration has as many rackets as capitalism
does -- for the one, capital gains tax cuts, and for the other, H1-B visas.
only up until 1965 did we make sure immigrants were white and could integrate well into society
The immigration act of 1924 which choked off most immigration was about reducing white immigration. It didn't actually affect
Mexican immigration. The largest beneficiaries the post-1965 immigration laws have been Asian immigrants who everyone argues integrate
perfectly well.
ethnically homogenous, culturally rich, urban white neighborhoods
Any of the residents of those neighborhoods in Chicago would have been quick to deny they were "ethnically homogeneous" because
they would have pointed out how they were mixed neighborhoods of Greeks, Poles, Slovenes, etc.
Its about time someone on this site placed at least 50% of the blame when it comes to demise of the American Middle Class as well
as ' culture ' -- ( such as it is seeing we have no well defined codified ' culture ' because we are and have been since the beginning
so diverse ) -- on the American Corpocracy .
But the fact is the other 50% of the blame must fall firmly upon the shoulders of the greedy speculators and investors convinced
every year should be a profitable year and they should of received next year's profits yesterday
Along with the American Consumer addicted to cheap goods 60% of which they have no need for nor ever use .
So what is the answer ? First we need to move towards a Responsible Capitalism rather than the Ayn Rand addled narcissist Hyper-
Capitalism rapidly approaching Anarcho -- Capitalism we're currently immersed in from the Oval Office on down
Second the American Consumer needs to accept paying what something is worth .. be it service , goods or food .. rather than
thinking the entire world is a discounted oyster at their beck and call
And Third .. with the onus once again falling firmly upon the shoulders of the discount addled American consumer . We need
to get over the theater of convenience shopping ( online ) and get back to supporting local businesses who pay taxes to our local
community and are in fact our neighbors
Problem is all of the above solutions require both compromise , authentic thought as well as discernment
None of which ( for the most part ) currently exists in this over polarized ' Collective Stupidity of America ' zeitgeist we're
firmly entrenched in
Lecture over . Donuts , bagels and coffee in the virtual break room .
English colonials brought to the American continent both English Law -- based on private property -- which has turned into Corporate
Market Capitalism (Citizens United, eh?), and the Enlightenment idea of the centrality of Individual Freedom, which has turned
into the rank Individualism of our current Me-Myself-and-I cultural ethos.
Democracy and a healthy culture, in my view, depend upon holding in balance the needs/desires/rights of both the Individual
and the broader Common Good. There now seems to be little left of a Social Covenant that includes all Americans, which is central
to a viable culture.
I'll say this when it comes it integration: people in the past weren't forced to integrate in the least. A friend of mine has
a grandmother that speaks Russian, only Russian, and no English. As long as she remained in her little enclave in the US, why
need to speak English? In my native Cincinnati the "Over the Rhine" neighborhood had beer gardens, German schools, German newspapers,
and German street signs. Only a fire and I am sure some Progressive 'encouragement' broke the neighborhood up.
White in America use to mean Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. To be Wet was to be Catholic and to be Catholic was to be an immigrant.
Dry was honest, hard working, and true. Wet was disorderly, murderous, and poor. Irish weren't white, Poles weren't white, and
the Italians most certainly weren't white.
My question is why are we poo pooing Latina values? Family centric, conservative, Catholic/Christian, and hard working (come
on, either immigrants are stealing our jobs or they are welfare leeches, pick one!). Their food is delicious and the music is
fun.
The latina vote should be the Republican vote if they would just get over themselves. Spanish is just as much a Romance language
as French or Italian. Get with the program, declare them white, and let's enjoy a super majority with taco Tuesday.
@BradD
Nothing is necessarily wrong with "Latin" values per se . The problem is with massive amounts of Illigeal immigration coming all
from one area. I'm sorry but integration and assimilation is extremely important, just look at Europe for an idea of what happens
to countries that don't integrate immigrants well.
Also, if "Latin" values are great and desirable then why would such a massive amount of people be bum rushing our southern
borders?
Can you please tell me one example of a country in Latin America that has been successful for an extended period of time? I
cannot even think of one. When people come in small waves they can integrate and learn the value of our institutions, laws, freedom,
liberty ect They basically become American w/ Latin heritage. When they come en mass, they keep their societies values a lot longer
and stay in enclaves a lot longer as well. As an example not too long ago I was in the southern part of Houston Texas and the
Galveston area and I cannot tell you the number of cars, houses and business that have the Mexican flag up instead of the USA
flag! That is all kinds of wrong to me. If Mexico is so great, than they should just move on back and set up shop there.
Ding, ding, ding
We have a winner here. America is promoted as merchant culture, bread or bombs. The peoole termed colonists were largely corporate
sponsored. So when people continue to arrive, they figure starting their store or buying the "right" things is American culture.
And for everything else, they just say, "We have our own, thank you."
While I appreciate that the writer is trying to link immigration with big business and culture, the argument as a whole doesn't
come together. He needs to define what he means by "corporate capitalism," "identity," and "culture"; otherwise, this is nothing
more than a incoherent rant. Is he talking about popular entertainment, the arts, academic institutions, civil society, religion?
How exactly is the existence of a Walmart or the popularity of smartphones to blame? Quoting Walt Whitman and Calvin Coolidge
doesn't really get us anywhere.
I would be happy to defend free enterprise in America and would even credit the business and marketing practices in America
for inculcating customer service as a uniquely American trait. You can tell you're in America when people act politely and aim
to serve you -- even illiterate young people know this. Go to any country in Europe, and you'll find a whole staff of people from
the airport, to the stores, to the hotel frowning at you for having the nerve to have want of their services. And that's just
a side benefit. The main thing business does is finance the creation of culture at all levels. Any civilization's golden age followed
from societal prosperity, not from a more democratic and tasteful distribution of wealth.
If we're talking about the arts and influence, America is still the most dynamic in the world, being a great producer of movies,
music, books, and all the rest. Even the existence of a site like TAC should cause one to reflect on just how nice it is to live
in a country that permits open discourse and values quality writing and ideas -- and for no cost at all to the reader. We can
despair all we like of the decline of the Oscars, or the stupidity of modern art, or the pointlessness of postmodernist ideology,
but it says something that we can even have this conversation. I'm not sure other cultures, outside those in elite circles, even
think about this stuff.
Wow, something Fran Macadam and I agree on! Surely there is enough there for some bright politician to make a central platform
plank out of?
A number of commenters point out that this isn't just imposed on us, we also embrace it (or just succumbed to the propaganda/advertising).
Fixing the problem will require efforts to curb corporate power as well cultural change from the ground up to embrace real values
beyond just capitalism.
Re: Today, "Press 2 for Spanish", the welfare state (give birth on US soil to a US citizen for family access to benefits [or steal
an ID], then chain migrate the rest of your family), the Internet, and identity politics discourage assimilation
The evidence, notably from language learning, shows that today's immigrants assimilate at about the same rate others did in
the past. And yes, you could hear other languages in the US in the past also. There were places in Detroit I remember in childhood
where all the signs were in Polish. Going farther back 19th century nativists were horrified that entire communities in the Midwest
spoke German. Early on, our eighth president, Martin Van Buren, grew up speaking Dutch in the Hudson Valley.
As for the welfare state, well, there were lots of mutual aid societies which provided help -- we were not a social Darwinist
nation. And don't forget the Civil War pensions to which a significant fraction of the population was entitled.
Mr. Mascriota tells us: "Border sovereignty, even to someone like me who probably favors more liberal immigration laws than most
TAC readers, is a legitimate issue and not to be easily dismissed."
And yet, Mr. Mascriotra, last Sept 9th (2017) at "Salon" you wrote an article entitled "The case for open borders: Stop defending
DACA recipients while condemning the 'sins' of their parents":
"As an English instructor and tutor, I've met young men and women from Ethiopia, China and Nigeria, and I have taught students
whose parents emigrated from Mexico to the United States 'illegally.' If I were an insecure coward afraid to compete in a multicultural
society, and convinced my future children would become deadbeats without the full force of white privilege to catapult them into
success, I would advocate for the deportation of immigrant families similar to those of my students, and I would repeat mindless
bromides like 'America First' and 'Build that Wall.' One of the costs of racism, xenophobia, or any form of pathetic provincialism
is that freezes the prejudicial person in a permanent state of mediocrity President Donald Trump's decision to end DACA, and his
demand that Congress 'fix the' nonexistent 'immigration problem,' demonstrates a stunning streak of sadism, projecting yet another
signal to his rabid and anti-American base of closed-minded losers If the 'real Americans' are afraid to compete with immigrants
for jobs, prestige, or cultural authority, they only indict themselves as weak, self-entitled and easy to panic. In a word, 'snowflakes'.
A bureaucratic permission slip is trivial compared to the imperative of human freedom -- freedom that should transcend what are
largely artificial borders."
@Mr. Soprano: I think Baltimore was a special case as a Southern city (which it historically was up to maybe WW1, maybe WW2.)
Don't know its demographics pre-WW2 but I'd bet dollars to donuts it was substantially more black pre-WW1 than Chicago, which
was nearly all white up to about 1915 even though it was founded by a Francophone Black man Jean Baptiste Pont du Sable.
David Masciotra: Not sure what I think about the ironmongery in your left ear, but this piece is excellent. My only criticism
-- mild at that -- concerns the analogy in your third paragraph:
" to focus [our worries] on immigration is the equivalent of a gunshot victim rushing to the barber for a haircut."
This article is timely, but only because its complaints are perennial. 'Twas ever thus.
Yes of course a commercial culture is prosperous, dynamic, cosmopolitan, rootless, greedy, materialistic, cynical, plebian
and vulgar. And yes, of course in a market-dominated culture, all other systems of indoctrination (i.e. church and state) are
constantly on the defensive.
That is not 'no' culture; it is a highly distinctive culture. It tends to neglect the high arts and excel at the low arts;
it favors novelty over tradition, spectacle over reflection, passion over balance. Again, 'twas ever thus; as is the inevitable
cooling of these innovations to new formalisms for the next generation to rebel against, and enrich.
A similar cycle applies to demographics. Today's scary outsider becomes tomorrow's stodgy insider, after they buy their way
in. I therefore second BradD's motion to declare Hispanics to be white; and Asians too.
All those disturbed by demographic transitions should contemplate this truism: that by the middle of next century every man,
woman and child now alive shall be dead, and replaced by people not born yet.
This includes you, which makes it personal. What a way to run a world! But if you can put up with 100% population turnover
by 2150, then language and skin tint seems (to me at least) a trivial detail.
***
Self-critique: The preceding analysis has a flaw, namely that this is not simply a 'commercial' culture; it is a 'capitalistic'
culture, which is the least free form of commercial culture.
Go to any country in Europe, and you'll find a whole staff of people from the airport, to the stores, to the hotel frowning
at you for having the nerve to have want of their services.
Americans, in my experience, mistake lack of slavish over-friendliness as rudeness. I have realized this because I am a fairly
reserved kind of person, and "reserved" gets coded as "aloof" or "snobbish."
European retail still follows the "sole proprietor" model of service -- it's assumed that by shopping there you're effectively
entering someone else's home, and you must act accordingly. In the US, lacking a formal class system, the retail experience is
one coded towards allowing the customer to feel as though he is a noble with servants to attend on him that he can order around.
The store is selling that experience.
Related to this is why middle class and upper middle Americans are so upset by the DMV and the Post Office. It's the only place
where money does not buy them any better service, and they cannot use the threat of talking to the manager to have the service
personnel fired in order to get what they want.
America's customer service culture is probably one of our most culturally dysfunctional aspects, all rooted in middle class
insecurity.
If this were actually, a Conservative website, that valued Western ideals? Do you really believe such excuses or something outside
of myself like the "devil made me do it" will pass mustard with "God" or "St. Peter?"
I strongly endorse Jon's (much earlier comment). It is not corporations that ruin culture but we who demand what they give. Corporations
are just a convenient funding vehicle to produce goods. Yes they often mass market them. But it is we who like the marketing.
If we were appalled, or turned away and it ignored it, they would change. In the end, when the spiritual life is subordinate to
the material, our appetites and the corporations that serve them are a guaranteed outcome.
late to this thread but what is American identity? How is it different from let's say a Danish identity? I have a good number
of coworkers from other countries: Asians, South Americans, some Germans or Swedes. When I visit them, do you think I find their
homes, their families (or their priorities for that matter) different from that of born-here American? If so, I must have missed
it
Auguste Mayrat hit the nail on the head. This article is garbage. It's sad that so many commentators agree with it. America is
full of culture: pro and college sports, movies, TV shows, technology, books, music of all kinds all consumed throughout the world,
as people from all countries love and admire American culture. Find a country that produces more culture than America. You can't.
Churches and schools proliferate here. What's so bad about corporations? If you own an iPhone or a television or a car or shop
at the mall, or ride a plane or go on a cruise, you're a hypocrite to be against corporations. Corporations provide goods and
services that people want, not to mention jobs. The author of this piece is an intellectual lightweight, and those who agree with
his views are the type of blind sheep that communists find useful. The author neither specified what's bad about corporations,
nor provides any solutions. Can believe TAC publishes such drivel.
"National Socialism made use of various means in dealing with various classes, and made
various promises depending upon the social class it needed at a particular time. In the spring
of 1933, for example, it was the revolutionary character of the Nazi movement that was
given particular emphasis in Nazi propaganda in an effort to win over the industrial workers,
and the first of May was "celebrated," but only after the aristocracy had been appeased in
Potsdam. To ascribe the success solely to political swindle, however, would be to become
entangled in a contradiction with the basic idea of freedom, and would practically exclude the
possibility of a social revolution. What must be answered is: Why do the masses allow
themselves to be politically swindled? The masses had every possibility of evaluating the
propaganda of the various parties. Why didn't they see that, while promising the workers that
the owners of the means of production would be disappropriated, Hitler promised the capitalists that
their rights would be protected?"
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"... The identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. ..."
"... Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment. Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best. ..."
"... Precious time is spent fighting against those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or 'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping ..."
"... It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism. ..."
"... There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing thought, it is anathema to the very concept. ..."
"... 'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity politics. ..."
"... The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment when in reality they strengthen it. ..."
"... Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in charge keep the masses divided and distracted. ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
"... Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra. ..."
The
identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy
that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. A core principle of
socialism is the idea of an overarching supra-national solidarity that unites the international
working class and overrides any factor that might divide it, such as nation, race, or gender.
Workers of all nations are partners, having equal worth and responsibility in a struggle
against those who profit from their brain and muscle.
Capitalism, especially in its most evolved, exploitative and heartless form - imperialism -
has wronged certain groups of people more than others. Colonial empires tended to reserve their
greatest brutality for subjugated peoples whilst the working class of these imperialist nations
fared better in comparison, being closer to the crumbs that fell from the table of empire. The
international class struggle aims to liberate all people everywhere from the drudgery of
capitalism regardless of their past or present degree of oppression. The phrase 'an injury
to one is an injury to all' encapsulates this mindset and conflicts with the idea of
prioritising the interests of one faction of the working class over the entire collective.
Since the latter part of the 20th century, a liberally-inspired tendency has taken root
amongst the Left (in the West at least) that encourages departure from a single identity based
on class in favour of multiple identities based upon one's gender, sexuality, race or any other
dividing factor. Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the
shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment.
Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best.
At the time of writing there are apparently over
70 different gender options in the West, not to mention numerous sexualities - the
traditional LGBT acronym has thus far grown to LGBTQQIP2SAA
. Adding race to the mix results in an even greater number of possible permutations or
identities. Each subgroup has its own ideology. Precious time is spent fighting against
those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing
pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as
the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement
is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or
'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping "
lesbians'.
The ideology of identity politics asserts that the straight white male is at the apex of the
privilege pyramid, responsible for the oppression of all other groups. His original sin
condemns him to everlasting shame. While it is true that straight white men (as a group) have
faced less obstacles than females, non-straight men or ethnic minorities, the majority of
straight white men, past and present, also struggle to survive from paycheck to paycheck and
are not personally involved in the oppression of any other group. While most of the world's
wealthiest
individuals are Caucasian males, millions of white men exist who are both poor and
powerless. The idea of 'whiteness' is itself an ambiguous concept involving racial profiling.
For example, the Irish, Slavs and Ashkenazi Jews may look white yet have suffered more than
their fair share of famines, occupations and genocides throughout the centuries. The idea of
tying an individual's privilege to their appearance is itself a form of racism dreamed up by
woolly minded, liberal (some might say privileged) 'intellectuals' who would be superfluous in
any socialist society.
Is the middle-class ethnic minority lesbian living in Western Europe more oppressed than the
whitish looking Syrian residing under ISIS occupation? Is the British white working class male
really more privileged than a middle class woman from the same society? Stereotyping based on
race, gender or any other factor only leads to alienation and animosity. How can there be unity
amongst the Left if we are only loyal to ourselves and those most like us? Some 'white' men who
feel the Left has nothing to offer them have decided to play the identity politics game in
their search of salvation and have drifted towards supporting Trump (a billionaire with whom
they have nothing in common) or far-right movements, resulting in further alienation, animosity
and powerlessness which in turn only strengthens the position of the top 1%. People around the
world are more divided by class than any other factor.
It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than
to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism.
Fighting oppression through identity politics is at best a lazy, perverse and fetishistic form
of the class struggle led by mostly liberal, middle class and tertiary-educated activists who
understand little of left-wing political theory. At worst it is yet another tool used by the
top 1% to divide the other 99% into 99 or 999 different competing groups who are too
preoccupied with fighting their own little corner to challenge the status quo. It is ironic
that one of the major donors to the faux-left identity politics movement is the privileged
white cisgender male billionaire
George Soros , whose NGOs helped orchestrate the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine that gave
way to the emergence of far right and neo-nazi movements: the kind of people who believe in
racial superiority and do not look kindly on diversity.
There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist
thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal
culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics
have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing
thought, it is anathema to the very concept.
'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury
to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted
identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from
colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that
sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity
politics.
The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by
the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab
and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about
political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a
cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment
when in reality they strengthen it.
Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in
charge keep the masses divided and distracted. In the West you are free to choose any
gender or sexuality, transition between these at whim, or perhaps create your own, but you are
not allowed to question the foundations of capitalism or liberalism. Identity politics is the
new opiate of the masses and prevents organised resistance against the system. Segments of the
Western Left even believe such aforementioned 'freedoms' are a bellwether of progress and an
indicator of its cultural superiority, one that warrants export abroad be it softly via NGOs or
more bluntly through colour revolutions and regime change.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the
board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a
guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. Read more
"... The identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. ..."
"... Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment. Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best. ..."
"... Precious time is spent fighting against those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or 'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping ..."
"... It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism. ..."
"... There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing thought, it is anathema to the very concept. ..."
"... 'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity politics. ..."
"... The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment when in reality they strengthen it. ..."
"... Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in charge keep the masses divided and distracted. ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
"... Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra. ..."
The
identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy
that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. A core principle of
socialism is the idea of an overarching supra-national solidarity that unites the international
working class and overrides any factor that might divide it, such as nation, race, or gender.
Workers of all nations are partners, having equal worth and responsibility in a struggle
against those who profit from their brain and muscle.
Capitalism, especially in its most evolved, exploitative and heartless form - imperialism -
has wronged certain groups of people more than others. Colonial empires tended to reserve their
greatest brutality for subjugated peoples whilst the working class of these imperialist nations
fared better in comparison, being closer to the crumbs that fell from the table of empire. The
international class struggle aims to liberate all people everywhere from the drudgery of
capitalism regardless of their past or present degree of oppression. The phrase 'an injury
to one is an injury to all' encapsulates this mindset and conflicts with the idea of
prioritising the interests of one faction of the working class over the entire collective.
Since the latter part of the 20th century, a liberally-inspired tendency has taken root
amongst the Left (in the West at least) that encourages departure from a single identity based
on class in favour of multiple identities based upon one's gender, sexuality, race or any other
dividing factor. Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the
shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment.
Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best.
At the time of writing there are apparently over
70 different gender options in the West, not to mention numerous sexualities - the
traditional LGBT acronym has thus far grown to LGBTQQIP2SAA
. Adding race to the mix results in an even greater number of possible permutations or
identities. Each subgroup has its own ideology. Precious time is spent fighting against
those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing
pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as
the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement
is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or
'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping "
lesbians'.
The ideology of identity politics asserts that the straight white male is at the apex of the
privilege pyramid, responsible for the oppression of all other groups. His original sin
condemns him to everlasting shame. While it is true that straight white men (as a group) have
faced less obstacles than females, non-straight men or ethnic minorities, the majority of
straight white men, past and present, also struggle to survive from paycheck to paycheck and
are not personally involved in the oppression of any other group. While most of the world's
wealthiest
individuals are Caucasian males, millions of white men exist who are both poor and
powerless. The idea of 'whiteness' is itself an ambiguous concept involving racial profiling.
For example, the Irish, Slavs and Ashkenazi Jews may look white yet have suffered more than
their fair share of famines, occupations and genocides throughout the centuries. The idea of
tying an individual's privilege to their appearance is itself a form of racism dreamed up by
woolly minded, liberal (some might say privileged) 'intellectuals' who would be superfluous in
any socialist society.
Is the middle-class ethnic minority lesbian living in Western Europe more oppressed than the
whitish looking Syrian residing under ISIS occupation? Is the British white working class male
really more privileged than a middle class woman from the same society? Stereotyping based on
race, gender or any other factor only leads to alienation and animosity. How can there be unity
amongst the Left if we are only loyal to ourselves and those most like us? Some 'white' men who
feel the Left has nothing to offer them have decided to play the identity politics game in
their search of salvation and have drifted towards supporting Trump (a billionaire with whom
they have nothing in common) or far-right movements, resulting in further alienation, animosity
and powerlessness which in turn only strengthens the position of the top 1%. People around the
world are more divided by class than any other factor.
It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than
to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism.
Fighting oppression through identity politics is at best a lazy, perverse and fetishistic form
of the class struggle led by mostly liberal, middle class and tertiary-educated activists who
understand little of left-wing political theory. At worst it is yet another tool used by the
top 1% to divide the other 99% into 99 or 999 different competing groups who are too
preoccupied with fighting their own little corner to challenge the status quo. It is ironic
that one of the major donors to the faux-left identity politics movement is the privileged
white cisgender male billionaire
George Soros , whose NGOs helped orchestrate the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine that gave
way to the emergence of far right and neo-nazi movements: the kind of people who believe in
racial superiority and do not look kindly on diversity.
There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist
thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal
culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics
have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing
thought, it is anathema to the very concept.
'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury
to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted
identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from
colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that
sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity
politics.
The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by
the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab
and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about
political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a
cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment
when in reality they strengthen it.
Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in
charge keep the masses divided and distracted. In the West you are free to choose any
gender or sexuality, transition between these at whim, or perhaps create your own, but you are
not allowed to question the foundations of capitalism or liberalism. Identity politics is the
new opiate of the masses and prevents organised resistance against the system. Segments of the
Western Left even believe such aforementioned 'freedoms' are a bellwether of progress and an
indicator of its cultural superiority, one that warrants export abroad be it softly via NGOs or
more bluntly through colour revolutions and regime change.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the
board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a
guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. Read more
We are in the point when capitalist system (which presented itself as asocial system that created a large middle class)
converted into it opposite: it is social system that could not deliver that it promised and now want to distract people from this
sad fact.
The Trump adopted tax code is a huge excess: we have 40 year when corporation paid less taxes. This is last moment when they
need another gift. To give them tax is crazy excess that reminding
Louis XV of France. Those gains are going in buying of socks. And real growth is happening elsewhere in the world.
After WW2 there were a couple of decades of "golden age" of US capitalism when in the USA middle class increased considerably.
That was result of pressure of working class devastated by Great Depression. Roosevelt decided that risk is too great and he
introduced social security net. But capitalist class was so enraged that they started fighting it almost immediately after the
New Deal was introduced. Business class was enrages with the level of taxes and counterattacked. Tarp act and McCarthyism were
two successful counterattacks. McCarthyism converting communists and socialists into agents of foreign power.
The quality of jobs are going down. That's why Trump was elected... Which is sad. Giving your finger to the
neoliberal elite does not solve their problem
Notable quotes:
"... Finally, if everybody tries to save themselves (protection), we have a historical example: after the Great Depression that happened in Europe. And most people believe that it was a large part of what led to WWII after WWI, rather than a much saner collective effort. But capitalism doesn't go for collective efforts, it tends to destroy itself by its own mechanisms. There has to be a movement from below. Otherwise, there is no counter force that can take us in another direction. ..."
"... When Trump announced his big tariffs on China, we saw the stock market dropped 700 points in a day. That's a sign of the anxiety, the danger, even in the minds of capitalists, about where this is going. ..."
"... Everything is done to avoid asking the question to what degree the system we have in place - capitalism is its name - is the problem. It's the Russians, it's the immigrants, it's the tariffs, it's anything else, even the pornstar, to distract us from the debate we need to have had that we haven't had for a half a century, which puts us in a very bad place. We've given a free pass to a capitalist system because we've been afraid to debate it. And when you give a free pass to any institution you create the conditions for it to rot, right behind the facade. ..."
"... The Trump presidency is the last gasp, it's letting it all hang out. A [neoliberal] system that's gonna do whatever it can, take advantage of this moment, grab it all before it disappears. ..."
In another interesting interview with Chris Hedges, Richard Wolff explains why the Trump presidency is the last resort of a system
that is about to collapse:
Finally, if everybody tries to save themselves (protection), we have a historical example: after the Great Depression that happened
in Europe. And most people believe that it was a large part of what led to WWII after WWI, rather than a much saner collective effort.
But capitalism doesn't go for collective efforts, it tends to destroy itself by its own mechanisms. There has to be a movement from
below. Otherwise, there is no counter force that can take us in another direction.
So, absent that counter force we are going to see this system spinning out of control and destroying itself in the very way its
critics have for so long foreseen it well might.
When Trump announced his big tariffs on China, we saw the stock market dropped 700 points in a day. That's a sign of the anxiety,
the danger, even in the minds of capitalists, about where this is going. If we hadn't been a country with two or three decades of
a middle class - working class paid really well - maybe we could have gotten away with this. But in a society that has celebrated
its capacity to do what it now fails to do, you have an explosive situation.
Everything is done to avoid asking the question to what degree the system we have in place - capitalism is its name - is the problem.
It's the Russians, it's the immigrants, it's the tariffs, it's anything else, even the pornstar, to distract us from the debate we
need to have had that we haven't had for a half a century, which puts us in a very bad place. We've given a free pass to a capitalist
system because we've been afraid to debate it. And when you give a free pass to any institution you create the conditions for it
to rot, right behind the facade.
The Trump presidency is the last gasp, it's letting it all hang out. A [neoliberal] system that's gonna do whatever it can, take advantage
of this moment, grab it all before it disappears.
In France, it was said
'Après moi, le déluge' (after me the
catastrophe). The storm will break.
We have lost some of our democratic habits -- indeed, in many ways we are losing
our very cohesion as a society. But I frame the question very differently.
I know a bunch of Trump supporters. Some of them are intellectuals who write for places like
TAC . But most are not. Neither are any of them raving bigots or knuckle-dragging
neanderthals, and all of them read the news, though with vastly less obsessiveness than people
who work in the business.
None of them "like" things like "unremitting chaos, lies, ignorance, trash-talking
vulgarity, legislative failure" or collusion with foreign governments. Some of them minimize
some of these things at least some of the time -- and I myself have been known to derive a kind
of pleasure from the absurdity of a figure like Mooch. But this isn't what the people who I
know who voted Trump voted for , nor is it why they continue to be happy with their
vote -- which, however unhappy they are with how the administration is conducting itself, most
of them still are.
Rather, the commonality among those who voted for Trump is their conviction that the
Democratic party's leadership is utterly bankrupt, and, to one degree or another, so is the
Republican leadership. And that assessment hasn't changed one iota since the
election.
"They are, however, people who have lost trust in the individuals and institutions who are
most alarmed about Trump: the political establishment, the press, etc. And so, on a relative
basis, they'd rather continue to put their trust in Trump."
That last line does not follow .We have lost trust in all of the others; so would rather
see what Trump does; not that we have any trust in him to do the right thing
THAT would be ridiculous; especially after the last six months.
Hmmm. Populism can not govern or build institutions by its very nature? I can't help but read
that as saying the plebeians are so incompetent and stupid that only the elites are capable
of governing. As for the American people taking a turn to authoritarianism. This is possible,
after all, our Federal government has spent most of the last century increasing their control
over many of the aspects of our lives and stretching the limits of the Constitution beyond
any recognition. We have been prepared to accept authoritarianism. Increasingly we have had
an authoritarian presidency that surveils its own people and has usurped regulatory and
warmaking authority from the Congress. The Federal government has created, out of whole
cloth, a role for itself in public education. Do not blame the populace for being what the
elite has spent a century shaping them to be.
I am convinced that the saber rattling and fear-mongering concerning Korea, Iran, and Russia
are not happening because we have any reason to be particularly concerned about these
countries or because they threaten our interests. No, this is the way a corrupt and
ineffective regime distracts its citizens from its own failings. Lets be clear, this would be
happening even if She-who-shall-not-be-named had one the Presidency.
Whatever happened to "trust but verify"?
OK, a bunch of people did the political equivalent of a Hail Mary play in voting for Trump.
But now that the ball has not only fallen short but gone way out of bounds and beaned some
spectators in the stands shouldn't they be revoking that trust and casting around for someone
else to represent them? Why stick with a sinking ship?
There is strong evidence to suggest that one factor in Trump's victory was distrust of US
foreign policy. The link above is to an article about exit polls showing Trump won the
veteran's vote 2:1 over Hillary Clinton.
People don't regret their votes for Trump because if they had voted for Clinton, they or
their loved ones would be coming home in body bags–or minus body parts.
As bad as Trump is, his foreign policy instincts are less hawkish than
Clinton's–witness his decision to end the CIA funding of Syrian insurgents.
Trump's behavior is certainly "unpresidential" and chaotic. It is also less horrible than
war by many orders of magnitude.
"The politically relevant, and profoundly disturbing, fact is precisely the opposite of the
conventional wisdom: After six months of unremitting chaos, lies, ignorance, trash-talking
vulgarity, legislative failure, and credible evidence of a desire to collude with a hostile
foreign government to subvert an American election, President Trump's approval rating is
astonishingly high -- with something between one-third and two-fifths of the American people
apparently liking what they see and hear from the White House"
But George W Bush at his nadir averaged 26% approval, and that's seven years in, during an
epic economic collapse, a catastrophic war, and a host of other disasters. Trump is not THAT
far away from that average.
There is simply a line beyond which a president can't decline unless he murders and eats a
puppy in public, and I see no reason to presume that we can judge that Trump hit his bottom
six months in, when the economy is decent and no non-self inflicted crisis looming.
I'd also add that while all your friends have different reasons to stay aboard the Trump
train, all of them sound like high information, fairly ideological voters. This is probably
not the profile of Trump voters set to vote for The Rock in 2020
Well, when a building is rotten to the core, the only thing you can do is raze it to the
ground to start rebuilding. Our government has long passed its sell-by date. Really,
expecting a political solution to arise from a government controlled system such as ours does
not border on insanity – it completely crosses that border in leaves it miles in the
dust. Witness our insane Congress voting by a 98% margin to inflict sanctions based upon
absolute crock. But then the US has never let reality get in the way of statesmenshowmanship.
We get what we deserve, good and hard.
You're OK until the last line. "And populism by its very nature cannot build institutions,
cannot govern "
You're still using the Deepstate definition of populism. In fact populists want only one
thing: We think the government of THIS country should serve the interests of the people of
THIS country.
It's perfectly possible to govern by this rule. FDR did it magnificently.
Why did it work for FDR? Because he was determined to BREAK the monopolies and forces that
acted contrary to the interests of the people, and because governments BELOW the Federal
level were still strong. When he closed the banks for several months, cities and Chambers of
Commerce jumped in immediately to develop scrip systems.
Thanks to an unbroken series of evil judges and presidents after WW2, local governments
and institutions are dead or dying. Even if a competent and determined populist tried to
close down banks or Amazon or the "health" insurance system, there would be no organized way
to replace them.
What exactly did these people think a Clinton administration would do? What nightmarish
dystopia did they see coming around the bend? And what do you think -- were their perceptions
of America's future under a Clinton administration accurate, or at least close to the mark?
And if so, why?
Also, I get that people have lost trust in mainstream institutions. What makes them think
that Trump is trustworthy in comparison? Why do they have more trust in Trump than in the
institutions? And does that seem reasonable?
I didn't vote for Trump: His rhetorical style turns me cold; I don't like his position on
many issues, or his general governing philosophy, to the extent he can be said to have one.
But, BUT, I sure as Hell did not vote for Hilary Clinton(I voted for Johnson and Weld, who
were obvious non-starters from the word Go. I might possibly have voted for Trump if it had
looked like the election might be close in Illinois, but since the Chicago Machine had
already stolen it for HRC, I could salve my conscience and vote for Johnson.
Clinton was the status quo candidate, and since I did not desire "more of the same",
governmentally, Trump and his circus are preferable to Clinton and whatever cabal she would
have assembled to run the country.
You claim that the elite "inevitably" run the machinery of government, but it's worth
noting that once upon a time in America, most of the people in government were political
appointees who could be sent packing(along with their bosses) by the voters. Nowadays, the
'elite' which runs government is dug in pretty much permanently, and the same people will be,
in practice, running the government no matter who wins the next election, or the one after
that
Hilary Clinton was forthrightly the candidate of the permanent, un-elected bureaucracy,
and Trump, well, didn't seem to be. The choice was between Trump, whose actual position on
the size of government was not clear, and Hilary Clinton who was actually promising to make
government bigger, more centralized, more expensive and less responsive. I'm not sorry Trump
won however distasteful he and his henchmen are to me.
I too had a friend who was a huge Ron Paul supporter who not only backed Trump, but became a
major apologist for him ever since. The man ran two back to back campaigns in Georgia for US
Senate, the Ron Paul mold. Now, no on his original team will give him the time of day. Those
who tried to get some sense into him, have been closed off.
As a libertarian, I am no more afraid of the left or the right. In fact, listening to the
right rant about the left yields a lot of ignorance, disinformation and paranoia: stock in
trade for right wing propaganda. But I am disturbed when people spend years fighting for
liberty suddenly joined Cult 45 that has no sense of liberty Ron Paul or his followers would
recognize.
But Trump fit the bankrupt GOP. Lest we forget, those 49 GOP Senators who voted for
"skinny repeal" (even the name is joke!) never gave a moment's consideration to the bill
written by Rand Paul that covers the conservative attributes of free markets and
self-determination. Lest we also forget that Rand is not only one of the few legit
conservatives, but a doctor and the son of doctor or former Congressman. Those credentials
alone would have been enough if GOP was actually interested being conservative. Apparently,
Trumpism is what the GOP is about and 49 of them proved it.
I think that you have identified a problem that transcends Trump and his opponents. Vitriolic
partisanship is one thing. At various points in our history, we have had some nasty spells of
polarization. The deeper problem that the institutions of public life are now losing their
very legitimacy.
Legitimacy is something deeper than mere approval. It relies upon the unspoken acceptance
of political and institutional norms.
We are clearly in the process of publicly reevaluating and even rejecting these norms. The
birthers questioning Obama's background and "not my president" folks do not view their
oppponents as legitimate, if mistaken. In the case of Trump and the radical left, they
contest the legitimacy of the other side even participating in the process, a process by the
way to which they owe no fealty.
Nothing wrong with America that couldn't be fixed, one, by making voting mandatory, and two,
by having top two vote getters in primary face each other in the general.
We'd have a moderate politics with elected officials clustering slightly right and left of
the center.
Speaking as a Commie Pinko Red, I still prefer Trump as President over Clinton, precisely
because he is doing so much to undermine America's "leadership" in world affairs. He's still
a murderous imperialist, maybe even just as much as she would have been, but there's just so
much more damage that she could have done making bi-partisan deals with the GOP for the
benefit of Wall Street and the insurance industry.
The movement against GOPcare – Trumpcare wasn't really a fair name for the wet
dreams of Paul Ryan and Conservative, Inc. – probably couldn't have been so effective
or flew under the radar of the establishment tools running the Democratic Party and its media
mouthpieces if a Democrat was in the White House and the various beltway "movement" honchos
had had their precious seat at the table where they could have rolled over for the Democratic
president of the moment.
The biggest problem is what comes after Trump for the GOP?
He's kicked off a process for the GOP that will be very difficult to manage going forward.
He showed that outright racism, sexism, continuous lying, even treasonous collusion with
Russia to subvert our election is just fine with the Republican Party. How does the GOP sell
family values to their 'base' after they all lined up with Donald j Trump, serial
wife-cheater and money-launderer?
It will be hard for anyone to forget that any of this happened.
Consider this: 8 years of W Bush yielded the first black President – It really could
not have happened if W hadn't burned the house down. What comes after Trump?
I'm a very middle-class worker in the IT sector where most of my coworkers have been
sensible, but my weekend hobby of playing music has put me in contact (largely via Facebook)
with many Trump supporters who do happen to be knuckle-dragging neanderthals. They generally
don't read; their "news" comes from partisan demagogues on the radio or TV. If I give one the
benefit of the doubt and share an article from, say, The American Conservative -- "The
Madness of King Donald" was a favorite -- it's been all too common to receive a
childish/hate-filled meme in response. Bigots are legion: I've unfriended the raving variety,
and unfollowed the milder dog-whistlers. These deplorables have in fact been emboldened by
the current POTUS.
But I get your point. I abhor the current duopoly, but it could be fixed if thinking
citizens wanted to put in some effort. So, it's depressing in a different kind of way that so
many thoughtful and well-read Americans are so cynical about state of US politics that they
are fine with Trump wrecking it.
"Rather, the commonality among those who voted for Trump is their conviction that the
Democratic party's leadership is utterly bankrupt, and, to one degree or another, so is the
Republican leadership. And that assessment hasn't changed one iota since the election."
They are people who were full of it beforehand, and as the evidence rolls in, they just
sink deeper into lies.
Linker's quote "a desire to collude" you reference later as "collusion". The first instance
is an attempt to broaden the charge from collusion, the second instance is a (sloppy?) change
in language.
@Will Harrington, "Populism can not govern or build institutions by its very nature? I can't
help but read that as saying the plebeians are so incompetent and stupid that only the elites
are capable of governing."
I read that statement as "Once you are governing, once you are the one(s) in a position of
power, then by definition you have become 'the elite' and are no longer 'a plebeian'".
Populists, by definition, are the people who call for the tearing down of institutions that
make up the status-quo, and elites, by definition, are the people who build and maintain
status-quo institutions. At least in my eyes, "being a populist" and "governing institutions"
are mutually exclusive.
Since the conservative party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower was invaded by the right
wingers and became the party of Jefferson Davis and John Wilkes Booth, the goal has been to
tarnish all concept of a functioning a democracy and a government is built to work for the
people, of the people, and by the people. The right wing main tactic is lies and just get
people riled up so that they don't realize and oblivious to the fact that America has slipped
from capitalism to corporatism; from a capitalist democracy to a caste based plutocracy run
for the sole benefit of the oligarchs who bought this country.
Don Trump is the embodiment and distillation of the right winger and their economic and
social cultural policies. He is not an alternative or antidote to the Republicans or
Democrats.
" Is he happy with Trump? No -- he's especially unhappy with the number of Goldman bankers
Trump appointed to senior economic posts, but more generally he acknowledges that the
government is in chaos and that Trump is not bringing the change he hoped for. But he doesn't
regret his vote, and he prefers the chaos of Trump to business-as-usual under either the
Democrats or the Republicans. And if Trump winds up discrediting the Federal government
generally, that's fine with him."
I didn't vote this election because I didn't like either candidate. I had been promoting
'America First' as a rallying cry for a candidate for years but Trump wasnt exactly the kind
of leader I had in mind for it.
But I'm with the guy above -- if chaos will bust up the musical chair dual monarchies of the
dems and repubs and the corrupt status quo government bring it on.
A somewhat related question, Noah: If you had been a young man living in China on August 1,
1927, do you think you would have joined the People's Liberation Army?
Originally I wanted to sit out this past election but gave in to peer pressure. And I regret
this. Trump? Clinton? Johnson? Stein? All were mediocre. Clinton/Trump were the two worst
candidates that the "major" parties have ever produced in my lifetime. It was with fear and
trepidation that I voted for Trump, notwithstanding that I fundamentally agreed with him on
the issues of immigration and the need for a reduced American role in global affairs. In the
end, I rationalized this (wasted) vote based upon the notion that not only had his opponent
committed a felony (detouring government emails) but also because (as others have pointed
out) she was the candidate of the status quo, the "permanent bureaucracy", Big Finance etc.
etc. The fact that Trump actually won surprised me, but only moderately, because as terrible
a candidate as he was, his opponent was even worse.
What has transpired since his election comes as no surprise. Had Clinton been elected
conditions would have only been mirror imaged, such being the state of things in this
once-great republic. I continue to maintain that the two-party system is archaic and has to
go. Whether a multi-party system would be better, I don't know. Perhaps we have reached a
point where the country is simply ungovernable. Perhaps more responsibility should be
returned to state and local government (Jefferson would have approved). Again, I don't
know.
What I do know is that the current system is dysfunctional.
And that, my friends, is why we have a real estate/TV personality as President.
i am neither an establishment voter, or a member of the media/press. i am deeply worried
where the man (trump) is taking this nation. the gop is complicit in this chaos as they see
trump as a rubber stamp for their plutocratic agenda. i don't know what it will take to right
the ship of state
I don't regret my vote. And I ave had issues with my choice before and after the election.
The sky is not even close to falling as predicted. And the democracy you claim is at threat
may very well be, but it's from the current executive. And nothing thus far suggests that it
will.
I m not going to dismiss the caterwauling liberals have been making since the campaign or
the election as major distraction to governance.
And by the way there remain not a twiddle's evidence that the WH prior to the election
colluded to undermine the US in any manner. It's time to cease throwing that out as sauce for
the goose.
I think I agree with all four of your "freinds". I am very fond of the establishment, they
have their place. What they provide in cohesion, stability and continuity is valuable to the
state. But they appear to be want for any level of substance, depth thereof or moral
consistency (if any at all). The double standards they hold themselves, their donors and
connections on issues and accountability is unsustainable in a democracy as I think you
understand it.
When I was laid out in the ER, I found myself wrestling with my own position on
healthcare. The temptations are great to bend the guide as to my own conditions -- but I
don't think I could so with a clear conscience. I am nor sot sure that what we haven't lost
is a sense of conscience -- that sense that truth overrides immediate gain. I don't think the
US can survive as the US if the leadership is bent on holding themselves to a standard not
available to the country's citizens.
"Is he happy with Trump? No -- he's especially unhappy with the number of Goldman bankers
Trump appointed to senior economic posts, but more generally he acknowledges that the
government . . ."
And the discredited notions that
1. the rich know how to run an economy effectively and
2. that a rise in the market is a sign of economic health.
Pear Conference captures perfectly the 'thinking' i have heard from more than one Trump
voter. This is 'reasoning'?
If there is one system in America that needs blowing up to start over it might be our
education system. I am generally supportive of public ed, and i am impressed by some of the
commitment and inventiveness i see among the proposers of various alternatives to public ed.
So, some folks are trying, even sometimes succeeding, but we have managed to arrive at a
point in our culture where we have elected a President whose election success depended more
than anything else on a public who have lost the ability to think critically. (if they ever
had it, of course)
Yes I know the other one got more votes, by a lot. And i know that this other candidate was
oddly not at all an attractive alternative. I know all that, but still, a huge fraction of
the voting population–a fraction large enough to make themselves now THE base the
government is playing to–is a group who could not/would not see this con-job coming?
There was every opportunity to use actual logic and facts to reach a voting decision, but
these millions of voters chose instead to go with various variations on the theme of 'they
all stink, so i'm using my vote to poke a stick in their eyes." Or, as Pear satirized, "I
hate/mistrust the elites and they like almost anybody else other than my guy, so I'm gonna
turn my country over to the most vulgar non-elite pig the system can come up with."
There is talk now about the damage he can do to American politics and sense of community, but
I think he may be more symptom than cause. We don't value the things we thought were a
standard part of the American process: truthfulness, kindness, authenticity, devotion to the
common good. We value, it turns out, showmanship, machismo, crass shows of wealth and power,
and ..I can't go on.
I'm not sure how we got here, but I know the institutions held in high regard on this site,
such as church, and some factors we all put our faith in such as increasing levels of
education, turn out not to matter so much as we had thought. It is going to take some hard
work and more than a little time to recover from this sickness in the country's soul.
"Trump supporters are just like people who are outraged by something and show it by rioting
and burning down their own neighborhoods." – Greg in PDX
The antifas rioting and destroying in Portland also got very violent when some old folks
held a peaceful rally for Trump there.
Oh, sorry. I forgot that when "progressives" disagree with someone, they consider that
merely disagreeing with them constitutes "violence" against their "safe space" and they are
compelled to go out and punch or shoot people.
No reason why populism couldn't govern. Huey Long was a damn effective governor of Louisiana.
Send the whole Acela Corridor élite to Saddam's woodchipper and the country would
noodle along just fine. I'm not for state violence, and yet the fantasy gives me a
frisson. Forgive me, a sinner.
On Monday, WSWS International Editorial Board Chairman David North interviewed Chris Hedges,
the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, author, lecturer and former New York Times
correspondent. Among Hedges' best-known books are War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, The
Death of the Liberal Class , Empire of Illusion: the End of Literacy and the Triumph
of Spectacle, Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt , which he co-wrote with the cartoonist
Joe Sacco, and Wages of Rebellion: the Moral Imperative of Revolt .
In an article published in Truthdig September 17 , titled "The Silencing
of Dissent," Hedges referenced the WSWS coverage of Google's censorship of left-wing sites and
warned about the growth of "blacklisting, censorship and slandering dissidents as foreign
agents for Russia and purveyors of 'fake news.'"
Hedges wrote that "the Department of Justice called on RT America and its 'associates' --
which may mean people like me -- to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. No
doubt, the corporate state knows that most of us will not register as foreign agents, meaning
we will be banished from the airwaves. This, I expect, is the intent."
North's interview with Hedges began with a discussion of the significance of the anti-Russia
campaign in the media.
David North: How do you interpret the fixation on Russia and the entire interpretation of
the election within the framework of Putin's manipulation?
Chris Hedges: It's as ridiculous as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. It is an
absolutely unproven allegation that is used to perpetuate a very frightening accusation --
critics of corporate capitalism and imperialism are foreign agents for Russia.
I have no doubt that the Russians invested time, energy and money into attempting to
influence events in the United States in ways that would serve their interests, in the same way
that we have done and do in Russia and all sorts of other countries throughout the world. So
I'm not saying there was no influence, or an attempt to influence events.
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: Chris, you worked for the New York Times . When was that, exactly?
CH: From 1990 to 2005.
DN: Since you have some experience with that institution, what changes do you see? We've
stressed that it has cultivated a constituency among the affluent upper-middle class.
CH: The New York Times consciously targets 30 million upper-middle class and
affluent Americans. It is a national newspaper; only about 11 percent of its readership is in
New York. It is very easy to see who the Times seeks to reach by looking at its
special sections on Home, Style, Business or Travel. Here, articles explain the difficulty of
maintaining, for example, a second house in the Hamptons. It can do good investigative work,
although not often. It covers foreign affairs. But it reflects the thinking of the elites. I
read the Times every day, maybe to balance it out with your web site.
DN: Well, I hope more than balance it.
CH: Yes, more than balance it. The Times was always an elitist publication, but it
wholly embraced the ideology of neo-conservatism and neoliberalism at a time of financial
distress, when Abe Rosenthal was editor. He was the one who instituted the special sections
that catered to the elite. And he imposed a de facto censorship to shut out critics of
unfettered capitalism and imperialism, such as Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. He hounded out
reporters like Sydney Schanberg, who challenged the real estate developers in New York, or
Raymond Bonner, who reported the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador.
He had lunch every week, along with his publisher, with William F. Buckley. This pivot into
the arms of the most retrograde forces of corporate capitalism and proponents of American
imperialism, for a time, made the paper very profitable. Eventually, of course, the rise of the
internet, the loss of classified ads, which accounted for about 40 percent of all newspaper
revenue, crippled the Times as it has crippled all newspapers. Newsprint has lost the
monopoly that once connected sellers with buyers. Newspapers are trapped in an old system of
information they call "objectivity" and "balance," formulae designed to cater to the powerful
and the wealthy and obscure the truth. But like all Byzantine courts, the Times will
go down clinging to its holy grail.
The intellectual gravitas of the paper -- in particular the Book Review and the Week in
Review -- was obliterated by Bill Keller, himself a neocon, who, as a columnist, had been a
cheerleader for the war in Iraq. He brought in figures like Sam Tanenhaus. At that point the
paper embraced, without any dissent, the utopian ideology of neoliberalism and the primacy of
corporate power as an inevitable form of human progress. The Times , along with
business schools, economics departments at universities, and the pundits promoted by the
corporate state, propagated the absurd idea that we would all be better off if we prostrated
every sector of society before the dictates of the marketplace. It takes a unique kind of
stupidity to believe this. You had students at Harvard Business School doing case studies of
Enron and its brilliant business model, that is, until Enron collapsed and was exposed as a
gigantic scam. This was never, really, in the end, about ideas. It was about unadulterated
greed. It was pushed by the supposedly best educated among us, like Larry Summers, which
exposes the lie that somehow our decline is due to deficient levels of education. It was due to
a bankrupt and amoral elite, and the criminal financial institutions that make them rich.
Critical thinking on the op-ed page, the Week in Review or the Book Review, never very
strong to begin with, evaporated under Keller. Globalization was beyond questioning. Since the
Times , like all elite institutions, is a hermetically sealed echo chamber, they do
not realize how irrelevant they are becoming, or how ridiculous they look. Thomas Friedman and
David Brooks might as well write for the Onion .
I worked overseas. I wasn't in the newsroom very much, but the paper is a very
anxiety-ridden place. The rules aren't written on the walls, but everyone knows, even if they
do not articulate it, the paper's unofficial motto: Do not significantly alienate those
upon whom we depend for money and access! You can push against them some of the time. But
if you are a serious reporter, like Charlie Leduff, or Sydney Schanberg, who wants to give a
voice to people who don't have a voice, to address issues of race, class, capitalist
exploitation or the crimes of empire, you very swiftly become a management problem and get
pushed out. Those who rise in the organization and hold power are consummate careerists. Their
loyalty is to their advancement and the stature and profitability of the institution, which is
why the hierarchy of the paper is filled with such mediocrities. Careerism is the paper's
biggest Achilles heel. It does not lack for talent. But it does lack for intellectual
independence and moral courage. It reminds me of Harvard.
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.
DN: What about the impact that you've seen of identity politics in America?
CH: Well, identity politics defines the immaturity of the left. The corporate state embraced
identity politics. We saw where identity politics got us with Barack Obama, which is worse than
nowhere. He was, as Cornel West said, a black mascot for Wall Street, and now he is going
around to collect his fees for selling us out.
My favorite kind of anecdotal story about identity politics: Cornel West and I, along with
others, led a march of homeless people on the Democratic National Convention session in
Philadelphia. There was an event that night. It was packed with hundreds of people, mostly
angry Bernie Sanders supporters. I had been asked to come speak. And in the back room, there
was a group of younger activists, one who said, "We're not letting the white guy go first."
Then he got up and gave a speech about how everybody now had to vote for Hillary Clinton.
That's kind of where identity politics gets you. There is a big difference between shills for
corporate capitalism and imperialism, like Corey Booker and Van Jones, and true radicals like
Glen Ford and Ajamu Baraka. The corporate state carefully selects and promotes women, or people
of color, to be masks for its cruelty and exploitation.
It is extremely important, obviously, that those voices are heard, but not those voices that
have sold out to the power elite. The feminist movement is a perfect example of this. The old
feminism, which I admire, the Andrea Dworkin kind of feminism, was about empowering oppressed
women. This form of feminism did not try to justify prostitution as sex work. It knew that it
is just as wrong to abuse a woman in a sweatshop as it is in the sex trade. The new form of
feminism is an example of the poison of neoliberalism. It is about having a woman CEO or woman
president, who will, like Hillary Clinton, serve the systems of oppression. It posits that
prostitution is about choice. What woman, given a stable income and security, would choose to
be raped for a living? Identity politics is anti-politics.
DN: I believe you spoke at a Socialist Convergence conference where you criticized Obama and
Sanders, and you were shouted down.
CH: Yes, I don't even remember. I've been shouted down criticizing Obama in many places,
including Berkeley. I have had to endure this for a long time as a supporter and speech writer
for Ralph Nader. People don't want the illusion of their manufactured personalities, their
political saviors, shattered; personalities created by public relations industries. They don't
want to do the hard work of truly understanding how power works and organizing to bring it
down.
DN: You mentioned that you have been reading the World Socialist Web Site for some
time. You know we are quite outside of that framework.
CH: I'm not a Marxist. I'm not a Trotskyist. But I like the site. You report on important
issues seriously and in a way a lot of other sites don't. You care about things that are
important to me -- mass incarceration, the rights and struggles of the working class and the
crimes of empire. I have read the site for a long time.
DN: Much of what claims to be left -- that is, the pseudo-left -- reflects the interests of
the affluent middle class.
CH: Precisely. When everybody was, you know, pushing for multiculturalism in lead
institutions, it really meant filtering a few people of color or women into university
departments or newsrooms, while carrying out this savage economic assault against the working
poor and, in particular, poor people of color in deindustrialized pockets of the United States.
Very few of these multiculturalists even noticed. I am all for diversity, but not when it is
devoid of economic justice. Cornel West has been one of the great champions, not only of the
black prophetic tradition, the most important intellectual tradition in our history, but the
clarion call for justice in all its forms. There is no racial justice without economic justice.
And while these elite institutions sprinkled a few token faces into their hierarchy, they
savaged the working class and the poor, especially poor people of color.
Much of the left was fooled by the identity politics trick. It was a boutique activism. It
kept the corporate system, the one we must destroy, intact. It gave it a friendly face.
DN: The World Socialist Web Site has made the issue of inequality a central focus
of its coverage.
CH: That's why I read it and like it.
DN: Returning to the Russia issue, where do you see this going? How seriously do you see
this assault on democratic rights? We call this the new McCarthyism. Is that, in your view, a
legitimate analogy?
CH: Yes, of course it's the new McCarthyism. But let's acknowledge how almost irrelevant our
voices are.
DN: I don't agree with you on that.
CH: Well, irrelevant in the sense that we're not heard within the mainstream. When I go to
Canada I am on the CBC on prime time. The same is true in France. That never happens here. PBS
and NPR are never going to do that. Nor are they going to do that for any other serious critic
of capitalism or imperialism.
If there is a debate about attacking Syria, for example, it comes down to bombing Syria or
bombing Syria and sending in troops, as if these are the only two options. Same with health
care. Do we have Obamacare, a creation of the Heritage Foundation and the pharmaceutical and
insurance industries, or no care? Universal health care for all is not discussed. So we are on
the margins. But that does not mean we are not dangerous. Neoliberalism and globalization are
zombie ideologies. They have no credibility left. The scam has been found out. The global
oligarchs are hated and reviled. The elite has no counterargument to our critique. So they
can't afford to have us around. As the power elite becomes more frightened, they're going to
use harsher forms of control, including the blunt instrument of censorship and violence.
DN: I think it can be a big mistake to be focused on the sense of isolation or
marginalization. I'll make a prediction. You will have, probably sooner than you think, more
requests for interviews and television time. We are in a period of colossal political
breakdown. We are going to see, more and more, the emergence of the working class as a powerful
political force.
CH: That's why we are a target. With the bankruptcy of the ruling ideology, and the
bankruptcy of the American liberal class and the American left, those who hold fast to
intellectual depth and an examination of systems of power, including economics, culture and
politics, have to be silenced. (Republished from World Socialist Web Site by
permission of author or representative)
I'm a moderate admirer of Chris Hedges, but he is really cooking in this interview. Too much
to praise here, but his thinking that corporations, the mainstream media, and the academy can
and do successfully "game" dissent by suppression, divide and conquer, co-optation, and so
on, is spot on.
Good but not great interview with Chris Hodges: he manages to talk about an amorphous elite
without identifying any of them and not a word about Israel. So pseudo-good roally
I think this was an excellent discussion, and I would like to thank you both for having it,
and sharing it.
Among the crises effecting the United States, the one effecting us most profoundly is the
absence of any accountability for the crimes committed by our oligarchic class.
Addressing this issue is ground zero for any meaningful change.
If there is no accountability for their crimes , there will be no change.
Certainly the greatest among these crimes was(is) defrauding the nation into " a war of
aggression". which, being the supreme international crime, should be met with harsh prison
sentences for all who promoted it.
It is important for everyone to recognize just how much damage these policies have done to
the country, not just in terms of our collective morale or our constitutional mandates,not
just in terms of our international standing on universal principles of legality and justice,
but our long term economic solvency as a nation.
The "exceptionalism" of our "war of aggression" elites has completely devastated our
nation's balance sheet.
Since 9-11, our national debt has grown by a mind numbing "fourteen and a half trillion
dollars".. nearly quadrupling since 1999.
This unconscionable level of "overspending" is unprecedented in human history.
Not one lawmaker, not one primetime pundit, nor one editorialist (of any major newspaper),
has a CLUE how to deal with it.
Aside from the root atrocity in visiting mass murder on millions of innocents who never
attacked us (and never intended to) which is a horrible crime in and of itself,
There is the profound crisis , in situ , of potentially demanding that 320 million
Americans PAY FOR THE WARS OUR ELITES LIED US INTO .
This is where the rubber meets the road for our "war of aggression-ists ", gentlemen.
This is the "unanimous space" of our entire country's population on the issue of "no
taxation without representation".
WHOSE assets should be made forfeit to pay for these wars .The DECEIVERS or the DECEIVED
?
Ask "The People" ..and you will find your answer .very fast.
No wonder our "elites" are terrified to discuss this .
I agree with the general tenor of this article and would further state that in addition to
the Iraq thing which was a war crime and eliminated any shreds of legitimacy retained by the
yankee regime that the Libya overthrow and destruction, a war crime of historic proportions,
and the use of that overthrow to provide major support to the barbaric element in Syria
expose the yankee regime as an enemy of civilization with all that entails, including
questions of whether, absent any legitimacy, the regime's continued existence itself does not
constitute a major threat.
The elements in the article discussing and exposing the New York Times and its role as an
integral part of the power structure should be read and remembered by all.
How do you interpret the fixation on Russia and the entire interpretation of the
election within the framework of Putin's manipulation?
Chris Hedges: It's as ridiculous as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. It is
an absolutely unproven allegation that is used to perpetuate a very frightening accusation
-- critics of corporate capitalism and imperialism are foreign agents for Russia.
With all due respect for Chris Hedges, who is doubtless a courageous journalist and an
intelligent commentator, I would suggest that what is also and most ridiculous is the thought
that it is only agents of Israel that have suborned the neocon faction within USA's
government and 'Deep State' (controllers of MSM). Or is this OT? I don't think so, because 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?
Who or what interest is served by anti-Russia propaganda other than, or in addition to,
just the usual MIC suspects, profiteering corporations who want to keep a supposed need for
nuclear weapons front and center in the minds of Congress? Cui bono?
To be clear: I suggest that neocon office-holders within USA's government or within the
Deep State (controllers of MSM) are foreign agents for at least three nations: the People's
Republic of China,the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the State of Israel.
(I would compare USA now with Imperial China in its declining years when it was being sold
piecemeal to all the great powers of Europe.)
Who benefits from this situation and how do they benefit? All three of these countries are
deeply involved in suborning members of Congress and others within the government of the USA,
yet none of the three is mentioned in such a connection by the MSM or by officials of the
Executive. Thus, it is beneficial to them to have suspicion thrown onto Russia and thus
investigative attention deflected from themselves. A few public figures (e.g., Philip
Giraldi) have made such allegations respecting Israel, more public figures have made such
suggestions respecting Saudi Arabia, but very few have made the allegations in the case of
the PRC.
Let's think about this in the context of history, beginning with the Vietnam War. When USA
got involved in Vietnam -- which involvement began during the days of Eisenhower/Dulles --
probably the primary interest groups that swayed USA global/foreign policy were the Vatican
and the China Lobby. The interests of these two lobbies converged in Vietnam. From the RC
side, consider an historical event that is unknown practically to any Americans under the age
of 60 or 70, namely, Operation Passage to Freedom, 1954-55.
"The period was marked by a CIA-backed propaganda campaign on behalf of South Vietnam's
Roman Catholic Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem. The campaign exhorted Catholics to flee
impending religious persecution under communism, and around 60% of the north's 1 million
Catholics obliged." (Wikipedia: Operation Passage to Freedom )
From the side of the China Lobby – avoiding the matter of JFK's planning to dump USA
involvement in Vietnam after the 1964 election – what we saw in the early years of
USA's involvement, 1965-1969, was a period in which the China Lobby could push an agenda that
included widening the Vietnam campaign into southern China, particularly to include the
tungsten mining operations supposedly owned by K.C. Wu. Tungsten at that time was considered
as having tremendous strategic value, centering on, but not limited to, its essential use in
the filaments of incandescent light-bulbs. It became clear after the Tet Offensive that the
entire strategy of reopening the Chinese civil war, capturing the tungsten, etc, could make
sense only if Chang Kai Shek's KMT would commit its troops in huge numbers, virtually all of
its troops, on the ground in Vietnam (which would have brought in huge numbers of PRC troops
on the other side) -- it became, to borrow one of Nixon's favorite phrases, "perfectly clear"
that expansion into southern China and capture of the tungsten operations there were not in
the cards. When Kissinger talked up his 'realpolitik', what he really meant was the politics
of surrendering to Beijing. So, Nixon in July 1969, recognizing that there was nothing to be
gained by the loss of life and expenditure of every form of capital, ordered first of many
troop withdrawals from Vietnam. It was all a done deal as of Kissinger taking over as
National Security Adviser, January 1969 -- everything but the tears.
Now, patience, dear reader, this is all leading up to a certain crucial event that took
place in 1971 -- namely, Kissinger's secret trip to Beijing in July (1971) to arrange for
everything regarding what amounted to a surrender to the PRC, except the end of the Vietnam
War. The documents are still unavailable as classified Top Secret or whatever, but clearly,
China had no interest in seeing an end to the Vietnam War, because both parties –
Vietnam and USA – were adversaries of China. (Let them knock each other out!) Most
likely, Zhou talked Henry into doing what he could to prolong USA's involvement in the
Vietnam War, not to shorten it. See, including between the lines, National Security
Archives:
As noted, this stuff is mostly unavailable to us, the public, but it is clear that USA's
'leaders' (Nixon and Kissinger) wanted to make kissy-kissy with Zhou Enlai, and it was all
arranged including George H. W. Bush's appointment as USA's first 'Ambassador' (in all but
name) to Beijing, and including giving China's permanent seat on the UNSC to Beijing and
otherwise selling out the old China Lobby. I call it the 'old China Lobby' because part of
what was arranged was that the old China Lobby would be taken over by the New China lobby,
complete with all the payola channels into Congress and the Deep State.
Now, I think, we arrive at today, 2017, and the failure of Trump to act on his campaign
promises to oppose China in any way. Maybe he thought about it for a minute, but he was
surrounded by neocons, who were already on the payroll of the PRC -- if not taking direct
orders from the Standing Committee of the CCP, then at least promised to avoid offending the
interests of the PRC -- on pain of losing regular paychecks from Beijing into their secret
Grand Cayman accounts.
What I would like to say to Hedges. and others like him, is just this:
THEY say that you are foreign agents for Russia? Time to use a little judo on them: time
for YOU to speak truth that THEY are foreign agents for the People's Republic of China.
And don't forget this potent phrase: YET NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON!
"The elite has no counterargument to our critique. So they can't afford to have us
around. As the power elite becomes more frightened, they're going to use harsher forms of
control, including the blunt instrument of censorship and violence."
Precisely! What makes it even worse, they will be pushing this new pretexts for control
sloppy (as in Vegas) and in a hurry. Which will make them look even more ridiculous and due
to the lack of time will force to act even more stupid, resulting in an exponential curve of
censorship, oppression and insanity. And that's there the maniacal dreams of certain forces
to start a really big war in the Middle East (with or without attacking North Korea first)
may come true.
"avoiding the matter of JFK's planning to dump USA involvement in Vietnam after the 1964
election – "
Now that's a lie. This part is a lie. Or it is carefully crafted ex post hoc mythology a
la Camelot, the Kennedy Mystique.
FACT: JFK was a Cold War Hawk and during his administration increased nuclear arms higher
than Ike and until Reagan.
JFK during his administration increased the number of "advisers" to a higher number than
Ike.
William F. Buckley pointedly asked Senator Robert Kennedy in the mid. '60′s "So, was
there any thought of the White House pulling out [of Vietnam]?
RFK: No. There never was.
If anything, had he lived to see a second term, most likely US involvement in Vietnam
would have escalated as much as under LBJ, perhaps with the same disastrous results, perhaps
not. But JFK was no peacenik dove.
Mr. Hedges comes across as a total whackjob, and makes Bill Moyers appear to be a gentle
moderate in comparison. That he thinks so highly of race man BLM supporter Cornell West
speaks volumes of naivety to the nth degree. A total cuck without even knowing it, nay,
totally appreciative of being a cuck and it appears to be his hope that one day his cardinal
sin of being white will be purged by peoples of color, who are his true moral and
intellectual betters in every step of the way.
I agree that the Russia fixation is garbage, but explaining the populist revolt without
touching on the major issue of forced demographic and cultural change through legal and
illegal immigration is dishonest. Almost everyone who isn't an immigrant or the descendant or
relative of a post-65 immigrant is pissed off beyond words about this! How did you miss the
popular response to Trump's promises to "deport them all," end birthright citizenship and
chain migration, build a wall etc.? Without those promises, he wouldn't have made it to the
debates.
I'm also not sure how welfare has been stripped. What programs aren't available?
I'm not sure how to lower black incarceration rates. Having taught in inner-city schools
and worked in the same environment in other jobs, I know that crime and dysfunction are
through the roof. I can only imagine what those communities would be like if the predators
and crooks that are incarcerated were allowed to roam free.
Chris Hedges: It's as ridiculous as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. It is
an absolutely unproven allegation that is used to perpetuate a very frightening accusation
-- critics of corporate capitalism and imperialism are foreign agents for Russia.
Is this the same Chris Hedges that wrote those articles in November 2001 that Saddam and
al Qaeda were in cahoots, which led to the illegal 2003 invasion?
Tell me Chris, did you know about the CIA pollution then or just find out lately? And
correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you also write NYT articles in the Fall of 2002 saying
that Saddam had WMD's?
Again, getting your tips from the CIA? Ever hear of 'Operation Mockingbird?"
It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy.
That's cringe-worthy.
Transformation into an oligarchy? Transformation ??? I like Hedges' work,
but such fundamental errors really taint what he sez.
The country was never transformed into an oligarchy; it began as one.
In fact, it was organized and functioned as a pluto-oligarchy right out of the box. In
case anyone has the dimness to argue with me about it, all that shows is that you don't know
JS about how the cornstitution was foisted on the rest of us by the plutoligarchs.
"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for "
-Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782 . ME 2:163
The Elites "Have No Credibility Left"
Guess what, boys and girls Why did they have any to begin with?
Where do people get their faith? WakeTF up, already!! (Yes, I'm losing it. Because even a
duumbshit goy like myself can see it. Where are all you bright bulb know-it-alls with all the
flippin answers???)
Newspapers are trapped in an old system of information they call "objectivity" and
"balance," formulae designed to cater to the powerful and the wealthy and obscure the
truth.
It's amazing that here we are, self-anointed geniuses and dumbos alike, puttering around
in the 21st century, and someone feels the necessity to point that out. And he's right; it
needs to be pointed out. Drummed into our skulls in fact.
Arrrgggghhhh!!! Jefferson again.:
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes
suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of
misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within
their knowledge with the lies of the day.
More deja vu all over again and again. Note the date.:
"This is a story of a powerful and wealthy newspaper having enormous influence And never
a day out of more than ten thousand days that this newspaper has not subtly and
cunningly distort the news of the world in the interest of special privilege.
"
Upton Sinclair, "The crimes of the "Times" : a test of newspaper decency," pamphlet,
1921
"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."
Look what they did to Henry Wallace -- Are you kidding me? Wallace was a Stalinist stooge,
too treasonous even for his boss, FDR, although the bird brain Eleanor loved him. The guy was
so out of touch with reality that after the Potemkin tour of the Gulag that Stalin gave him
during WWII he came back raving about how swell it was for the lunch-bucket gang in Siberia.
He also encouraged FDR to sell out the Poles to Stalin
I find it most fascinating that none of what Hedges says is news, but even UR readers
probably think it is. Here's an antidote to that idea.
The following quote is from Eugene Kelly who's excoriating government press releases but
the criticism applies as well to the resulting press reports. I found the whole article
striking.:
Any boob can deduce, a priori, what type of "news" is contained in this
rubbish.
-Eugene A. Kelly, Distorting the News, The American Mercury, March 1935 , pp.
307-318
Hedges doesn't seem to understand that the "Resistance" is openly and obviously working FOR
Deepstate. They do not resist wars and globalism and monopolistic corporations. They resist
everyone who questions the war. They resist nationalism and localism.
Nothing mysterious or hidden about this, no ulterior motive or bankshot. It's explicitly
stated in every poster and shout and beating.
One thing I don't understand about MAGA. The rallying cry is to make America great again,
but the actions are to revert the government and tax system to when America wasn't that
great.
The height of American civilization was the 50s or 60s, but all the actions are to bring
the state back to how it was in pre-WW1 or the 1920s. It was the stronger labour controls and
high taxes of the 50s that coincided with American dominance. The kind that if someone tried
to introduce them today they'd be called socialist.
" Indeed, socialism sounds good but, when practiced, leads to disaster"
Im sure the author is thinking of Venezuela. But Venezuela, like all of South America, is
a cartel infested, militaristic, corrupt country run by a megalomaniac. It's more oligarch
than socialist.
He should ask the question: if socialism in a stable society, like say Sweden, means free
health care & education, why do people say the US has a low tax rate? Just add that cost
right to your taxes, and bim bam boom the US tax rate is probably more than a 100%, because,
lets be honest, the average $55k/year for a family of 4 will NEVER EVER cover the $1 million
it would take to send your kids to college debt free.
"... Unfortunately, if we scan the regions of our planet, we immediately see that humanity has disappointed God's expectations. Man, especially in our time, has without hesitation devastated wooded plains and valleys, polluted waters, disfigured the earth's habitat, made the air unbreathable, disturbed the hydrogeological and atmospheric systems, turned luxuriant areas into deserts and undertaken forms of unrestrained industrialization, degrading that "flowerbed" – to use an image from Dante Alighieri (Paradiso, XXII, 151) – which is the earth, our dwelling-place. ..."
Unfortunately, if we scan the regions of our planet, we immediately see that humanity has
disappointed God's expectations. Man, especially in our time, has without hesitation devastated
wooded plains and valleys, polluted waters, disfigured the earth's habitat, made the air
unbreathable, disturbed the hydrogeological and atmospheric systems, turned luxuriant areas
into deserts and undertaken forms of unrestrained industrialization, degrading that "flowerbed"
– to use an image from Dante Alighieri (Paradiso, XXII, 151) – which is the earth,
our dwelling-place.
"... As Bishop Athanasius Schneider recently opined in an interview , "the powerful of our world, the Western states" support groups like ISIS "indirectly." As a result, civilians get killed, and a prolonged bloodbath between warring religious factions ensues, thus ruining thousands, if not millions, of lives. ..."
"... Persons who espouse this warped ideology are what political scientists refer to as neoconservatives. To put it in Catholic terms, neoconservatives seek to once and for all obliterate the Social Kingship of Christ by constructing a world order rooted in the Freemasonic Social Kingship of Man. For decades neocons have preyed on the patriotism of ordinary Americans to get them to fight unjust wars on behalf of Arab theocrats and Jewish Zionists, the real behind-the-scenes power brokers. ..."
Super Tuesday and Super Saturday came and went. As expected, Donald Trump dominated the competition.
Sort of.
While Trump did exceptionally well in states like New Hampshire, South Carolina and elsewhere in the South, The Donald has stumbled
as of late, coming in second to Ted Cruz in a number of recent contests.
Trump will likely expand his delegate lead in the coming weeks. However, he won't arrive at the Republican convention with enough
of them to secure the nomination outright.
If that happens, the oligarchs in the Republican Party will do everything they can at the convention to deny Trump that which
would rightfully be his.
It's been rumored that Mitt Romney will be called upon by the establishment to save the Party of Lincoln from being "torn asunder."
Some Republicans say they simply won't vote for Mr. Trump. Others suggest running a third party "conservative" candidate.
However it shakes out, if reaction to Romney's anti-Trump press conference held earlier this month indicates anything, it's that
refusing the billionaire from New York the nomination if he has the majority of delegates would literally break the GOP in two.
Before discussing what a Trump victory would mean for the Republican Party, let's backtrack a bit and try to put this man's candidacy
into context. If possible, a Catholic context.
American "exceptionalism"
Since the Second World War but most especially since the early 1990s, a cabal of intellectuals desirous of global empire have
hubristically argued that it is America's duty to advance "freedom" and "democracy" to "the people" of the world, all in the name
of bringing about a lasting "peace."
Of course, when these men speak of "freedom" what they really mean is massive economic inequality and social hedonism. And when
these men speak of "democracy" what they truly mean is rigged elections with candidates that they and not "the people" get to pick.
(See the U.S.-backed coup that took place in Ukraine in February 2014 for evidence of this.)
Despite the lofty language used to trick Americans into supporting this political pyramid scheme, the reality is that bringing
about this so-called "peace" is a dirty business.
For one, the U.S. essentially bribes countries into joining NATO. Economically sanctioning those who refuse to do so.
Two, when leaders from sovereign Middle Eastern nations are no longer viewed as politically useful, they're assassinated. Of course,
the more diplomatic way to put it is "so and so has to go! "
And three, sustaining American imperialism oversees requires the funneling of billions of taxpayer dollars to Islamic states like
Saudi Arabia and providing firearms to "moderate rebels" in countries most people can't locate on a map.
As Bishop Athanasius Schneider recently opined
in an interview , "the powerful of our world, the Western states" support groups like ISIS "indirectly." As a result, civilians get killed, and a prolonged bloodbath between warring religious factions ensues, thus ruining thousands,
if not millions, of lives.
The end game, of course, is to pick off Eastern European countries one by one in order to expand NATO (something the U.S. promised
decades ago they wouldn't do) so that "liberal democracy" can be established not only there but also in North Africa and, most importantly,
in Russia.
Globalism
Persons who espouse this warped ideology are what political scientists refer to as neoconservatives. To put it in Catholic terms, neoconservatives seek to once and for all obliterate the Social Kingship of Christ by constructing
a world order rooted in the Freemasonic Social Kingship of Man. For decades neocons have preyed on the patriotism of ordinary Americans to get them to fight unjust wars on behalf of Arab theocrats
and Jewish Zionists, the real behind-the-scenes power brokers.
While paying lip service to social conservatism, limited government, constitutionalism and state's rights these war hawks hijacked
the Republican Party and surgically transformed it into a weak-kneed, open borders, bloodthirsty Frankenstein in the service of international
elites.
Though insurgent candidates like Pat Buchanan in the 1990s reminded folks about the direction this clandestine group of war criminals
was leading the country, the monied class acted quickly and decisively. Buchanan's warnings about 1) the looming culture wars 2)
the harm cheap labor abroad would have on the American middle class 3) the problems associated with not securing the border and 4)
the debt and death required with being the policeman of the world were easily tamped down, thanks in no small part to the help of
the corporate media.
Since that time Americans have had to choose between presidential candidates who, at the end of the day, were nothing more than
cogs in the globalist's wheel.
Enter Trump
Donald J. Trump has the temperament of an eight year old child. He mocks. He condescends. He can't give specifics to half the
things he talks about. And I don't trust him on social issues. Put another way, I have the same concerns about Mr. Trump as American
Conservative contributor Rod Dreher does
.
For good reason, these facts and many others, have a large number of folks, including many Catholics, deeply disturbed.
At the same time, much of his public image is an act, and he has turned out be a shrewder political operator than I expected.
No one, and I mean no one, predicted he would have this much success.
People support Trump not necessarily because of his policies but because of what he represents. And what he represents is the
frustration ordinary, mostly white, Americans have towards politics in general. More specifically, the antipathy they have towards
the feckless politicians the Republican Party has nominated over the past thirty years who have largely failed to halt the social
and economic decay of the United States.
Against the neocons
Despite his inconsistency, immaturity and, at times, imbecility, Trump has been clear on several important policies. Policies
that can be appreciated from a Catholic viewpoint.
In
an article for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Daniel Mcadams outlines where Trump differentiates himself from
the war hawks in his party.
First, according to Mcadams Trump states "the obvious" when he says "the Iraq war was brought to us by the liars of the neoconservative
movement" and that it was a "total disaster" for the rest of us who "are forced to pay for their fantasies of world domination."
Second, Trump wants to "actually speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin to see if US/Russia differences can be worked out
without a potentially world-ending nuclear war."
Third, although Trump is "arguing that he is hugely pro-Israel" he is "nevertheless suggesting that if the US is to play a role
in the Israel/Palestine issue the US side should take a neutral role in the process."
Fourth, Trump is also calling out the "idiotic neocon advice" that resulted in the overthrowing of Gaddafi in Libya that has led
to "the red carpet" being "laid down for ISIS" in that failed state.
And lastly, Trump is "suggesting that it may be a good thing that Russia be bombing ISIS into oblivion and that we might want
to just sit back and let that happen for once."
Push back
The ruling class disdains each and every one of these positions. And for good reason.
By talking about the Iraq War and claiming Bush lied about it, Trump reminds us about the back room dealings and costs, both human
and monetary, spreading "freedom" and "democracy" necessarily entails. And by drawing attention to the disastrous situation in Libya,
Trump shines light on the foolishness of nation building abroad and the need to nation build at home. Obviously, all of this causes
voters to have a less favorable view of foreign intervention in the future.
By painting Putin as a potential ally instead of a "thug," Trump de-programs Americans from thinking of the Russian President
as Josef Stalin re-incarnated. It also disabuses ordinary citizens from seeing everything through an us-versus-them prism. Having
a villain to point at evokes patriotism at home and affirms Americans in the moral right-ness of the pursuit of spreading "liberty."
Neocons have long understood this. And Trump could potentially reverse that paradigm.
Furthermore, by taking a "neutral" stance towards Israel, Trump is indicating that he may put American interests ahead of Zionist
interests. In other words, Trump would likely approach the Middle East in a way that holds Israel to the same moral standards as
others. Realizing that this may result in an American president who refuses to be silent about the terrorist attacks Israelis commit
against Palestinians on an almost daily basis, the globalists and their cronies in the media have been quick to compare Trump with,
you guessed it, Adolf Hitler.
Going forward
Neoconservatives, in short, are apoplectic over a possible Trump presidency. His success could mean their demise, if only for
a short while.
To be sure, it is difficult to know who Trump would surround himself with if he were to win the presidency. Would he call up Henry
Kissinger? Would he seek the advice of the Council on Foreign Relations? I don't know.
But what I do know is that as of right now Trump appears to have all the right enemies. Enemies that include the neo-Catholic
neocon community. Read
here .
Now, don't expect the elites to go silently into the night. The attacks in the coming days and weeks will only get more vicious.
We've already seen how quickly they brought up "the 1930s." Additionally, more than 100 self-identified "members of the Republican
national security community" have signed an
open letter
excoriating Trump for his foreign policy views, adding that they are "united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency."
Unsurprisingly, some of them have said
they would support Hillary Clinton, a Democratic neocon, instead of Trump in the general election.
So much for party loyalty.
In brief, a Trump nomination means the internationalists would no longer dictate the terms of America's economic and foreign policy.
Moreover, if Trump arrives at the Republican convention with the majority of delegates and is denied the nomination, it will be clear
to all that we live in country that is anything but a democracy.
Indeed, far from being a "breaking" of the GOP in two, wouldn't a Trump victory be nothing more than a re-calibration of the party
to what it stood for historically? A party that serves the will of the American people instead of global elites?
I utterly despise Neocons, whether in Politics & Government or as Catholic Church Commentators.
This is why I come to akacatholic.com, The Remnant Newspaper & Catholic Family News.
In Politics, Conservatives would use The Bomb, while Neocons would engage in "Protective Reaction", whatever that means.
In The Case of Louie, Mike Matt, Chris Ferrara, John Vennari, Dr John Rao & Ann Barnhardt, one is told the truth as it occurred.
There are no "Sweeps Week Specials" by People who are financed by Fat Cats & sound like Shills for said Fat Cats, while broadcasting
from a Miniaturized Version of The CBS Broadcast Center on West 57th Street, from a Suburb of The Motor City, who tells everyone
that what The Pope Said was a Mistranslation, while making Hay of Cardinal Dolan, passing wind on the Uptown Platform of the IND
6th Avenue Subway, all while the Polemicist is telling the World that The SSPX is in Schism. No, THAT Guy, despite the Bells &
Whistles, is a Neo Catholic, who in many cases, cannot get his facts straight.
The NeoCatholics are the ones telling people that Girl Altar Servers are OK because the Pope says so. Ditto, Sancte Communion
A Mano & Altar Tables facing the Congregation.You know WHO They Are.
But something I have noticed is that when it comes to Intelligent Conversation on the message boards, the Neo Catholics will
not tolerate dissent vis a vis their position. The one with his broadcast centre is a classic example, with commenters practically
forced to pay homage to The Fearless Leader's Position, even when not well researched.
Those who hold the Traditional Catholic Position, allow True Discussion on matters Catholic.
Traditional Catholic is true Freedom, without being patronizing. I cannot say that for a certain site, which charges $10 per
month for Premium Membership.
You've reminded me of how the totally neocon and cuckservative National Review now rigorously–with all the fanaticism of the Stasi–polices
its comments section. It's unreal.
"... The whole corrupt, crazy political process is a distraction from our real problems, and an endless maze of futility. The illusion of democracy is collapsing all around us, and safety lies in abandoning it. ..."
"... Agreed. Our entire national political debate is a theater of smoke and mirrors. The facts most obvious and degrading to the national interest are ignored at all costs, e.g., an out of control military-industrial-intelligence complex that now swallows up an obscene $1 trillion annually (including "defense related expenditures"). ..."
"... My plans for the upcoming Democratic primary in Florida: I will write "none of these clowns" at the top of the ballot. ..."
"... I tend to think that the Cold War bankrupted us as well as the Soviets, but we just haven't figured it that out yet. ..."
"... Most of the human race has been speeding towards the cliff at 100 mph like Thelma and Louise. Certainly America has been. It's getting ever closer. We will get there. Don't expect Zeno's paradox to save us. ..."
"... I share your setiment about the Democrats but voting for Republicans just because is equally foolish. Why support banning labor unions, corporate very expensive health care, greatly reducing and eventually eliminating social security and Medicare, privitzing all public infrastructure and bailing out wall Street at all cost. I could go on but you get the idea. Vote for candidates that stand for the American people and have the guts to stand up to the elites. If no such candidates exist in a particular election don't vote simple as that. ..."
"... tealing a "none of the above" write-in requires the ballot be destroyed, so it can provide a paper trail and/or a potential theft exposure point. ..."
"... I am a registered Democrat; I will NOT be voting for them this fall. They no longer have any credibility with me. Rachel helped them shoot themselves in the foot as far as I'm concerned. How are they any different from neocons??? I'm grateful WikiLeaks pulled off their mask. I'm a historian and know a lot of both CIA and Russian history and am not buying Russiagate or Democrats. ..."
"... I like that, the "Demented-crats"! They are so completely clueless, in their overpaid bubbles, nothing to say about the Race-to-the-Bottom, Hunger Games society they have helped create. ..."
"... The loyal shrills to Clinton? Those aren't progressives. ..."
"... As Jimmy Dore keeps telling us: the Democratic leadership, which is totally corporatist and neocon, would rather lose to the GOP candidate than to see a progressive or liberal Democrat win the office. The Dems have no independent policies of their own and are merely enablers to make sure that the hard right agenda always prevails. ..."
"... And I see Bernie Sanders was spewing this neo-McCarthyite crap on a Sunday morning talk show earlier this week. He really should know better. ..."
"... Isaac Christiansen observes that "As Democrats seek to shift blame away from the discontent with our economic system, their party and their chosen Neoliberal candidate, we are told that Trump came to power almost solely due to Russian interference in the U.S. 2016 election." ..."
"... Remember how the entire anti-Russian theme began? The Clinton team used Russia as their excuse for losing 2016. It didn't get much attention at first because the party/candidate that loses inevitably blames someone or something other than the candidate/party. But the Democrats ran with it from there, using much of the media marketed to liberals to build the Russian Tale. The most insane thing about the claims that Russia hacked voting machines for Trump, etc.: In spite of much Dem voter opposition to the Clinton right wing, H. Clinton got the most votes. (Did Russia do that, and if so, why?) Trump is president because of our antiquated electoral college process. Meanwhile, while Dems ramble on about a Putin/Trump bromance, the sane world has watched as Trump set the stage for our final war, US vs. Russia and China. ..."
"... Everything gets conspicuously twisted by a biased media, yet no one (of consequence) says anything about that. Even as Trump gets bashed, he gets cheered whenever he does something dangerous and stupid, such as launching missiles in the aftermath of an obvious false flag incident. We see the matrix being blatantly and clumsily spun right before our eyes and nobody says a word about the emperor's nakedness. ..."
"... It is time for the progressives to flee the Democratic party en masse and go their own way. ..."
"... "One quarter of all the Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have military-intelligence, State Department or NSC backgrounds. This is by far the largest subcategory of Democratic candidates." ..."
"... We haven't seen any progressives in years. Progressive politics isn't a new invention. In the US, it goes back at least to the early 1900s. It's about building a better nation from the bottom up -- legit aid for the poor at one end, firm restraints in the rich at the other end.We have nothing like that today. This isn't about "political purity," but about not calling an apple an armadillo. ..."
The whole corrupt, crazy political process is a distraction from our real problems,
and an endless maze of futility. The illusion of democracy is collapsing all around us, and
safety lies in abandoning it. We need a new way of thinking and acting that clearly and
directly sees our problems and deals with them. Politics as now understood is a dead end.
Agreed. Our entire national political debate is a theater of smoke and mirrors. The
facts most obvious and degrading to the national interest are ignored at all costs, e.g., an
out of control military-industrial-intelligence complex that now swallows up an obscene $1
trillion annually (including "defense related expenditures"). Even the fact that we no
longer live in a democracy but an oligarchy, according to objective studies and noted
commentators, including former president Carter, is never commented upon by the miscreant
pundits posing as reporters (Hayes, Maddow, Anderson, Cuomo, et al).
Realist , July 27, 2018 at 6:33 am
My plans for the upcoming Democratic primary in Florida: I will write "none of these
clowns" at the top of the ballot. Under that I will write "Stop the warmongering and
phony Russia-bashing. Stop the obstructionism just to damage Trump and exonerate Hillary for
losing a poorly-run campaign. I cannot vote for my party this November, and never again until
you stop trying to run to the right of the Republicans." Maybe someone reading the ballot
will pass the message on to the party leadership and adjustments will at least be
considered.
If not, eff 'em. We will be better off sweeping corrupt corporatist cronies of Hillary,
like Wasserman-Schultz, out of congress. Then there will be no doubt that the GOP needs to go
too, after they use their mandate to totally wreck all before them, and maybe, after a few
election cycles, some third party representing the interests of the people rather than Wall
Street and the MIC can emerge. Maybe the Greens and the Libertarians can become at least
equal players with the corporatist Dems and GOPers.
Somebody new is going to have to preside over the coming economic and societal collapse,
and do we want that to be the military, the police and the spooks? That is who will seize
power (not just covertly but overtly) if the usually mercenary politicians cannot effect some
workable changes.
Broompilot , July 27, 2018 at 7:01 pm
Like the Eastern Roman Empire, we could wax and wane for 1000 years with the power we
possess. Or, like the Soviet Union, we could suffer an economic collapse over a decade
throwing a large percentage of us into poverty.
I tend to think that the Cold War bankrupted us as well as the Soviets, but we just
haven't figured it that out yet.
Realist , July 27, 2018 at 9:48 pm
"I tend to think that the Cold War bankrupted us as well as the soviets, but we just
haven't figured that out yet."
Because we prefer to blow off science and empirically-supported concepts like the first
law of thermodynamics which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, just
transferred or changed in form.
We choose to believe that we can endlessly create money, which is a token representing
access to available stored energy, out of nothing by issuing debt. Even if the tokens are
infinite, on a finite planet the available energy is certainly not.
Most of the human race has been speeding towards the cliff at 100 mph like Thelma and
Louise. Certainly America has been. It's getting ever closer. We will get there. Don't expect
Zeno's paradox to save us.
Ma Laoshi , July 27, 2018 at 5:37 am
We are long past the point that this extreme Russophobia has revealed itself to be plain
old race hatred. These bouts of hysteria have always been part of the American DNA, and it
has been most instructive how fast and seamless the switch has been from Muslims to Russians
as the hated. Other. Progressives have solemnly declared themselves to be the good guys
without much introspection, so one would expect them to be more susceptible to this bigotry,
not less; a more astute observer might have asked "When will the machine turn on me next?",
as is of course already happening to Sanders and others.
Yes RussiaGating is a losing strategy, but most of the evidence is that progressives ARE
losers. So there's no surprise that they're falling for it, and little to indicate that they
deserve any better.
Mike , July 26, 2018 at 11:43 pm
Never voted for Republican congressmen in the past. Never. This time I will. Democrats are
the party of open borders and war. Now they want conflict with Russia over this ginned up
fake investigation. They don't represent working people any more. I don't even think they put
AMERICANS over illegal immigrants. Why is it wrong that people should be forced to obey
immigration law? The laws for citizens are enforced. Never thought I'd vote Republican.
I can't think of any reason to vote for 99.9% of the Democrats. The more everyone
including the media lies about Russia, the more I empathize with them.
I'd guess the business owners that rely on illegals vote for Republicans because they're
business owners. We need to eat and they need to make more money than they deserve so neither
party is going to stand in the way of it as long as they bribe their politicians and anybody
else that feels entitled to free stuff. Democrats won't get rid of ICE soon, if ever.
Nearly all people coming from the South are escaping conditions we've created and are
granted asylum when allowed to make their case in court.
I think treating defenseless people terribly to show how mean we can be is wrong.
I share your setiment about the Democrats but voting for Republicans just because is
equally foolish. Why support banning labor unions, corporate very expensive health care,
greatly reducing and eventually eliminating social security and Medicare, privitzing all
public infrastructure and bailing out wall Street at all cost. I could go on but you get the
idea. Vote for candidates that stand for the American people and have the guts to stand up to
the elites. If no such candidates exist in a particular election don't vote simple as
that.
glitch , July 28, 2018 at 11:28 am
If you can't vote third party write in none of the above on a paper ballot. If those
aren't options spoil your ballot but turn it in. Not voting doesn't register your disdain,
it's easier for them to ignore as apathy. And non votes can be spoofed (stolen). S
tealing a "none of the above" write-in requires the ballot be destroyed, so it can
provide a paper trail and/or a potential theft exposure point.
I am a registered Democrat; I will NOT be voting for them this fall. They no longer
have any credibility with me. Rachel helped them shoot themselves in the foot as far as I'm
concerned. How are they any different from neocons??? I'm grateful WikiLeaks pulled off their
mask. I'm a historian and know a lot of both CIA and Russian history and am not buying
Russiagate or Democrats.
I like that, the "Demented-crats"! They are so completely clueless, in their overpaid
bubbles, nothing to say about the Race-to-the-Bottom, Hunger Games society they have helped
create.
Meanwhile, over in Russia, the government with leadership of Vladimir Putin has increased
the Russians' standard of living, much as was done for Americans under FDR and the New Deal.
(Never a word about the 80+ governments the USA/CIA has destabilized or directly overthrown,
including Russia's -- oh no! We're exceptional, didn't you know?)
Yea, I don't get it. Who the hell do you consider to be the progressives!?! Most people I
know who consider themselves to be progressives aren't all wrapped up in the Russian
narrative. The loyal shrills to Clinton? Those aren't progressives. Clinton herself
pretty much backed away from that stamp during the election cycle. Pelosi has quite obviously
made it clear she can't even see that side of the fence. Or will she allow it the light of
day. In case you missed it, there's a war on progressives going on. And we aren't allowed in
that club over there. I follow a hand full of Green Party sites on face hack, and they aren't
having the Russia did it by any means. Only those loyal to the liberal democrats have the
ignorance to bellow out the talking points and support for Sanders. Yea, those people that
wouldn't give him the light of day during that same election cycle when we thought he was a
progressive. Easy Bob! Just a hic cup. I hope! Rest peacefully!
Realist , July 27, 2018 at 6:46 am
As Jimmy Dore keeps telling us: the Democratic leadership, which is totally
corporatist and neocon, would rather lose to the GOP candidate than to see a progressive or
liberal Democrat win the office. The Dems have no independent policies of their own and are
merely enablers to make sure that the hard right agenda always prevails. They are a sham
party. Enough "blue dogs" and GOP-light types always win as Democrats to ensure that no
progressive legislation will ever be enacted even when "the party" has 60% majorities in both
houses -- as they did in Obama's first term. This is by design. Even the putative Democratic
presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama functioned as center-right Republicans. Obama said
as much. Clinton didn't have to as his policies were all reactionary and brought us to the
impending economic collapse.
Zim , July 26, 2018 at 5:39 pm
Looks like the Inauthentic Opposition Party is gearing up for another ass whooping at the
polls. The hypocrisy, the cluelessness is astounding.
JMG , July 26, 2018 at 5:33 pm
From this excellent Norman Solomon's article:
"As The Hill newspaper reported this week under the headline "Most Americans Back Trump's
Call for Follow-Up Summit With Putin," 54 percent of respondents favored plans for a second
summit. "The survey also found that 61 percent of Americans say better relations with Russia
are in the best interest of the United States.""
And I see Bernie Sanders was spewing this neo-McCarthyite crap on a Sunday morning
talk show earlier this week. He really should know better.
Realist , July 27, 2018 at 7:01 am
He's been co-opted. He's been told that the blame will be his when the Democratic Party
collapses unless he works like hell to keep his sheep in the fold. He's following orders from
the DNC which believes that the party's last best hope for a comeback, indeed to stave off
annihilation, is to keep bashing Putin and Trump because they have no policies, no
credibility and no candidates that the people eagerly want to get behind. They think that
lies and war are the winning combination. How did that work out for LBJ, Bushdaddy, and
Dubya's organisation?
mrtmbrnmn , July 26, 2018 at 5:15 pm
Ever since the Bonnie & Clyde Clinton years, the sclerotic Establishment Dementedcrats
have essentially despised their base. They only speak AT them. Never FOR them. Or else they
SCOLD them or simply IGNORE them. I hope now they are beginning to FEAR them.
jose , July 26, 2018 at 4:22 pm
Personally speaking, I am yet to see any serious evidence against allege Russia meddling
in US elections. And I am not alone in this regard; For instance, according to counterpunch
news, " The decision to blame Russian meddling for Hillary Clinton's electoral loss was made
in the immediate aftermath of the election by her senior campaign staff." According to Mike
Whitney, "So far, no single piece of evidence has been made public proving that the Trump
campaign joined with Russia to steal the US presidency."
Isaac Christiansen observes that "As Democrats seek to shift blame away from the
discontent with our economic system, their party and their chosen Neoliberal candidate, we
are told that Trump came to power almost solely due to Russian interference in the U.S. 2016
election." I reckon that any rational person should believe any Russian interference in
US electoral system only when presented with real iron-clad prove. Otherwise, it would be
foolhardy to accept at face value speculations and innuendo of a foreign interference that
purportedly put Trump in the White House.
DH Fabian , July 26, 2018 at 3:28 pm
Well, a couple of issues here. Liberals have not been about economic justice, but about
protecting the advantages of the middle class (with an occasional pat on the head to min.
wage workers). They've forgotten that we're over 20 years into one hell of a war on the poor.
Not everyone can work, and there aren't jobs for all. The US began shipping out jobs in the
'80s, ended actual welfare aid in the '90s -- lost over 6 million manufacturing jobs alone
since 2000. What is" justice" for today's jobless poor?
Remember how the entire anti-Russian theme began? The Clinton team used Russia as
their excuse for losing 2016. It didn't get much attention at first because the
party/candidate that loses inevitably blames someone or something other than the
candidate/party. But the Democrats ran with it from there, using much of the media marketed
to liberals to build the Russian Tale. The most insane thing about the claims that Russia
hacked voting machines for Trump, etc.: In spite of much Dem voter opposition to the Clinton
right wing, H. Clinton got the most votes. (Did Russia do that, and if so, why?) Trump is
president because of our antiquated electoral college process. Meanwhile, while Dems ramble
on about a Putin/Trump bromance, the sane world has watched as Trump set the stage for our
final war, US vs. Russia and China.
Realist , July 27, 2018 at 7:09 am
"Meanwhile, while Dems ramble on about a Putin/Trump bromance, the sane world has
watched as Trump set the stage for our final war, US vs. Russia and China."
So very right. Everything gets conspicuously twisted by a biased media, yet no one (of
consequence) says anything about that. Even as Trump gets bashed, he gets cheered whenever he
does something dangerous and stupid, such as launching missiles in the aftermath of an
obvious false flag incident. We see the matrix being blatantly and clumsily spun right before
our eyes and nobody says a word about the emperor's nakedness.
Skip Scott , July 26, 2018 at 2:27 pm
It is time for the progressives to flee the Democratic party en masse and go their own
way. If they haven't learned anything from the 2016 election, they are doomed. The DNC
has a stranglehold on the Progressive movement, and sheep dog Bernie will once again herd
them over to the corporate sponsored candidate in the end. For the midterms, this is what the
Democrats have planned:
"One quarter of all the Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have
military-intelligence, State Department or NSC backgrounds. This is by far the largest
subcategory of Democratic candidates."
The Green Party has a truly Progressive platform on Domestic and Foreign policy, and are
our only hope at this point. They just need the right standard bearers to break through the
MSM censorship. If they could get a charismatic candidate for President in 2020 and break the
15% threshold for the debates, the American people would finally see that they really do have
a choice for a better future.
DH Fabian , July 26, 2018 at 3:36 pm
We haven't seen any progressives in years. Progressive politics isn't a new invention.
In the US, it goes back at least to the early 1900s. It's about building a better nation from
the bottom up -- legit aid for the poor at one end, firm restraints in the rich at the other
end.We have nothing like that today. This isn't about "political purity," but about not
calling an apple an armadillo.
It's true that the Green Party platform does include legitimatrely addressing poverty, but
perhaps understandably, this fact was swept under the carpet during their 2016 campaign.
will , July 26, 2018 at 8:32 pm
"We haven't seen any progressives in years" Apparently you don't get out much.
hetro , July 26, 2018 at 4:14 pm
Skip, let's hope we don't have the "hold your nose and vote Democrat" arguments again,
with Greens as a vote for Trump (or Putin?). Interestingly, the following poll from FOX news
indicates the strum und feces hysteria of the current Democratic machine may not be working
out all that well, as 7 in 10 respondents here indicate the political atmosphere in the US at
this time is "overheated."
Well, a good deal of that overheat is coming from the "them Russians them Russians" meme
continually pushed -- and way over the top for most American people trying to "have a great
day!" This poll does indicate Dems are ahead at this point, and in the past several election
cycles there has been a regular switch every two years in congressional domination.
"The Green Party has a truly Progressive platform on Domestic and Foreign policy, and
are our only hope at this point."
The Green Party is a Capitalist party, just the kindest and gentlest Capitalism of any of
the Capitalist parties with the most stringent leash on the mad killer dog that is Capitalism
and the best safety net for those chased off the cliff by that mad killer dog.
For those of us who see that Capitalism is the problem, that makes voting Green actually a
lesser evil choice. If we're going to vote lesser evil, we might as well vote for the most
progressive Democrats, or even centrist ones when they're running against fire breathing
Randian Republicans who combine that with a Fundamentalist Christian Theocratic agenda (a
combination that makes no sense, but who said the GOP makes sense?)
There are few viable Socialist parties in the US anymore. The biggest jettisoned Socialism
nearly 50 years ago when it also jettisoned actually being a political party and decided to
just be a lobby group within the Democratic Party. The only political heir of Eugene V. Debs,
the Socialist Party USA, is now a fringe group whose national conventions are more like a
picnic gathering of a few friends. The other organizations that seem more viable are actually
Trotskyite groups, and Trotsky was not non-violent at all, which I am.
I am really at a lost what to do as far as the less important task of voting (which is
less important than ongoing activism.) I just did my primary ballot. We've got this terrible
top two primary, a system that basically kills movement building.
I could have voted for Gigi Ferguson, the independent, who was endorsed by the Green
Party, running for senate against NeoLiberal phony environmentalist Maria Cantwell and not
the poser, who said he was Green, (parties have no say in candidates' statements of which
party they prefer,) but is for privatizing Social Security. But I instead voted for Steve
Hoffman, the only avowed Socialist on the ballot in any race, even though his Freedom
Socialist Party is Troskyite.
I voted for Stoney Bird, a real Green, running against TPP loving and indefinite detention
loving and NeoLiberal anti-Single Payer Rick Larsen for Congress.
My state legislation had two positions. In one I voted for Alex Ramel, an ecological
activist, over the preferred establishment choice of Identity Politics candidate (tribal,)
Debra Lekanoff. In the other the incumbent, Jeff Morris, another establishment Democrat, ran
unopposed. I wrote in "None." (Morris having the same family name as my mother's maiden name
didn't affect me at all.)
But it was all an exercise in futility, voting for my conscience as much as possible. I
have little doubt that none of my choices, except maybe Ramel, will make it to the top two.
Cantwell and Larsen are shoo-ins and they'll surely face the establishment GOP candidate.
Thus cutting out all other options in the Fall.
I'll have to write in my choices then. Oh well.
maryam , July 27, 2018 at 4:54 am
Over here in Europe (not UK) and faced with the similar problem of inapt candidates, we
sometimes need to vote creatively: so we vote, of course, but choose to make the ballot sheet
invalid. this way our voice is noted and we show that we care about the electoral process,
while it also makes clear that we do not care much about the cabdidate(s). "we" will vote,
but "they" are not very trustworthy.
MBeaver , July 27, 2018 at 8:12 am
Yep. We in Germany had that lesson already. The Green party was one of the most corrupt
one when they finally got elected into the government. They also harmed the social systems
massively and supported the first offensive war with German support since WW2. Even as
opposition they show all the time how much they lie about their true intentions.
They are not an option, because they are hypocrites.
ronnie mitchell , July 27, 2018 at 4:09 pm
Interesting comment with some good information that I appreciate.\ I live in Bellingham
and have filled out my vote for Stony Bird over Rick Larsen whom I truly despise. In fact in
previous election cycles I voted for Mike Lapointe instead but he quit running more than a
few years ago so the last time I just left it blank and the same goes for the general
election vote for Congress.
With the TPP issue Rick Larsen had a townhall meeting at City hall building which was packed
and he starts off by saying he hasn't read any of the text of the TPP yet so he was free from
answering most questions however he would be checking it out BUT no there would be no further
meeting before the voting. In other words he was giving us NOTHING.
I had been part of the protesters outside his fundraising gathering (private and by
invitation only) and have been to his local office many times (it's two blocks from where I
live) and when myself and a small group were in opposition to building the largest coal
terminal in north America at Cherry Point. He would never say he was against it or for it but
his fundraisers were backers of the terminal and as each of our group stepped forward to give
a statement to his office workers on the issue (Rick was in DC,aka District of Corruption at
the time) they just politely listened but neither recorded nor wrote down ANYTHING we
said.
The list is long regarding issues on which he is on the opposite side of his constituents
wishes and at one gathering was smugly dismissive of requests to represent the votes of the
people and not use his super delegate status(not Democratic) to endorse Hillary Clinton
because votes in Caucuses were overwhelmingly for Sen. Sanders.
I could go on but it would be too long of a comment but you've given me some good ideas for
other choices on the ballot which I needed in particular with Maria Cantwell whom (like
fellow neoliberal Patty Murray) I have refused to support in the last two elections.For one
of many examples of why, one big one was their stand against importing cheaper medicines from
Canada which was word for word straight out of the Big PHarma handbook of talking points, but
they DID get quite a lot of flak for it.
I'll look into some of your other suggestions as well before I turn in this ballot, thanks
for your comment.
TS , July 27, 2018 at 4:06 am
> Skip Scott
> If they could get a charismatic candidate for President in 2020 and break the 15%
threshold for the debates,
And what makes you think the people who decide wouldn't simply shift the goalposts?
Skip Scott , July 27, 2018 at 2:48 pm
I'm sure that would be attempted, but with a strong candidate hopefully there'd be enough
of a fuss made to get them to back off. I'd also like to dream that some of the more
progressive Democrats in congress would see the writing on the wall, and declare themselves
Greens. That'd give us a toehold in two branches of government. I know I'm being overly
optimistic, but it keeps me away from the whiskey bottle.
Piotr Berman , July 28, 2018 at 3:06 pm
I have some misgivings to "eco politics", I am not sure to what extend they apply to
Greens, and I am sorry to say, liberals have a knack to pick the worst parts of any
progressive idea.
Any goal has to consider trade-off. If we think that emitting carbon to the atmosphere is
a major problem, solutions must follow economic calculus. Instead, there was two much stress
on "aesthetic solutions" and sometimes scientifically unsound solutions. For example,
aesthetic solution is electric vehicles, but hybrid vehicles offer a much smaller cost per
amount of carbon that is saved, only when majority of vehicles already gain from regenerative
braking and having engines work only in fuel optimal conditions (battery absorbing surplus or
augmenting the engine power when the amount of needed power is outside parameters optimal for
the internal combustion engine) you may get better cost from electric engines.
Or excluding nuclear power from the "approved solutions". One of my many objections on
"Republicans on energy" that they promised a few times to be "rational" but they never
delivered.
Philosophically, there should be a fat carbon tax and social policies and subsidies to
avoid poor people to loose.
"Hyperrational" progressive approach would be to make a balance: as a society, where do we
waste, and where do we spent too little.
1. Military/foreign policy. In aggregate, spendings are huge and nobody is overly proud
from the results. An open question if this category of spending should be decreased by 50% or
75%, if we proceed in stages we can reach satisfactory point. Mind you, the largest ticket
items are improving nuclear weapons or conventional weapon systems that are needed against
very few most sophisticated adversaries who also waste resources. USA, Russia, China, the
rest of NATO etc. could agree to some disarmament, Russia and China actually accelerated
weapon development in response to "Let America dominate forever" policies, bad news are they
they do it for less money.
2. Medical robbery complex. Private insurance and lack of costs control leads to spending
on medical care around 18% of GDP rather than 10%. This waste is actually larger than all
spending on defense.
3. Infrastructure (large public role) and other capital investments (small public role but
essential fiscal policies and "thoughtful protectionism"), we spent too little, can be
covered by a part of 1 and 2.
I could continue with "hyperrational progressive manifesto" but I will give one example.
Enforcing labor standards may eliminate 90% of illegal employment without walls,
concentration camps for aliens etc. Some industries cannot make it without cheap illegal
aliens, if they REALLY cannot, workers should work legally in their home countries and
resulting imports should be encouraged. If picking carrots is too expensive in USA, we may
get them from other countries in Western Hemisphere. On that note, lately there are enough
jobs in USA, but native born citizens do not flock to carrot picking, they would rather have
jobs that required large capital investments and there are too few of those.
Hyperrational rhetoric can borrow from libertarians: if our allies do not feel secure when
they spend X times more than their regional adversaries (especially if we add our own
regional expenditures), that says that money alone cannot cure their "secure feeling" deficit
and we and they are already spending too much. We do not need to hate or demean anyone to
reach such conclusions.
Skip Scott , July 29, 2018 at 1:09 pm
Piotr-
I am all in favor of rational solutions to our environmental problems. The problem is the
entrenched power of the existing exploitive industries. An incredible amount of progress
could be made through on-site power generation and energy efficient building design.
I'm am not in favor of current nuclear power plants, but I am not opposed to research, and
I've heard good things about recent designs, especially thorium nukes. I am no engineer, but
if we had safe nukes, we could go with hydrogen fuel cells for automobiles. There are plenty
of other creative ideas as well for things such as localized food production.
If we find common purpose with the Libertarians to stop the war machine, the amount of
energy and resources and creative potential to bring humanity forward would be tremendous.
First we have to stop the war machine, and then we can argue about the extent of the role of
government in a free society.
The fact that Mark Zuckerberg is so rich is annoying, and his separateness from Main Street may not be a great thing socially,
but in an economic sense, his fortune did not "come from" the paychecks of ordinary workers...
It damn sure did. It came straight out of their pension funds. Thousands of pension funds across the world bought faang stocks
and those workers will be getting fucked in the end while while zuck heads back to hawaii with their money. look at elon, his
company hasn't made dime one in profit but he is a billionaire. amzn, with a p/e of 228. they didn't get that p/e without millions
of ordinary folk buying their overpriced stock. it is pure ponzi-nomics with fascist overtones and the maggots are cashing out
big time.
The greatest fortunes in history have been built in the last 10 years with 0% interest rates. You were spot on about pensions,
they were the casualties, almost every private pension in the country bankrupted by 0% rates so that these fucks could amass unimaginable
wealth.
Now the filthy commoner scum have the audacity to suggest that they should pay taxes on it. Where will the madness end?
All my friends Jews knew this was going to happen. They were buying stocks like crazy when I was telling them to buy gold and
get ready for a big reset that never happened. Ten years later they are all multimillionaires and I lost half of my money buying
gold...
institutions bought their shares with real earned money. bezos did not. as far as i'm concerned being a ceo is a license to
steal. bezos damn sure didn't earn that money because he is smarter or works harder than anyone else. look at how he treats his
workers. what an asshole.
It's even worse than that. So much worse. Facebook was stolen by the Satanic Judaic Zionist crowd. Research it. Another gentleman
invented it. The Jews stole it, like they've stolen pretty much everything else. No wonder Napoleon said that "The Jews are the
master robbers of the modern age". And beyond the criminal vile theft, you have what they are using it for. And that is?
Using it for the 911'd cows in America. And that is you. The Satanic Jews are murdering you and robbing you blind. They 911'd
you physically with the Twin Towers. Now they're doing it mentally and financially with Facebook, a control system grid -- a gate
to herd cattle which they view you as. They are herding you. You'll be 911'd again in larger and larger numbers until the Satanic
Judaic is removed from the World Stage.
Zuckerberg is a planted punk Zionist spook. You're going to have to clear the world of all of these Satanic Judaic ladies and
gentlemen. First the idea needs to come in to show how and why. This is underway.
Ever since the housing crisis I been waiting for the world to become a better place. I see now that I been fooling myself into
believing that we live in a civilized and honest world. Nobody gives a shit about anyone nor anything, people only care about
themselves...
"... Sanders's support for the anti-Russia and anti-Wikileaks campaign is all the more telling because he was himself the victim of efforts by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party leadership to block his 2016 campaign. In June and July 2016, Wikileaks published internal Democratic emails in which officials ridiculed the Sanders campaign, forcing the DNC to issue a public apology: "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email." ..."
"... In the aftermath of his election campaign, Sanders was elevated into a top-level position in the Democratic Party caucus in the US Senate. His first response to the inauguration of Trump was to declare his willingness to "work with" the president, closely tracking remarks of Obama that the election of Trump was part of an "intramural scrimmage" in which all sides were on the same team. As the campaign of the military-intelligence agencies intensifies, however, Sanders is toeing the line. ..."
"... The Sanders campaign did not push the Democrats to the left, but rather the state apparatus of the ruling class brought Sanders in to give a "left" veneer to a thoroughly right-wing party. ..."
"... There is no contradiction between the influx of military-intelligence candidates into the Democratic Party and the Democrats' making use of the services of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez to give the party a "left" cover. Both the CIA Democrats and their pseudo-left "comrades" agree on the most important questions: the defense of the global interests of American imperialism and a more aggressive intervention in the Syrian civil war and other areas where Washington and Moscow are in conflict. ..."
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders appeared on the CBS interview program "Face the Nation"
Sunday and fully embraced the anti-Russia campaign of the US military-intelligence apparatus,
backed by the Democratic Party and much of the media.
In response to a question from CBS host Margaret Brennan, Sanders unleashed a torrent of
denunciations of Trump's meeting and press conference in Helsinki with Russian President
Vladimir Putin. A preliminary transcript reads:
SANDERS: "I will tell you that I was absolutely outraged by his behavior in Helsinki, where
he really sold the American people out. And it makes me think that either Trump doesn't
understand what Russia has done, not only to our elections, but through cyber attacks against
all parts of our infrastructure, either he doesn't understand it, or perhaps he is being
blackmailed by Russia, because they may have compromising information about him.
"Or perhaps also you have a president who really does have strong authoritarian tendencies.
And maybe he admires the kind of government that Putin is running in Russia. And I think all of
that is a disgrace and a disservice to the American people. And we have got to make sure that
Russia does not interfere, not only in our elections, but in other aspects of our lives."
These comments, which echo remarks he gave at a rally in Kansas late last week, signal
Sanders' full embrace of the right-wing campaign launched by the Democrats and backed by
dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus. Their opposition to Trump is centered
on issues of foreign policy, based on the concern that Trump, due to his own "America First"
brand of imperialist strategy, has run afoul of geostrategic imperatives that are considered
inviolable -- in particular, the conflict with Russia.
Sanders did not use his time on a national television program to condemn Trump's persecution
of immigrants and the separation of children from their parents, or to denounce his naming of
ultra-right jurist Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, or to attack the White House
declaration last week that the "war on poverty" had ended victoriously -- in order to justify
the destruction of social programs for impoverished working people. Nor did he seek to advance
his supposedly left-wing program on domestic issues like health care, jobs and education.
Sanders' embrace of the anti-Russia campaign is not surprising, but it is instructive. This
is, after all, an individual who presented himself as "left-wing," even a "socialist." During
the 2016 election campaign, he won the support of millions of people attracted to his call for
a "political revolution" against the "billionaire class." For Sanders, who has a long history
of opportunist and pro-imperialist politics in the orbit of the Democratic Party, the aim of
the campaign was always to direct social discontent into establishment channels, culminating in
his endorsement of the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
Sanders's support for the anti-Russia and anti-Wikileaks campaign is all the more
telling because he was himself the victim of efforts by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic
Party leadership to block his 2016 campaign. In June and July 2016, Wikileaks published
internal Democratic emails in which officials ridiculed the Sanders campaign, forcing the DNC
to issue a public apology: "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and
sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the
inexcusable remarks made over email."
In the aftermath of his election campaign, Sanders was elevated into a top-level
position in the Democratic Party caucus in the US Senate. His first response to the
inauguration of Trump was to declare his willingness to "work with" the president, closely
tracking remarks of Obama that the election of Trump was part of an "intramural scrimmage" in
which all sides were on the same team. As the campaign of the military-intelligence agencies
intensifies, however, Sanders is toeing the line.
The experience is instructive not only in relation to Sanders, but to an entire social
milieu and the political perspective with which it is associated. This is what it means to work
within the Democratic Party. The Sanders campaign did not push the Democrats to the left,
but rather the state apparatus of the ruling class brought Sanders in to give a "left" veneer
to a thoroughly right-wing party.
New political figures, many associated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are
being brought in for the same purpose. As Sanders gave his anti-Russia rant, Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez sat next to him nodding her agreement. The 28-year-old member of the DSA last
month won the Democratic nomination in New York's 14th Congressional District, unseating the
Democratic incumbent, Joseph Crowley, the fourth-ranking member of the Democratic leadership in
the House of Representatives.
Since then, Ocasio-Cortez has been given massive and largely uncritical publicity by the
corporate media, summed up in an editorial puff piece by the New York Times that
described her as "a bright light in the Democratic Party who has brought desperately needed
energy back to New York politics "
Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders were jointly interviewed from Kansas, where the two appeared
Friday at a campaign rally for James Thompson, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the
US House of Representatives from the Fourth Congressional District, based in Wichita, in an
August 7 primary election.
Thompson might appear to be an unusual ally for the "socialist" Sanders and the DSA member
Ocasio-Cortez. His campaign celebrates his role as an Army veteran, and his website opens under
the slogan "Join the Thompson Army," followed by pledges that the candidate will "Fight for
America." In an interview with the Associated Press, Thompson indicated that despite his
support for Sanders' call for "Medicare for all," and his own endorsement by the DSA, he was
wary of any association with socialism. "I don't like the term socialist, because people do
associate that with bad things in history," he said.
Such anticommunism fits right in with the anti-Russian campaign, which is the principal
theme of the Democratic Party in the 2018 elections. As the World Socialist Web
Site has pointed out for many months, the
real thrust of the Democratic Party campaign is demonstrated by its recruitment as
congressional candidates of dozens of former CIA and military intelligence agents, combat
commanders from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and war planners from the Pentagon, State
Department and White House.
There is no contradiction between the influx of military-intelligence candidates into
the Democratic Party and the Democrats' making use of the services of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez
to give the party a "left" cover. Both the CIA Democrats and their pseudo-left "comrades" agree
on the most important questions: the defense of the global interests of American imperialism
and a more aggressive intervention in the Syrian civil war and other areas where Washington and
Moscow are in conflict.
"... This short communiqué is to my friends who are trapped in hating Donald Trump so much that any "alternative fact" (as long as it is against President Trump) is virtue to them. They are not realizing that the feud among the 1%, regardless of their Party affiliation is a family feud. The extreme right wing politicians and billionaires run both the Democratic and Republican parties. Their arguments are not about our state of healthcare, education or jobs. ..."
"... Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. ..."
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above
This short communiqué is to my friends who are trapped in hating Donald Trump so
much that any "alternative fact" (as long as it is against President Trump) is virtue to them.
They are not realizing that the feud among the 1%, regardless of their Party affiliation is a
family feud. The extreme right wing politicians and billionaires run both the Democratic and
Republican parties. Their arguments are not about our state of healthcare, education or
jobs.
Friends who are dissatisfied with the current political situation (instead of organizing
against the reactionary policies of the current administration or question the congress for
approving the Tax Cut for the rich) are competing in posting the Democratic Party
hysteria against Russia on the social media. They are distracted by the false narrative that
"American Democracy" is under "attack" by one man in Russia, President Putin who has Mr. Trump
in his "pocket".
Those who believe such an absurd storyline rely on the U.S. Intelligence agencies reports
and findings! These are the same agencies that informed Americans that Saddam Hussein had
Weapons of Mass Destruction. They are the same people who justified war against Iraq in 2003
which opened the gates of hell in that region for decades. Now, after they had succeeded in
blowing up people and countries in the Middle East on false information, the ladies and
gentlemen of the U.S. intelligence agencies have found a new bogeyman to scare the American
people. This is just another DISTRACTION , period.
The fascistic minded President of the U.S. is not in anybody's pocket. As a matter of fact,
today it is the political pocket pickers in Washington who are robbing the American working
people and holding us as hostages. When was the last time that you saw the White House or
Congress address the working people's real needs and problems? Some friends are mesmerized by
the nastiness of the 1% cultural values. However exposing Mr. Trump sexual affair with a "Porn
Star" will not help the American people's struggle for the Minimum Wage or Protecting
Environment, Immigration and so on. This is just another DISTRACTION .
Under bright light, President Trump and his opponents play out their childish, embarrassing
show against each other in front of the corrupt media, while in the shadow of
DISTRACTION they are limiting our FREEDOM OF SPEECH and taking away our democratic
rights. Both parties are afraid of the energy and determination of workers, farmers, women and
youth which eventually could challenge the entire existing miserable system. Historically, they
are well aware of the potential of revolt by people who are organized and conscious. The ladies
and gentlemen in charge of the U.S. foreign and domestic policy are incapable of solving our
social or political problems; the only thing they are good at is to create decoys and
DISTRACTION . The gossip shows on the corporate media are blindfolding us to see the
slaughters in Gaza or Yemen or the devastating consequences of the Trump administration Trade
War drive against the EU and China 1 on American farmers and workers.
Independent and democratic minded people SHOULD NOT take any side between the different
factions of the 1%. We should not allow the 1% use us as their pawns to propagate their hate
and disunity among people.
The White House and Congress are obsolete. Independent and democratic minded people should
UNITE, ORGANIZE and seek a new operating system – a system that puts people's need over
profit.
*
Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the
United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
"... The wing of the Democratic Party that looks for the dollars instead of the votes is called "The Third Way" and it presents itself as representing the supposedly vast political center, nothing "extremist" or "marginal." But didn't liberal Republicanism go out when Nelson Rockefeller did? Conservative Democrats are like liberal Republicans -- they attract flies and billionaires, but not many votes. And didn't the Rockefeller drug laws fill our prisons with millions of pathetic drug-users and small drug-dealers but not with the kingpins in either the narcotics business or the bankster rackets (such as had crashed the economy in 2008 -- and the Third Way Democrat who had been the exceptional politician and liar that was so slick he actually did attract many votes, President Barack Obama, told the banksters privately, on 27 March 2009, "I'm not out there to go after you. I'm protecting you." And, he did keep his promise to them, though not to his voters .) ..."
"... They want another Barack Obama. There aren't any more of those (unless, perhaps, Michelle Obama enters the contest). But, even if there were: How many Democrats would fall for that scam, yet again -- after the disaster of 2016? ..."
"... Maybe the Third Way is right, and there's a sucker born every minute. But if that's what the Democratic Party is going to rely upon, then America's stunningly low voter-participation rate is set to plunge even lower, because even more voters than before will either be leaving the Presidential line blank, or even perhaps voting for the Republican candidate (as some felt driven to do in 2016). ..."
"... Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity . He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. ..."
The wing of the Democratic Party that looks for the dollars instead of the votes is
called "The Third Way" and it presents itself as representing the supposedly vast political
center, nothing "extremist" or "marginal." But didn't liberal Republicanism go out when Nelson
Rockefeller did? Conservative Democrats are like liberal Republicans -- they attract flies and
billionaires, but not many votes. And didn't the Rockefeller drug laws fill our prisons with
millions of pathetic drug-users and small drug-dealers but not with the kingpins in either the
narcotics business or the bankster rackets (such as had crashed the economy in 2008 -- and the
Third Way Democrat who had been the exceptional politician and liar that was so slick he
actually did attract many votes, President Barack Obama, told the banksters privately, on 27
March 2009, "I'm not out there to go after you.
I'm protecting you." And, he did
keep his promise to them, though not to his voters .)
They're at it, yet again. On July 22nd, NBC News's Alex Seitz-Wald headlined
"Sanders' wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems. Here's how they plan to stop it." And
he described what was publicly available from the 3-day private meeting in Columbus Ohio of The
Third Way, July 18-20, the planning conference between the Party's chiefs and its billionaires.
Evidently, they hate Bernie Sanders and are already scheming and spending in order to block
him, now a second time, from obtaining the Party's Presidential nomination. "Anxiety has
largely been kept to a whisper among the party's moderates and big donors, with some of the
major fundraisers pressing operatives on what can be done to stop the Vermonter if he runs for
the White House again." This passage in Seitz-Wald's article was especially striking to me:
The gathering here was an effort to offer an attractive alternative to the rising
Sanders-style populist left in the upcoming presidential race. Where progressives see a rare
opportunity to capitalize on an energized Democratic base, moderates see a better chance to
win over Republicans turned off by Trump.
The fact that a billionaire real estate developer, Winston Fisher, cohosted the event
and addressed attendees twice, underscored that this group is not interested in the class
warfare vilifying the "millionaires and billionaires" found in Sanders' stump speech.
"You're not going to make me hate somebody just because they're rich. I want to be
rich!" Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, a potential presidential candidate, said Friday to
laughs.
I would reply to congressman Ryan's remark: If you want to be rich, then get the hell out of
politics! Don't run for President! I don't want you there! And that's no joke!
Anyone who doesn't recognize that an inevitable trade-off exists between serving the public
and serving oneself, is a libertarian -- an Ayn Rander, in fact -- and there aren't many of
those in the Democratic Party, but plenty of them are in the Republican Party.
Just as a clergyman in some faiths is supposed to take a vow of chastity, and in some faiths
also to take a vow of poverty, in order to serve "the calling" instead of oneself, anyone who
enters 'public service' and who aspires to "be rich" is inevitably inviting corruption
-- not prepared to do war against it . That kind of politician is a Manchurian
candidate, like Obama perhaps, but certainly not what this or any country needs, in any case.
Voters like that can be won only by means of deceit, which is the way that politicians like
that do win.
No decent political leader enters or stays in politics in order to "be rich," because no
political leader can be decent who isn't in it as a calling, to public service, and as a
repudiation, of any self-service in politics.
Republican Party voters invite corrupt government, because their Party's ideology is
committed to it ("Freedom [for the rich]!"); but the only Democratic Party voters who at all
tolerate corrupt politicians (such as Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York State) are actually
Republican Democrats -- people who are confused enough so as not really to care much about what
they believe; whatever their garbage happens to be, they believe in it and don't want to know
differently than it.
The Third Way is hoping that there are
enough of such 'Democrats' so that they can, yet again, end up with a Third Way Democrat being
offered to that Party's voters in 2020, just like happened in 2016. They want another Barack
Obama. There aren't any more of those (unless, perhaps, Michelle Obama enters the contest).
But, even if there were: How many Democrats would fall for that scam, yet again -- after the
disaster of 2016?
Maybe the Third Way is right, and there's a sucker born every minute. But if that's what the
Democratic Party is going to rely upon, then America's stunningly low voter-participation rate
is set to plunge even lower, because even more voters than before will either be leaving the
Presidential line blank, or even perhaps voting for the Republican candidate (as some felt
driven to do in 2016).
The Third Way is the way to the death of democracy, if it's not already dead . It is no answer
to anything, except to the desires of billionaires -- both Republican and Democratic.
The center of American politics isn't the center of America's aristocracy. The goal
of groups such as The Third Way is to fool the American public to equate the two. The
result of such groups is the contempt that America's
public have for America's Government . But, pushed too far, mass disillusionment becomes
revolution. Is that what America's billionaires are willing to risk? They might get it.
Note: The term Progressive is now so mutilated that it's no longer effective as an identifier
of political affiliation. To be a real Progressive: one must be Anti-War, except in the most dire
of circumstances, which includes being Anti-Imperialist/Anti-Empire; 2nd, one must be Pro-Justice
as in promoting Rule of Law over all else; 3rd, one must be tolerant and willing to listen to
others; and 4th, work for Win-Win outcomes and denounce Zero-sum as the smoke screen for
increasing inequality
The so-called "insurgents" are no such thing. That's a standard Democrat scam to keep
potential apostates roped in. Bernie Sanders always has been a con artist. Not that it's any
secret: His entire senate record is of worthless grandstanding and zero real monkey-wrenching
or grid-locking action .
As for his campaign, from day one he proclaimed he was a loyal Democrat soldier and that
he would support Clinton and do all he could to deliver his supporters to her. He dutifully
kept that promise. Along the way and since the 2016 election he's done zero toward building
any kind of grassroots alternative. That's because he never intended to be part of any real
alternative in the first place. And that's why the DNC always has supported his "independent"
senate campaigns - he does an excellent con-job on behalf of their agenda.
And today he's fully on board with the Russiagate campaign, doing all he can to rope in
"progressives" who might be having doubts about the anti-Russia lunacy. His usual job.
As for the latest wave of progressive heroes, for just one typical example I'll observe
that Ocasio-Cortez immediately after her primary win lost no time scrubbing the anti-war
plank from her site and publicly retracting her previous statements on behalf of the
Palestinians. The Democrat con always runs like clock-work.
And as the post describes, with Russiagate the fake insurgents provide a new service to
the Party: To serve as bogeymen for internally-directed Party propaganda, as an
organizational vehicle to "get out the vote" among establishment loyalists.
There's no way forward with the Democrat Party. It always has been a death trap for all
progressive, let alone radical aspirations. The Party and its partisans must politically
perish completely, as a prerequisite for any good transformation of America.
"... After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54 Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31 countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying ..."
"... Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow objective truth be aired on on occasion. ..."
"... The Intelligence Agencies are the Praetorian Guard in the United States. ..."
"... Party politics is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor differences and move forward to working for the greater good... ..."
"... I just saw another Tucker Carlson news clip that Tony Podesta is offered immunity to testify against Paul Manafort? WTF? Why aren't Podestas charged?! ..."
"... Neocons, military industrial complex and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities, wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people, even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out. ..."
"... Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2 billion gone, servers gone! ..."
Guys Did you know: After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA
Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54
Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31
countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The
US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying.
¯\_(^)_/¯
Tucker Carlson is a special character. 95% of time i disagree with Tucker but 5% of time
he's just exceptionally good. In April his 8 minute monologue was epic. I love Jimmy Dore's
passion... specially when he pronounes "they're lying!!!" Jimmy clearly hates liars ;-) We
love you Jimmy for your integrity and intelligence.
Weapons of mass destruction, 9/11, Bin Laden, Lybia, Gulf of Tonkin, Opium fields in
Afghanistan, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Paperclip..... A few reasons not to trust your
CIA and FBI. I am sure you guys can name some more.
Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is
painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow
objective truth be aired on on occasion.
Pulling off the partisan blinders is the first step toward enlightenment... Party politics
is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the
major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor
differences and move forward to working for the greater good...
THE CIA HAS BEEN OVERTHROWING GOVERMENTS FOR DECADES,and you wonder why Trump doesn't
trust them? It's because he doesn't want war. He ain't no saint but at least we have an anti
war President.
Morning Joe's panel said today that the Democrats need to run on this Russia conspiracy
theory, and nothing else, in order to win the midterms. If they bring up free college or
medicare for all it will "weaken their message and confuse the voters". Once again the
corporate neoliberal warmonger Democrats and their rich TV puppets are setting us up for
failure, no voter gives a damn about Russia, MSNBC wants our progressive candidates to lose
instead of reform their corrupt party!
I think what has happened to the Liberals, is that for decades and decades they were the
most progressive, tolerant party. They really did want to do more for the people and tried to
introduce things that the right would instantly point to and call "socialist!!" Corporations
started to look at these liberals as representatives they could pay off but without suspect,
unlike Republicans, who were widely known to accept money from Corporations, Big Pharma and
huge construction companies (Haliburton anyone?).
Over time, Liberals saw the benefits of
being chummy with these same big $$ companies and voted on bills, etc in the ways that would
make these corps very happy and more profitable. No one wanted to believe that Liberals were
doing the same thing as Republicans but now we know they are. It's not a secret anymore. Most
politicians aren't in it to make their country, their state or their cities better; they're
in it to make their bank accounts unbelievably huge and that's it. They're greedy people with
no integrity, pretending to serve the people.
I'm a righty, and I'm so surprised to see a liberal agree with Tucker in all the things I
care about! Imagine what we could accomplish if we put aside our differences for a time and
work on what we agree on! No more immoral wars for Israel! TRY BUSH, CHENEY, AND ALL NEOCONS
THAT LED US TO WAR WITH IRAQ FOR TREASON!!
You are so right. Thank you for bringout the truth. Neocons, military industrial complex
and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities,
wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people,
even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not
crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out.
Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2
billion gone, servers gone! DmoKKKrats cannot even prove climate change
"... After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54 Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31 countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying ..."
"... Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow objective truth be aired on on occasion. ..."
"... The Intelligence Agencies are the Praetorian Guard in the United States. ..."
"... Party politics is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor differences and move forward to working for the greater good... ..."
"... I just saw another Tucker Carlson news clip that Tony Podesta is offered immunity to testify against Paul Manafort? WTF? Why aren't Podestas charged?! ..."
"... Neocons, military industrial complex and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities, wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people, even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out. ..."
"... Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2 billion gone, servers gone! ..."
Guys Did you know: After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA
Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54
Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31
countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The
US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying.
¯\_(^)_/¯
Tucker Carlson is a special character. 95% of time i disagree with Tucker but 5% of time
he's just exceptionally good. In April his 8 minute monologue was epic. I love Jimmy Dore's
passion... specially when he pronounes "they're lying!!!" Jimmy clearly hates liars ;-) We
love you Jimmy for your integrity and intelligence.
Weapons of mass destruction, 9/11, Bin Laden, Lybia, Gulf of Tonkin, Opium fields in
Afghanistan, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Paperclip..... A few reasons not to trust your
CIA and FBI. I am sure you guys can name some more.
Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is
painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow
objective truth be aired on on occasion.
Pulling off the partisan blinders is the first step toward enlightenment... Party politics
is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the
major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor
differences and move forward to working for the greater good...
THE CIA HAS BEEN OVERTHROWING GOVERMENTS FOR DECADES,and you wonder why Trump doesn't
trust them? It's because he doesn't want war. He ain't no saint but at least we have an anti
war President.
Morning Joe's panel said today that the Democrats need to run on this Russia conspiracy
theory, and nothing else, in order to win the midterms. If they bring up free college or
medicare for all it will "weaken their message and confuse the voters". Once again the
corporate neoliberal warmonger Democrats and their rich TV puppets are setting us up for
failure, no voter gives a damn about Russia, MSNBC wants our progressive candidates to lose
instead of reform their corrupt party!
I think what has happened to the Liberals, is that for decades and decades they were the
most progressive, tolerant party. They really did want to do more for the people and tried to
introduce things that the right would instantly point to and call "socialist!!" Corporations
started to look at these liberals as representatives they could pay off but without suspect,
unlike Republicans, who were widely known to accept money from Corporations, Big Pharma and
huge construction companies (Haliburton anyone?).
Over time, Liberals saw the benefits of
being chummy with these same big $$ companies and voted on bills, etc in the ways that would
make these corps very happy and more profitable. No one wanted to believe that Liberals were
doing the same thing as Republicans but now we know they are. It's not a secret anymore. Most
politicians aren't in it to make their country, their state or their cities better; they're
in it to make their bank accounts unbelievably huge and that's it. They're greedy people with
no integrity, pretending to serve the people.
I'm a righty, and I'm so surprised to see a liberal agree with Tucker in all the things I
care about! Imagine what we could accomplish if we put aside our differences for a time and
work on what we agree on! No more immoral wars for Israel! TRY BUSH, CHENEY, AND ALL NEOCONS
THAT LED US TO WAR WITH IRAQ FOR TREASON!!
You are so right. Thank you for bringout the truth. Neocons, military industrial complex
and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities,
wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people,
even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not
crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out.
Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2
billion gone, servers gone! DmoKKKrats cannot even prove climate change
So Iran has no offensive air force or any Nukes but the Israelis with their air superiority and nukes are making Iran - enemy
#1. How very - American - of them.
So Iran has no offensive air force or any Nukes but the Israelis with their air superiority and nukes are making Iran - enemy
#1. How very - American - of them.
Activist Potato @164, well Obama was on record saying that they stood by and watched ISIS
grown, and take ever more territory and expected it would weaken the Syrian government,
leading to "Mission Accomplished." Even if he did want to prevent Trump from being
(s)elected, that would be a hard hill to fight for.
The US public has been fed up with the corruption and disastrous policies of the US
government for quite a while. I mean, 10 years ago we elected a black(ish) man with a Muslim
name for criizzacks! How desperate were we to do that in the middle of the "Clash of
Civilizations" Global War OF Terror?
By the time they were planning out the 2016 (s)election, it should have been clear to
anyone that the US was going to vote for real change. It turns out that a good number were so
desperate that they said they'd vote for the New York City conman, knowing he was horrible,
simply because they thought they were throwing a monkey wrench into "the system."
So, what did they give us? A woman who was not only the most hated and mistrusted
candidate in history (until The Donald), but also the very symbol of "more of the same."
Then, some how, "leaked" or "hacked" documents came out showing she was even more criminal
and corrupt that most had thought. And they came out at just the right time to make a good
number of those who were willing to hold their noses and vote for her to refuse to.
Meanwhile, the MSM filled the airwaves with everything Trump such that they sucked the
oxygen out of the room for anyone else. And the MSM insisted Trump was "an outsider," and
showed us every way possible that "the Establishment" didn't want to let him "win."
I came to see the whole operation as a brilliant psyop about the time of the Party
Conventions. I was so sucked into the drama of the DNC stealing the nomination from Sanders
that I allowed myself to be sucked right along (as I believe I was meant to be).
But after a year and a half of watching the only changes in US policy have been to escalate
the worst of them, and rape the 99% with even greater fury, it takes a special kind of faith
to still believe that Trump was ever an "outsider" and that the "establishment" is anything
except thrilled with how it's going. Hell, even failed "news" organizations like the NY Times
and MSDNC are in boon times again!
And the brilliant irony of it all is that they're making bank on telling us how much they
hate what's making them rich! LOL!
As for Trump, the same case is true. He represents the part of America which is realizing
it is loosing its sole superpower status. Had Hillary Clinton won in 2016 (which could
have happened -- Trump only won because of American system's technicalities) , the
cauldron that is today's USA social fabric would've only gathered even more pressure,
triggering an even deeper crisis in 2020.
Posted by: vk | Jul 17, 2018 2:09:39 PM | 80
That's the sort of fuzzy logic I was whingeing about in the comment to which this
codswallop is purporting to be a response. Team Trump was fully aware of the 'technicalities'
and ran a campaign designed to capitalise on them. Not only did they figure out how to
maximise the potential advantage of focusing on the Electoral College, Trump campaigned his
arse off 7 days a week.
Hillary the "consummate professional insider", on the other hand ran a lazy lacklustre
campaign. The over-arching feature of Her public gatherings was that they were little more
than an invitation to bask in Hillary's reflected Radiance. So not only did Trump win the
race, his victory was enhanced by Hillary's stupidity and chronic self-absorption.
The problem is everyone is stuck in the "lesser over greater evil" construct and that's
what makes the American Zionist-influenced duopoly so powerful. Trump is part of that failed
system that Americans are so dependent on and that always leads to the same place. People
should fight this lesser vs greater evil construct, even if Americans are too stupid at this
time to get out of it. It means they'd have to choose outside the box, outside the media's
choices example Fox and other Rightist outlets for Trump. CNN, MSNBC - Hillary, but the media
is all Zionist run and specializes in the brainwash on both sides. It's all part of the same
sham. The duopoly.
It starts with primaries for representatives and choosing a candidate that demonstrates
independence and integrity; especially those that the media wants to ignore; that's not
beholden to special interests or financed by Zionists.
Most importantly when America goes wrong and it's royally f...cked up right now, the rest
of the world, the web has to push back against their ignorance and their stupid choices,
because those choices hurt others as much as they hurt them only they're still too
brainwashed to see it. Americans had the right idea to turn on the establishment, but Trump
was the perfect Zionist anti-establishment decoy, a fraud, a pretender just like Obama was
for the Left.
In the past election, the only viable contender was Bernie who got railroaded by
Democratic Zionists like Wasserman and Podesta. I think Bernie was more authentic than the
two evils, Hillary and Trump, and although his Zionist roots are always a concern; he was run
out precisely because he was a rogue Jew and Zionists couldn't trust him. He wasn't in the
pocket of Zionist financiers although he was running with the Democrats, but in the current
status quo he had no choice but to use the Democratic Party as a means to an end and they did
him in. If Hillary were not on the ticket who knows what could have been. He was a start in
the right direction away from the Zionist financed duopoly.
... that is a much harder conversation to have about why the Democrats have lost elections than just blaming a foreign villain
and saying it's because Vladimir Putin ran some fake Facebook ads and did some phishing emails ... the conversation we need
to be having [about lies/corruption from the deep state and powerful actors acting against US citizens interests, and decline
of institutions that support US citizens' freedom], but we're not having, because we're evading it by blaming everything on
Vladimir Putin.
I agree with Mish on all this, including " Nearly every political action that generates this much complete nonsense and hysteria
from the Left and Right is worthy of immense praise" though he doesn't qualify/define "Left and Right" as the Left and Right establishment
aka. the Uniparty. The statement wouldn't have applied to say the Left and Right establishment that existed when our founders
created the country and were united to create a government that defends our lives, liberties and pursuit of happiness with an
extremely limited (by today's standards) government. You don't see the Freedom Caucus getting hysterical about Trump's meeting
Putin.
Mass hysteria is exactly what it is, because it threatens their gravy train that comes from money taken by force from taxpayers.
the citizens voted against the establishment, and the establishment is fighting back along with their MSM cronies.
I've never been enthralled with Neil Cavuto due to considering him inferior as a host on things financial. Today he just crapped
in his mess kit with me. He has to be dirty, the way he was defending the wonderful intelligence "community" of the USA, and was
hinting that treason may not be a strong assessment of Trump with Putin. He is a real POS along with girly-man Shepard Smith.
Not one criticism of any Cabalist about graft and corruption, and especially no mention of the uranium to Russia by Obama's and
Hillary's REAL treason.
I repeat, all of you goofy imbeciles, Trump is sucking you down into the depths of embarrassment once the hammer drops. I expected
the fruity Smith but must admit the Cavuto stupidity is a bit of a surprise. Someone has pics of that dumb fuck in a compromising
situation.
This is one of the reasons Americans of all colors and stripes will not receive the the benefits of the powers of economic equality,
transparency, literal meanings of the health of the economy and economic freedom.
Because they will remain blinded by partisan worship of the presidents. We agree with Obama's criticism of big banks or of Bush's
conducts of the war. We agree with Trump's criticism of the wars raging in the ME . We agree with his take on illegal immigrants.
Instead of holding their feet to the fire, we condone, ignore, and then come out in support of them when they fail miserably and
intentionally on other vital areas or when they go against the election promises.
We believe he shits about economy coming out of FOX CNN MSNBC NYT NY POST because we worship the candidates they support or don't
support , or because the support or don't support our views on other areas .
American economy has been growing without the accompanying growth of the worker's compensation for 45 years . Nothing new . Presidents
have no role for the existing condition of the economy . Presidents may claim some success down the line years after presidency is
over . Our economic knowledge is doled out by the same psychopaths who dole us out the knowledge and the faith about wars and about
other countries from the unclean perches of the media . Yes its a handout Its a dole because we have all along built up our world
view and our view of US as told by these guys dictated to us and shoved down us . The folks whose income have suffered and hours
have increased don't have the time or the brains to explore and verify . They are just happy to know that they heard this "Trust
but verify " and heard this " make America Great Again " . They are happy to go to war because a lesbian was killed in Uganda or
in Syria or a girl was raped in Libya or gas was smelt in Dara and Hara , Sara Bara and Laora - just throw some names any name, and
these folks will lend their names and sign up .
This is the underlying mindset and the intellectual foundation which explain our deepest attachment to liar like Obama and to
Trump. Combined with helplessness ,this experience of reality can be disorienting and can lead to Stockholm Syndrome .
If this president wants no immigration to EU, he should stop supporting France's exploitation and military adventures in Africa,
stop adding to war efforts in ME and will pay the restitution for ravaging those countries . He should focus on US and stop talking
about EU's immigration.
" If this president wants no immigration to EU, he should stop supporting France's exploitation and military adventures
in Africa, stop adding to war efforts in ME and will pay the restitution for ravaging those countries. He should focus on US
and stop talking about EU's immigration. "
THE great cause of migrants coming to Europe is the USA, the wars in and destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria Mali,
as far as I know hardly anyone comes from Mali to us. Sudan was split by the USA, oil, the USA is building a drone base in Nigeria,
oil again...
Possibly Brussels now understands that an attack on Iran will cause a new flood of migrants, Netanyahu has been warned. A new
flood is the deadsure end of the EU.
"... IS THE LEASH NOW OFF THE 'OTHER CIA?' https://southfront.org/is-the-leash-now-off-the-other-cia/ ..."
"... Under Donald Trump, who is on record favoring CIA kidnapping and torture programs, the CIA has been given a green light to carry out "targeted assassinations." ..."
Under Donald Trump, who is on record favoring CIA kidnapping and torture programs, the CIA has been given a green light to
carry out "targeted assassinations."
Although most of these targeted kills have been carried out by drone attacks in Yemen, Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Somalia, where civilian deaths from "collateral damage" are estimated to be well over three hundred, recent events
point to the CIA's return to the "bad old days," when it engaged in a global program of assassinating political leaders.
Newly popular Democratic politician hero and nominee for a seat in the U.S. Congress
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez used to have these words on her website:
A Peace Economy
"Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and
occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently
involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and
Somalia. According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the Legislative
body, not the President. Yet, most of these acts of aggression have never once been voted
on by Congress. Alex believes that we must end the forever war by bringing our troops home
and ending the air strikes and bombings that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism and
occupation throughout the world."
Now they're gone. Asked about it on Twitter, she replied:
"Hey! Looking into this. Nothing malicious! Site is supporter-run so things happen --
we'll get to the bottom of it."
It will be interesting to see if Ocasio-Cortez will/can maintain her position on Israeli
crimes. Public figures have a long history of backpedaling after getting the riot act read to
them from the hebrew masters.
The rant of a coddled establishment chickenhawk, who is quite overrated, relative to the
positions accorded to him (Nasty people don't deserve kindness.)
Notable quotes:
"... When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum. ..."
"... Ralph Peters is one of the nuttiest neocons around, and Fox was smart to dump him. I recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA ..."
"... He lives off scraps from neocons by selling his soul for BS talking points and collects a monthly check from Uncle Sam after 20 years of sitting at a desk doing BS intel work, as I once did for a year. It seems he missed his chance at killing commies in Nam by touring Europe, as Fred Reed explained ..."
"... Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, received well deserved praise for taking to task the permeating anti-Russian biases. The highlight of Carlson's exchanges was his encounter with Ralph Peters, who for years has spouted grossly inaccurate propaganda against Russia. Antiwar.com and Russia Insider, are among the counter-establishment English language venues commenting on the Carlson-Peters discussion. The US foreign policy establishment realist leaning National Interest carried a lengthy piece on Carlson's challenge to the neocon/neolib foreign policy perceptions. For the record, more can and should be said in reply to Peter's comments. ..."
"... Peters' characterization of Russia targeting civilian areas is disingenuous. Over the years, the matter of collateral damage is something periodically brought up in response to those killed by US and Israeli military actions. ..."
"... Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to Russia. ..."
Or, recall those on-camera Fox News Russia experts -- think here of General Jack Keane or
the unhinged Colonel Ralph Peters who literally foamed at the mouth when talking about Putin,
calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had committed "worse crimes" than the
German dictator. (Peters is so anti-Russian that he finally
left the Fox News network in March 2018 )
When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters
provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters
immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was
a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum.
Ralph Peters is one of the nuttiest neocons around, and Fox was smart to dump him. I recall
an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug addition
problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA.
He lives off scraps from neocons by selling his soul for BS talking points and collects a
monthly check from Uncle Sam after 20 years of sitting at a desk doing BS intel work, as I
once did for a year. It seems he missed his chance at killing commies in Nam by touring
Europe, as Fred Reed explained:
Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, received well deserved praise for taking to
task the permeating anti-Russian biases. The highlight of Carlson's exchanges was his
encounter with Ralph Peters, who for years has spouted grossly inaccurate propaganda
against Russia. Antiwar.com and Russia Insider, are among the counter-establishment English
language venues commenting on the Carlson-Peters discussion. The US foreign policy
establishment realist leaning National Interest carried a lengthy piece on Carlson's
challenge to the neocon/neolib foreign policy perceptions. For the record, more can and
should be said in reply to Peter's comments.
Peters falsely claims that Russia hasn't made a concerted effort in confronting ISIS. In
one of his more accurate moments, CNN's Wolf Blitzer said that the ISIS claimed shoot down
of a Russian civilian airliner over Egypt, was in response to Russia's war against ISIS.
You've to be either a liar or clueless to not recognize why Russia has actively opposed
ISIS. The latter sees Russia as an enemy, while having a good number of individuals with
roots in Russia and some other parts of the former USSR.
Peters' characterization of Russia targeting civilian areas is disingenuous. Over the
years, the matter of collateral damage is something periodically brought up in response to
those killed by US and Israeli military actions.
Peters offers no proof to his suspect claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin kills
journalists. There're numerous anti-Putin advocates alive and well in Russia. That country
does have a violence problem. Recall what the US was like in the 1960s thru early
1970′s. For that matter, Bernie Sanders isn't blamed for the pro-Sanders person who
attempted to kill Republican lawmakers.
Given the situations concerning Kosovo and northern Cyprus, Peters is being a flat out
hypocrite regarding Crimea. Donbass is a civil conflict involving some Russian support for
the rebels, who're overwhelmingly from the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. These
individuals have a realistic basis to oppose the Kiev based regimes that came after the
overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian president.
During the American Revolution, most of the pro-British fighters were said to be
colonists already based in America. Furthermore, the American revolutionaries received
significant support from France. With these factors in mind, the Donbass rebels don't seem
less legit than the American revolutionaries.
Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of
Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in
Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of
the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to
Russia.
Putin isn't anti-US in the manner claimed by Peters. Moreover, Peters is clearly more
anti-Russian (in a narrow minded way at that) than what can be reasonably said of how Putin
views the US. Putin's obvious differences with neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters
isn't by default anti-US. He was the first foreign leader to console the US following 9/11.
The Russian president has been consistently on record for favoring better US-Russian ties
(even inquiring about Russia joining NATO at one point), thereby explaining why he has
appeared to have preferred Trump over Clinton.
Some (including Trump) disagree with that view, which includes the notion that the
Russians (by and large) prefer predictability. As a general rule this is otherwise true.
However, Clinton's neocon/neolib stated views on Russia have been to the point where many
Russians felt willing to take a chance with Trump, whose campaign included a comparatively
more sympathetic take of their country. At the same time, a good number of Russians
questioned whether Trump would maintain that stance.
The general adaptation syndrome, he said, unfolded in three stages: alarm, resistance,
and exhaustion.
First thought was that's what political party elites use to keep their base from changing
their party elites policies: 'alarm' the base about the horribleness of the 'other side',
rally the base to 'resist' any actions by 'the other side' (while not changing course and not
offering policies the base wants/needs), and finally, 'exhaust' the base with resistance
movements designed not to succeed politically but to exhaust the base so they'll 'adapt' to
whatever the party elites dictate as policy.
OK, I'm trying to force a comparison here, straining the metaphor, which is stressful.
;)
That's all right and indignation is well deserved, but what is the alternative? Is Sanders
program a real alternative or he just served as a sheepdog for Hillary.
The Iron law of oligarchy is a serious constrain that suggest that the socialist system degenerate to oligarchical system
really quick and as such is not a viable option.
The USSR experience tells us a lot about how the process of degeneration of "revolutionary elite" once started logically leads
to neoliberalism
Notable quotes:
"... The elite class secured its stance as British Rule 2.0 by throwing their money behind politicians who they knew would advance their interests, whether those interests are in ensuring that the arms and munitions they manufacture get used frequently, the expansion of predatory trade policies, keeping tax loopholes open and keeping taxes on the wealthiest of the wealthy very low, deregulating corporations and banks, or enabling underhanded Wall Street practices which hurt the many for the benefit of the few. ..."
"... Buckley v. Valeo ..."
"... First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti ..."
"... Citizens United v. FEC ..."
"... So if you've ever wondered why seemingly common sense matters like a living wage and healthcare as a right consistently get shot down by your government, this is why. In order to rule you as King George ruled you, the oligarchs need to make sure most of America is toiling just to keep its head above water. Progressives were able to mount an intimidating insurgency using tiny 27-dollar donations on 2016; imagine what they could do if ordinary working Americans were being paid their fair share of the U.S. economy? ..."
"... The oligarchs can keep that from happening by continually escalating income inequality. They use their massive political power to repress the minimum wage, to undermine the power of unions ..."
"... America is a corporatist oligarchy dressed in drag doing a bad impression of a bipartisan democracy. Sometimes it doesn't even keep its wig on; a recent party at the Hamptons saw Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Kellyanne Conway and Charles Koch mixing it up with Chuck Schumer and George Soros. ..."
"... When they're not dining on champagne and rare fillet together, these people pretend to be locked in a vicious partisan battle that is "tearing the nation apart," but at Lally Weymouth's annual Southampton summer party the act stops and the oligarchs frolic together like children. ..."
"... This commentary was originally published on ..."
"... The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were NOT inclusive documents. Both of these papers were written by, and for rich landowners. Slavers, in short. The writers did not believe that 'the people' were intelligent enough to contribute to government. The 'Founding Fathers' comprised the original oligarchy. ..."
"... America was formed/founded by White men seeking fame, fortune and power outside the existing European political power structure. From its' beginning, it has been a nation of migrants seeking this kind of fortune ..."
"... You can talk all you want about political systems, which is better or how to corral the oligarchs who rule America, but what I've described is America and the world will never have peace or prosperity until the American Empire ends and the whole world can then celebrate American Independence Day – the Day when the rest of the world is Independent from the Evil Empire. ..."
"... Hard to have a Fourth of July celebration when your Bill of Rights and Constitution have been Trashed. ..."
"... Marxists (and much of the broader. "Left") have always maintained that the capitalist mode of production – and the bourgeois-democratic political superstructure it necessitates – represented an immense revolutionary achievement in the course of human development. ..."
"... Casting aside the last vestiges of the feudal system, particularly hereditary monarchy and titles of nobility, was critical to the eventual move toward a more equitable system of political economy. ..."
"... The reactionary system of corporate rule that we see today is a result of the bourgeoisie and capitalist system having (long) outlived their historically progressive role. However, that does not minimize the fact that in relation to the prior system (I.e. feudalism and monarchy), the US capitalist bourgeois-democratic form of political economy was a great achievement. ..."
"... "Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." Major General Smedley Butler ..."
"... I can't disagree with this articles premise that capitalism has it's flaws but I also contend that socialism has just as sordid a track record with it's own set of oligarchs. ..."
"... The United States did not win independence from George III. Since 1689 the UK/Great Britain has been a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. (Now go look that up to see what it means.) That means that Parliament does not answer to the monarch. Period. ..."
"... George III was America's eighteenth century Putin. Someone they blame for all their problems, but who is not actually responsible for any of them. Americans, like their precious Second Amendment will not grow up and move on. ..."
"... The establishment of the Central Bank in City-of-London in 1694 or thereabouts, when William of Orange crossed the English Chanel, along with his retinue of immigrant Venetian banksters from the Netherlands, is the one pertinent fact worth remembering. ..."
"... Whether one envisages the traditional concept of royalty with precious stones-studded crowns and all the "royal" trapping, pomp and circumstance or multi-billionaire corporate tax-evading mega-moguls, the groups are essentially the same. Wealth inequality on Earth, ironically and sadly, has grown while so-called "royalty" as a visible phenomenon has slowly diminished. The problems associated with record concentration of wealth on Earth have grown in equal proportion, to the point where people are starting to consider newer, potentially more beneficial economic thought and viable alternative systems. ..."
Americans celebrate their independence 242 years ago today from Britain with little
thought it seems about who rules them now, comments Caitlin Johnstone.
Today America celebrates its liberation from the
shackles of the British Crown and the beginning of its transition into corporatist oligarchy,
which is a lot like celebrating your lateral promotion from housekeeping to laundry staff.
Fireworks will be set off, hot dogs will be consumed, and a strange yellow concoction known as
Mountain Dew will be imbibed by patriotic high-fiving Yankees eager to celebrate their
hard-fought freedom to funnel their taxes into corporate welfare instead of to the King.
Spark up a bottle rocket for me, America! In trouncing King George's red-coated goon squad,
you made it possible for the donor class to slowly buy up more and more control of your shiny
new government, allowing for a system of rule determined not by royal bloodlines, but by wealth
bloodlines. Now instead of your national affairs being determined by some gilded schmuck across
the pond, they are determined by the billionaire owners of multinational corporations and
banks. These oligarchs have shored up their rule to such an extent that congressional
candidates who outspend their opponents are almost
certain to win , and a
2014 Princeton study found that ordinary Americans have no influence whatsoever over the
behavior of their government while the will of the wealthy has a direct influence on US policy
and legislation.
The elite class secured its stance as British Rule 2.0 by throwing their money behind
politicians who they knew would advance their interests, whether those interests are in
ensuring that the arms and munitions they manufacture get used frequently, the expansion of
predatory trade policies, keeping tax loopholes open and keeping taxes on the wealthiest of the
wealthy very low, deregulating corporations and banks, or enabling underhanded Wall Street
practices which hurt the many for the benefit of the few. The existence of legalized
bribery and corporate lobbying as illustrated in the video above have enabled the plutocrats to
buy up the Legislative and Executive branches of the US government, and with these in their
pockets they were eventually able to get the Judicial branch as well since justices are
appointed and approved by the other two. Now having secured all three branches in a system of
checks and balances theoretically designed to prevent totalitarian rule, the billionaire class
has successfully secured totalitarian rule.
By tilting the elections of congressmen and presidents in such a way as to install a
corporatist Supreme Court bench, the oligarchs successfully got legislation passed which
further secured and expanded their rule with decisions like 1976's Buckley v. Valeo,
1978's First National
Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, and 2010's Citizens United v. FEC .
This has had the effect of creating a nation wherein money equals power, which has in turn had
the effect of creating a system wherein the ruling class is, in a very real way, incentivized
to try and keep everyone else poor in order to maintain its rule.
George III: Like today's rulers of America, he didn't give up without a fight. (National
Portrait Gallery, London.)
Just as King George didn't give up rule of the New World colonies without a knock-down,
drag-out fight, King George 2.0 has no intention of relinquishing its rule either. The
oligarchs have been fighting to keep their power, and, in the money-equals-power system that
they have built for themselves, this necessarily means keeping you from having money. Just as
King George's kingship would have meant nothing if everybody was King, the oligarchs won't be
oligarchs anymore if ordinary Americans are ever able to secure enough money for themselves to
begin influencing their government within its current money-equals-power paradigm.
So if you've ever wondered why seemingly common sense matters like a living wage and
healthcare as a right consistently get shot down by your government, this is why. In order to
rule you as King George ruled you, the oligarchs need to make sure most of America is toiling
just to keep its head above water. Progressives were able to mount an intimidating insurgency
using tiny 27-dollar donations on 2016; imagine what they could do if ordinary working
Americans were being paid their fair share of the U.S. economy?
The oligarchs can keep that from happening by continually escalating income inequality.
They use their massive political power to repress the minimum wage, to undermine the power of
unions , and to continually pull more and more energy away from socialist programs and
toward the corporate deregulation of neoliberalism. If you don't depend on running the rat race
for some corporate boss in order for your family to have health insurance, you're suddenly free
to innovate, create, and become an economically powerful entrepreneur yourself.
America is a corporatist oligarchy dressed in drag doing a bad impression of a
bipartisan democracy. Sometimes it doesn't even keep its wig on; a recent party at the Hamptons
saw Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Kellyanne Conway and Charles Koch mixing it up with Chuck
Schumer and George Soros.
When they're not dining on champagne and rare fillet together, these people pretend to
be locked in a vicious partisan battle that is "tearing the nation apart," but at Lally
Weymouth's annual Southampton summer party the act stops and the oligarchs frolic together like
children.
1776 turned out to be nothing other than a transition from one form of exploitative rule to
another, but who knows? Maybe a year in the not-too-distant future will see America celebrating
a real Independence Day.
This
commentary was originally published on Medium.
"Just a reminder; Sanders would have won if not for the hated Hillary"
Even if he did, it would not have made a difference; the POTUS does not make laws,
Congress does, at least on paper
Just remember, Bernie did endorse RHC at the DNC. That probably had been the play all
along during the primary. Sanders to woo in all of the "dissenters" and then turn them over
to RHC, under the "unity" umbrella against Trump.
I still "Feel the Burn", the burn of the rigged system, don't you?
rgl , July 5, 2018 at 12:52 pm
The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were NOT inclusive documents. Both of these
papers were written by, and for rich landowners. Slavers, in short. The writers did not
believe that 'the people' were intelligent enough to contribute to government. The 'Founding
Fathers' comprised the original oligarchy.
Money (land and slaves) was the basis of political power in the 17th century. Funny that.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Ergo Sum , July 5, 2018 at 7:32 am
@Jean
Just a reminder; Sanders would have won if not for the hated Hillary"
It would not have made any difference, even if he did. The POTUS does not make laws,
Congress does.
You should not forget that Sanders endorsed RHC at the DNC. His purpose during the primary
has been to channel all of democrats with social, economic and political dissatisfaction to
Hillary at the end. "Feel The Burn", the burn of the rigged system. It is another example of
how the rigged system allows minor uprising to flourish for a while, and then crush it at the
end by the perceived front-runner of the movement. The movement is dead, voters are further
disillusioned that enforces the viewpoint of there's nothing that peaceful action can do to
change the system. This results in even less people showing up at the voting booth to cast
their votes, that the rigged system loves; it does not need to disenfranchise voters and
easier to predetermine the outcome any of the upcoming elections.
Happy Birthday America, the home of the free and the brave You are free to rig the system,
if you are brave enough
Tom , July 5, 2018 at 5:58 am
America was formed/founded by White men seeking fame, fortune and power outside the
existing European political power structure. From its' beginning, it has been a nation of
migrants seeking this kind of fortune – bugger those damn savages that get in the way
of this greed and desire to take land, resources and culture away from America's native
inhabitants. And so it began this way and has continued unabated for more than the life of
the nation which began in 1776 – more than 240 years of expansionism, colonization and
subjugation of those less powerful – too take away the land and resources of not just
the native American Indians, but later the peoples of Cuba, Philippines, Japan, China and on
to the World Wars, late 20th century wars in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria,
Yemen and on and on an on – continuous warfare and expansionism of the American Empire
to take away land, resources and power of the native inhabitants of every nation the US
targets for regime change or conquest.
You can talk all you want about political systems,
which is better or how to corral the oligarchs who rule America, but what I've described is
America and the world will never have peace or prosperity until the American Empire ends and
the whole world can then celebrate American Independence Day – the Day when the rest of
the world is Independent from the Evil Empire.
Hard to have a Fourth of July celebration when your Bill of Rights and Constitution have
been Trashed.
Anonymous , July 5, 2018 at 3:43 am
Marxists (and much of the broader. "Left") have always maintained that the capitalist mode
of production – and the bourgeois-democratic political superstructure it necessitates
– represented an immense revolutionary achievement in the course of human
development.
Anonymous , July 5, 2018 at 12:25 pm
Casting aside the last vestiges of the feudal system, particularly hereditary monarchy and
titles of nobility, was critical to the eventual move toward a more equitable system of
political economy.
The reactionary system of corporate rule that we see today is a result of the bourgeoisie
and capitalist system having (long) outlived their historically progressive role. However,
that does not minimize the fact that in relation to the prior system (I.e. feudalism and
monarchy), the US capitalist bourgeois-democratic form of political economy was a great
achievement.
"Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to
operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." Major General Smedley
Butler
Good on you Mukadi for posting this link. PCR did a great analogy of our American war
culture. Joe
It's a knee-jerk celebration, anyway, for the most part. The citizens are told to
celebrate, so they celebrate. Just like Thanksgiving, Christmas, Valentine's Day, the Fourth
of July is a day to generate money. The firecrackers are popping right now, a worship of the
warship that the US has become.
Much of my time is spent reading commentary that I agree with and articles I agree with.
Something to consider for the website, descriptive articles yes but more prescriptive ones.
For example, articles by people who have ideas for change, addressing important policy
questions like taxation, health insurance, technology stuff like robotics and how to spread
its benefits. and of course, reform of the process of selecting and electing our leaders.
Just a thought.
Kenny , July 4, 2018 at 5:43 pm
I can't disagree with this articles premise that capitalism has it's flaws but I also
contend that socialism has just as sordid a track record with it's own set of oligarchs.
Horrendous global economic conditions require new economic thinking that improves the
health and well-being of the most number of people. Economist and author Henry George
(1839-1897) nailed it decades ago in his multi-million copy, bestselling 1879 book "Progress
and Poverty" – the "single tax" or land value tax.
Consortium News would do humanity a great service by bringing the writings of Henry George
economic philosophy advocates to readers and CN's massive group of supporters around the
world. For example, an excellent guest writer suggestion is Henry George expert, confirmed
enthusiast, and author of many books on the subject, Mr. Fred Harrison.
System-wide implementation of Henry George economic principles addresses the real concerns
raised by Caitlin Johnstone and so many others in this time of unprecedented wealth
inequality, faulty economics, the new royals called corporate oligarchs, seeming endless war,
and the great societal problems manifested as a consequence.
Peace.
Drew Hunkins , July 4, 2018 at 4:28 pm
Jefferson was very old when he first saw the fledgling stages of early corporate power,
they called them "moneyed incorporations" or something like that. Jefferson warned that these
new "moneyed incorporations" had the potential power to undermine everything the revolution
accomplished.
John2o2o , July 4, 2018 at 4:18 pm
Sigh. I know I'm probably wasting my time saying this as Caitlin's groupies will not
tolerate criticism of their anointed one.
The United States did not win independence from George III. Since 1689 the UK/Great
Britain has been a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. (Now go look that up to see what it means.) That
means that Parliament does not answer to the monarch. Period.
"In the Kingdom of England, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 led to a constitutional
monarchy restricted by laws such as the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701,
although limits on the power of the monarch ('a limited monarchy') are much older than that
(see Magna Carta). At the same time, in Scotland the Convention of Estates enacted the Claim
of Right Act 1689, which placed similar limits on the Scottish monarchy." wikipedia.
George III was America's eighteenth century Putin. Someone they blame for all their
problems, but who is not actually responsible for any of them. Americans, like their precious
Second Amendment will not grow up and move on.
I know it suits some of you to believe that somehow the royals are super powerful, but
they are not. They don't call the shots and haven't done so now for over 300 years.
Joe Lauria , July 4, 2018 at 4:43 pm
"War began in 1775 and was prolonged in 1779, *at the king's insistence,* to prevent
copycat protests elsewhere. The British defeat in 1781 prompted North to resign. In 1783,
North and the prominent Whig politician Fox formed a coalition government. Their plans to
reform the East India Company gave George the chance to regain popularity. He *forced the
bill's defeat* in Parliament, and the two resigned. In their place George *appointed* William
Pitt the Younger."
George blocked legislation and he appointed the first minister, i.e. he had power over
parliament.
The Continental Congress was primarily frustrated with Parliament, a resent that had been
brewing since the conclusion of the Seven Years War. But, at the same time, royalist
enthusiasm had been budding, with an increasing obsession within the colonies of being
faithful servants of the crown. Thus, the Congress styled their petitions to the monarch,
hoping he would quash his evil ministers, with George III being the hoped for "patriot king".
When George attacked the colonies, and began efforts to crackdown on political unrest, the
otherwise unpopular and extreme option of independence became feasible. George was not an
absolute monarch or a tyrant, but he did have significant power, and he could, if he played
parliamentary politics well enough, get his way. The Glorious Revolution did not disempower
the monarchy or firmly establish parliamentary power, both of these phenomena began both
before and after the events of 1688.
Brad Owen , July 5, 2018 at 4:20 am
The establishment of the Central Bank in City-of-London in 1694 or thereabouts, when
William of Orange crossed the English Chanel, along with his retinue of immigrant Venetian
banksters from the Netherlands, is the one pertinent fact worth remembering.
THIS is what the
Founders actually declared their independence from, establishing the National Bank in the
process (which was shut down relatively quickly thereafter, by agents loyal to City-of-London
Central Bank). Independence has been a farce from the beginning and we never had our
Republic, let alone keeping it, as Benjamin Franklin had warned us would be the problem.
We've had a phony Republic based on the model supplied by Venice (and established by Venetian
"Dutch Masters" in The Netherlands in the 17th century) throughout the Medieval/Renaissance
eras. It is the same old, ongoing, Citizens' Republic vs Oligarchs' Empire fight that Western
Civilzation inherited from Roman times.
Whether one envisages the traditional concept of royalty with precious stones-studded
crowns and all the "royal" trapping, pomp and circumstance or multi-billionaire corporate
tax-evading mega-moguls, the groups are essentially the same. Wealth inequality on Earth,
ironically and sadly, has grown while so-called "royalty" as a visible phenomenon has slowly
diminished. The problems associated with record concentration of wealth on Earth have grown
in equal proportion, to the point where people are starting to consider newer, potentially
more beneficial economic thought and viable alternative systems.
The ideas of economist and author of "Progress and Poverty" – HENRY GEORGE
(1839-1897) "Single tax" proponent (or "land value tax") – are both disappointingly
under-discussed and under-appreciated, while offering precisely the economic alternative for
effectively dealing with today's orthodox economy-centric global, societal problems. People
might take the time in researching Henry George's ideas when they understand (only one of
many benefits) that implementation of Georgist economic principles means no more income tax
taken out of their paychecks
Consortium News (CN) is the perfect platform for support of Henry George economic thought
and raising awareness of an idea whose time may just have arrived. We might suggest
Consortium News publish the writings of Henry George expert and author of many books on the
subject Mr. Fred Harrison, who would likely happily provide his impressive writings for
free.
We might also suggest the many millions of men and women from all regions of the Earth
reading Consortium News consider finding out more on Henry George economic thought, do the
researching, then understand the economic philosophy's virtually immeasurable, positive and
transforming potential.
Source information search suggestion: Henry George School of Social Science.
Debsisdead @43. I love your piece detailing things I've seen you post here. You've got my CT
juices flowing more this time, though.
But regarding your query about CounterPunch, I've been a reader for a long time. Then,
shortly after Bernie Sanders announced his campaign, CP began running what ended up being
dozens of articles denouncing him.
Now, I was very slow in endorsing Sanders. I was aware of his record, and once he announced,
I really dug into it, and found even more troubling stuff. Mostly it was his rather spotty
foreign policy record. But eventually, I decided that he was not so much a 'lesser evil" as the
"best good" that the Democratic Party could ever nominate. Having campaigned for alternative
candidates many times, I decided to give this "Occupy the DP" thing a chance.
But since I was delving into his record as CP was writing these articles, I noticed that
they misstated, exaggerated and sometimes out and out lied about Sanders. I won't f*ckbook, so
didn't reply to them, but did post their statements with citations to the correct information
all over the place.
For everywhere I went, I conversed with other lefties about giving Bernie a chance in the
Primaries. Sure, maybe he'll sheepdog if he loses, but why not help him win and not have to
deal with that? Surely getting even a "democratic socialist" in would awaken much of the public
who would then say "I'll have some more of that, thank you very much." But everywhere I came
across people citing CP and other "lefty" sites that denounced him as "not pure" enough.
Just before the actual election, St. Clair
actually wrote an entire book on how " Sanders campaign faltered, undone by the missteps of
its leader and by sabotage from the elites of the Democratic Party."
Well, the DP and the lefties who denounced Sanders and ridiculed his followers might have
played a role, eh?
They did publish an "In Defense of
Caitlin Johnstone" the next week, but the meme that Johnstone was some sort of shill for
the alt-right had been planted, and is still sprouting shoots to this day.
But even though they'd published Johnstone before, they refused to publish the rebuttal she
and Cobb wrote to the piece smearing them.
And of course, as regards your post, Caitlin is one of the most active defenders/supporters
of Julian Assange.
Then there was that whole thing where they were publishing articles written by an avatar going
by the name of Alice Donovan. I don't know what to make that whole thing. I will say that some
of her articles did discuss inconvenient truths that the MSM tries to play up as "conspiracy
theories" (eg. Obama Administration sent weapons to Syria that ISIL received). But, she also
wrote really bizarre stuff indicating she was not whom she claimed to be.
"... Trump was trumped up as the foil, same as Sanders, to sweep up all the anti-establishment sentiment on the other side of the isle, and really as an ace in the hole for Hillary, as he was considered a completely unelectable buffoon who would do nothing but make a laughingstock out of all Republicans. If you recall, Hillary and the establishment press were actually giving Trump all the love early, to make him the strongest poison pill possible. Of course, much later when there began to be fears that he was actually a threat (largely because of Hillary being so painfully phony and unlikeable), all political and press guns were turned against him, but since he had positioned himself as anti-establishment, this had the unexpected effect of actually increasing his popularity. ..."
"... Any time Trump gets off script (which is what makes me think he might have had some actual populist tendencies), he is quickly "corrected." So in the end, the Deep State doesn't have to actively field sleeper candidates; it has become so entrenched that it knows it can ultimately control whoever wins, and so while it has its preferences (Hillary), and will actively assist them, I don't think it feels the need to fear those it doesn't control at the outset. ..."
As early as January, Catlin voiced suspicion when she tweeted:
There's good conspiracy theory and there's bad conspiracy theory. #QAnon is bad
conspiracy theory. It's either a really good LARPer or a really bad psyop. Informed
insiders do not leak via 4chan. Does not happen. It's an anonymous message board for
trolls. Always has been.
But Catlin recently goes a bit further, warning that:
This administration is advancing longstanding neoconservative agendas with increasing
aggression, perpetuating the Orwellian surveillance state of Bush and Obama, and actively
pursuing the extradition and imprisonment of Julian Assange. Ignore the narratives and
watch the behavior, and he [Trump] looks very much like his predecessor. So cut out the
narratives. Cut out the manipulators. Cut out QAnon from the equation and look at what's
really happening here.
My take [on Qanon] : it is similar to the Obamabots promising good things to
come. Those 'good things' never came, of course.
Further proof, IMHO, that Trump is the Republican Obama. The play book is the
same.
I've written, here and at my blog (over a year ago!), that Trump and Obama both follow
the same political model , that of the faux populist leader . They both claimed to
be outsiders. They both faced crazy opposition that called into question their loyalty to
America. They both had amorphous apologists (Obamabots, Trumptards) that excuse any
betrayal.
Furthermore, I've said that it is logical to assume that the election of these faux
populists have been arranged (by the Deep State). We have many tantalizing clues that
this is so, like:
The nature of the US political system.No real populist has a chance in our
money-driven political system
Non-starter opponents.McCain, Hillary are the embodiment of the
establishment that everyone loves to hate.
Clear manipulations.In a time of great dissatisfaction, there were only
TWO populists that ran for President in 2016 - Trump and Sanders. Sanders was a
'sheepdog' (bogus candidate) who pulled many punches and betrayed his base.
Very different stated agendas, yet staying true to Deep State goals.Tax
cuts, military adventures, etc.
Forgiveness."No drama Obama" refused to pursue legal action against Bush
Administration officials and, immediately upon his election, Trump said that he would not
pursue Hillary, saying that they Clintons had been thru enough.
@ Jackrabbit
"I've said that it is logical to assume that the election of these faux populists have been
arranged (by the Deep State)."
While this is of course possible, and likely sometimes happens (might have been true with
Obama's first run), I think the Deep State has such firm grip on power they aren't really
worried about their ability to co-opt and control whoever wins. It's more about bleeding off
steam from the masses, preserving the illusion of democracy. So "populists" serve a useful
function, dividing would-be contenders, which along with general voter disgust means it
actually takes a very small number of votes to control the ultimate outcome of the
election.
Sanders was allowed to continue to energize pissed off people of the left, with the PTB
knowing that when he was eventually canned and turned the vast bulk of his voters would
either not vote at all or vote for their completely owned Hillary. But his presence in the
Democratic mix meant the Democrats could at least pretend to have some relation to the more
socially minded Dems of old.
Trump was trumped up as the foil, same as Sanders, to sweep up all the
anti-establishment sentiment on the other side of the isle, and really as an ace in the hole
for Hillary, as he was considered a completely unelectable buffoon who would do nothing but
make a laughingstock out of all Republicans. If you recall, Hillary and the establishment
press were actually giving Trump all the love early, to make him the strongest poison pill
possible. Of course, much later when there began to be fears that he was actually a threat
(largely because of Hillary being so painfully phony and unlikeable), all political and press
guns were turned against him, but since he had positioned himself as anti-establishment, this
had the unexpected effect of actually increasing his popularity.
No worries. Plenty of preemptive sabotage had been implanted prior to the election, such
that long before he was even sworn in any actual populist tendencies he may have had (I
suspect some were real, some were electioneering) were completely hamstrung. The Deep State
flexed its muscles, and once again the US had its "populist," but the Deep State was again
holding the reigns. Any time Trump gets off script (which is what makes me think he might
have had some actual populist tendencies), he is quickly "corrected." So in the end, the Deep
State doesn't have to actively field sleeper candidates; it has become so entrenched that it
knows it can ultimately control whoever wins, and so while it has its preferences (Hillary),
and will actively assist them, I don't think it feels the need to fear those it doesn't
control at the outset.
J Swift,
I dont' know if that is completely true. Although maybe the higher ups believe that. You can
tell by the texts they really didn't want Trump. At least the lower level grunt workers in
the deep state. Probably because they aren't completely sure he won't go off script. I do
believe if they thought he would be a problem they would just kill him.
...
Incidentally, along the same lines and to revive some of the Korea discussion, here's an
interesting article discussing how the Deep State is ramping up its opposition to real peace
in Korea.
(link omitted by HW)
Posted by: J Swift | Jun 24, 2018 12:57:43 PM | 14
That thought bubble seems to contradict the paragraph immediately preceding it.
i.e. The Deep State/ Swamp wants to perpetuate tensions with NK/ China to keep arms
sales flourishing and it's worried that Trump will cause peace to break out (which he will do
- and make it look like either an accident, or (that old Right Wing Chestnut) Someone Else's
Fault.
You make some good points. There was a time when I also believed that Hillary and her
cronies had masterfully set up the election so that she could win. But as it became clear how
much Trump's politics resembled Obama's, I began to believe that TRUMP was meant to win all
along.
My view is underscored by what I believe was a need to turn the page on the Obama years.
Hillary could not have done that because she was so closely associated with Obama. This is
especially true wrt USA's support for extremist proxies. A 'political reversal' can best
excuse what many extremist supporters would otherwise see as a 'betrayal'. (Note: The
elevation of MbS may also be a part of the necessary 'shift' - the alternative was conflict
with Russia/WWIII) .
I think the Deep State has such firm grip on power they aren't really worried about
their ability to co-opt and control whoever wins.
That may be. But even that mild view indicates that the US govt has a legitimacy
problem. A problem that they would be acutely aware of.
It seems very likely to me that the role of the President is so key that it must be
secured by someone that is sure to "play ball". That means an ambitious money-driven,
narcissist social climber that explicitly agrees to serve the establishment (as per
our 'inverted totalitarian' form of government).
Trump was trumped up as the foil, same as Sanders ...
Maybe. One could make a case that this is how it was planned to be but Hillary's email
troubles (and the need to "turn the page" on the Obama years) caused the establishment
to turn on her. In fact, the efforts to paint Trump as a dupe of Putin via the 'Trump
dossier' began in earnest in Spring 2016 after it was clear that Hillary's email troubles
could not be swept under the rug (which prompted Bloomberg's offer to run so as to prevent
the 'disaster' of Trump or Sanders winning the Presidency) .
By June 2016 Trump was no longer a foil (if he ever was). Trump pushed back HARD on
Hillary after the Orlando Pulse Nightclub attack. He didn't defer to Hillary's experience and
the Democratic Party's ties to the gay community.
In July 2016, Hillary made herself even more hated by hiring a disgraced DWS into a high
position in her campaign. That is as self-defeating as using a private email server for State
Dept business. Such 'sloppiness' calls into question her desire to win the Presidency.
Trump also said, at one point, that he could kill someone in Times Square without
consequence. That is a very strange statement to make. Anyone that says such a thing is
either looney or believes that he has full and complete support from powerful interests.
Lastly, Hillary is simply not a populist and has too much baggage. The 'smart move' for a
Deep State that is fully in control is to 'hire' someone that can perform as a faux populist.
In fact, Hillary might be viewed as dangerous because Clinton loyalists that constitute a
political machine.
Jackrabbit. The very best I can say to defend the narrative we were told during and about the
2016 election is that the 0.01% were going to win whether Trump or HRC moved into the White
House.
But like you, I long ago came to think it more likely that Trump was the chosen one from
before he even took his escalator ride down into history (where paid actors wearing MAGA gear
given to them cheered and jeered on cue).
Everyone knew this was the "election of rejection." Establishment politics was no longer
acceptable by either the "left" or the "right." The Democratic Primary was so crooked that
even many Democratic partisans couldn't bring themselves to support HRC. Especially after she
doubled down with DWS and Tim Kaine.
In retrospect, the entire show appears to have been what they call in professional
wrestling, "a work." A brilliant piece of propaganda.
No, Trump was not the chosen one. Hillary had been schooled and trained specifically for
this. Trump was considered perfect opposition - dumb-ass but clever and likely to score with
a few punches - unlike the miserable row of other Republicans. Trump is merely a symbol of an
Empire coming to an end. Do you not get this?
Yep, Lockhearn @29, I read all that stuff, and totally believed it myself right up until
about the time of the Conventions.
There it was right there, HRC's team demanding MSM to promote Trump as the "pied
piper."
It was all laid out so brilliantly. We were almost all led down that pied piper path,
following all the bread crumbs laid out for us to "discover," and feel so smart for having
read the "hacked" emails and DNC documents (the latter of which were actually published by
that Guccifer 2.0 creation).
We're to believe that CNN's Jeff Zucker did everything in his power to stop Trump. The
same Jeff Zucker who broke into live programming to show Trump's escalator ride (the ONLY
candidate who got live coverage of his announcement). Then, CNN aired hour after hour of live
and uninterrupted coverage of Trump rallies.
"Uninterrupted" is the key word there as it puts to lie the claim he did it for "ratings."
No advertising sold means ratings were not the goal. Besides, Sanders was drawing larger
crowds, so if Jeff wanted ratings, he would have shown Sanders rallies, too.
Oh, and that same Jeff Zucker used to be CEO of NBC, back when it was wholly owned by GE
(one of the world's largest military contractors). And he gave Trump his very own Reality TV
Show which imprinted the Trump character on the minds of USAmerica. And even though its
ratings dropped year after year, Jeff kept pumping more and more resources into the Trump
Project.
Oh, but Jeff made fun of Trump you say. And he also ridiculed Trump supporters.
Bearing in mind that polls before the Primaries showed that at best 1/3 of USAmericans
trusted the MSM, and hated MSM for condescending to us and telling us what to believe and
do....
How would the brilliant propagandists behind MSM expect voters to react to being ridiculed
on national TV?
You're quite intelligent enough to engage your critical thinking and reconsider the past
few years of MSM coverage on all things leading up to the campaign and the campaign and Trump
Administration.
Once again I ask, "what would a propaganda designed for people who know the MSM is
propaganda look like?"
I think it's important to note that even within the clever and long practiced trickery of
the powers that be, everything changes. Every move that they make means one less time that
the same move can be made in the future.
Every time they perceive how the people feel, and run another lie to accord with this
feeling, they come closer to burning out the entire system of trickery and foolery. And no
one knows quite how burned it is today.
To think that the PTB have it all under control is - in my opinion - an error on the same
scale of magnitude as thinking that the people of the US are going to keep taking it forever.
Actually, no one knows what will happen. There's a lot of calculation of risk that goes into
deception, and frankly I don't see the current elites as possessing much acumen in this risk
evaluation. Hubris saturates deep into the bone, as deep as the state.
I haven't seen the PTB do one thing right in the last few years. They misunderstand the
forces of history marching against them. Or rather, they are completely wary of these forces
but don't know how to learn new ways to triumph in the face of them. They are separated from
the source-beds and aquifers of real experience which feed learning. So they keep screwing
up. In my view, although I don't think it matters much either way, it's more likely that
Trump is in office because they screwed up than because they brilliantly planned and executed
it that way.
Grieved @39. I absolutely agree that TPTSB are quite ready and willing to make changes to
their tactics in response to reactions "on the ground." Of course, as both Milton Friedman
and Rahm Emanuel said, a crucial part of their planning is to have alternative plans already
in place. Like in chess, it's often a matter of how many possible moves ahead they have
planned.
But if a plan really "goes south" on them, they are quite able to step in and do whatever
is necessary. And yet, no matter how much we're told the "Deep State" hates Trump, well,
there he is. And his supporters even get to use the Obama-bots' 8-year long apologia that The
President is being FORCED to continue/escalate US policies by those dark forces.
Similarly, I think it wrong to assume that TPTSB are some sort of monolith. Within any
group there are competitions and sometimes those are very severe differences. Recently we
reread Winston Churchill's 1920s oped about the "International Jewish Conspiracy." He posited
that even they were divided into the globalist Bolsheviks and the nationalistic Zionists (and
that Britain should back the Zionists).
You write, "I haven't seen the PTB do one thing right in the last few years."
But of course, you are assuming you know what were their goals. I don't pretend to know.
I'm mostly listing facts - things we can all see that have happened. And I ask cui bono?
Again, the 0.01% were going to win whichever of their candidates was (s)elected. But
looking back at everything from the suddenly greatly increased MSM racial divisionism and
Russia-demonizing starting in 2013/2014, right up to the present non-stop hysteria about the
latest shocking Tweet (while no one notices Congress pass another record-breaking military
budget), and I am suspicious of the official MSM narrative.
And I find it fascinating that both Trump supporters and Trump haters are completely
sucked into the story the MSM presents us.
But having us divided over everything sure does help TPTSB.
Debsisdead @43. I love your piece detailing things I've seen you post here. You've got my CT
juices flowing more this time, though.
But regarding your query about CounterPunch, I've been a reader for a long time. Then,
shortly after Bernie Sanders announced his campaign, CP began running what ended up being
dozens of articles denouncing him.
Now, I was very slow in endorsing Sanders. I was aware of his record, and once he
announced, I really dug into it, and found even more troubling stuff. Mostly it was his
rather spotty foreign policy record. But eventually, I decided that he was not so much a
'lesser evil" as the "best good" that the Democratic Party could ever nominate. Having
campaigned for alternative candidates many times, I decided to give this "Occupy the DP"
thing a chance.
But since I was delving into his record as CP was writing these articles, I noticed that
they misstated, exaggerated and sometimes out and out lied about Sanders. I won't f*ckbook,
so didn't reply to them, but did post their statements with citations to the correct
information all over the place.
For everywhere I went, I conversed with other lefties about giving Bernie a chance in the
Primaries. Sure, maybe he'll sheepdog if he loses, but why not help him win and not have to
deal with that? Surely getting even a "democratic socialist" in would awaken much of the
public who would then say "I'll have some more of that, thank you very much." But everywhere
I came across people citing CP and other "lefty" sites that denounced him as "not pure"
enough.
Just before the actual election, St. Clair
actually wrote an entire book on how " Sanders campaign faltered, undone by the missteps
of its leader and by sabotage from the elites of the Democratic Party."
Well, the DP and the lefties who denounced Sanders and ridiculed his followers might have
played a role, eh?
They did publish an "In Defense of
Caitlin Johnstone" the next week, but the meme that Johnstone was some sort of shill for
the alt-right had been planted, and is still sprouting shoots to this day.
But even though they'd published Johnstone before, they refused to publish the rebuttal
she and Cobb wrote to the piece smearing them.
And of course, as regards your post, Caitlin is one of the most active
defenders/supporters of Julian Assange.
Then there was that whole thing where they were publishing articles written by an avatar
going by the name of Alice Donovan. I don't know what to make that whole thing. I will say
that some of her articles did discuss inconvenient truths that the MSM tries to play up as
"conspiracy theories" (eg. Obama Administration sent weapons to Syria that ISIL received).
But, she also wrote really bizarre stuff indicating she was not whom she claimed to be.
To think that the PTB have it all under control is - in my opinion - an error ...
"PTB" is a shorthand that conflates many different power centers (Banks, MIC,
AIPAC, etc.).
While its true that they can't control everything, they don't have to. They don't have to
control every member of Congress, for example. But the Presidency - which is the linchpin of
foreign policy as well as holder of the "bully pulpit" - is important enough that some degree
of control would make sense. Especially when the country is stressed and discontent is high.
Then, MAYBE, you don't want to leave anything to chance. MAYBE, you want a guy that will lie
well, and do what he's told.
J Swift @14 tempers Jack's post and goldhoarder @16 goes one step further. (No criticism,
just another view. See also Jack @26.) More:
The expression Deep State: implies a 'state' which the various strands of power behind the
scenes are not; the word 'deep' implies hidden, again, not specially, at least some vague
description can be made.
The US is a corporate oligarchy and the politicians are brokers of influence and votes (in
congress, senate, and from their constituents..) They are paid to 'support' or 'champion'
this or that in a complex criss-cross of relationships and money/favor exchanges. The
complexity makes for obscurity. The fake Dem-Rep duopoly in fine rests only on a kind of
tribal preference linked to cultural issues (abortion, sex, race, identity politics, hate of
communism, religion, splinter oddities, etc.) as touted to Joe Public.
Behind the scenes, in no order of importance:
Banking and Finance, Big Energy/Oil, Military-industrial (entwined with the two previous),
Social (medical, insurance, Big Pharma, education, all partly controlled by non-Gov. and/or
privatised to the max), Real Estate + Territorial (linked to banking and finance, water
control, mining, energy and transport), Big Agri (Monsanto, etc.) Manufacturing is not up
there (see Trump trying to correct) except in small splintered stakes. For ex. one might
speak of a Security Industry which includes TSA employees (fastest growing employment)
to airbags (car industry) to anti-virus programs to Guns sales who are they supposed to pay?
etc.
The joker in the pack is the MSM coupled with a section of the performance arts
(Hollywood) and communications in general (internet, Silicon Valley, etc.)
Overall, the free-wheeling secretive corrupt system of deal-making and pretend-governance
makes it that the USA has not a Gvmt for the people and is thus, it follows
inexorably, extremely vulnerable to any outside influence. First is of course the Israel
lobby/infiltration, but others, very varied, try the same tricks and succeed. Globalisation,
in a kind of supposedly 'more moral', purely greed-based, i.e. commercial vein, move, is
implemented to re-create a better, different Empire (as compared to the British, too heavy
handed..) is another facet of the picture. That is now failing.
Noirette@62 - Well said. Deep state is a hopelessly nebulous term, but one I have
grown fond of using lately precisely because of the qualifier deep . The 'problem'
with the U.S. government should be defined by the mechanism of it's vulnerability to
usurpation , not the individual psychopathic oligarchs or agents of foreign
governments/potentates that invariably line up to exploit that vulnerability. Start listing
all the players, and US citizens' eyes will glaze over in - oh - 15 seconds, give or take.
That mechanism is beyond the comprehension (or the willingness to comprehend) of most of
us in the US. No matter, as we would only try to fix the problem with the two tools of
democracy intentionally corrupted to be incapable of fixing it: voting and the law.
That's not to say that concepts of voting and the law are inherently flawed - that's just an
observation of their current debased and useless form in the US for fixing our government.
Which is why the Deep State has no problem encouraging a mindless, religiously slavish
devotion to them, i.e., "We are a nation of laws. It's your responsibility to vote. How
dare you question the power of the divine tools bestowed upon you by the magnanimous God of
State!"
Deep State at least emphasizes the intentionally hidden aspect. I'll settle for the
effect of that less-than-precise, but comic book-simple single concept to stick in the
minds of my fellow Americans. Where we would go from there is anyone's guess, but we're in no
danger (at least in the US) of having to worry about that anytime soon. I mean, if there ever
was a treasonous, seditious deep state here, then the FBI would be furious and arrest them
all. Thank God! See? Impossible...
Guerrero @66: WHAT is the source of the badness of the current system?
You're right that corruption is not new. IMO What's different is the extent of
mal-investment, disenfranchisement, and control.
>> ME wars : trillions of dollars, thousands of US lives lost and millions of
local lives lost or disrupted
>> New Cold War : trillions to upgrade nukes and maintain an aggressive
posture;
>> Ponzi Finance : Global Financial Crisis is estimated to have cost on the
order of 1 year of global gdp (trillions)
>> "I got mine!" price gouging and corporate welfare :
- healthcare It is estimated that Americans pay four times as much for healthcare as other
developed countries;
- environment: Monsanto, and other chemical/agricuture companies destroy our environment (bye bye
bees, hello gmo); global warming (or the potential for global warming) is largely
ignored;
- finance: legal usury in the form of payday loans and credit card interest rates; Dodd-Frank
rules were mostly written by the financial industry and even those weak protections are
now being rolled back.
- defense: over-priced weapons systems; virtually impossible to close bases or reduce the defense
budget;
- and more! Virtually every industry gets their profit-maximizing perks.
Furthermore, I've said that it is logical to assume that the election of these faux populists
have been arranged (by the Deep State). We have many tantalizing clues that this is so, like:
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 24, 2018 10:38:59 AM | 10
I have several objections here. One is "nature or nurture" problem, how political leaders
divert from popular positions that they were promising, were they already
"brainwashed/trained" before political campaigns in which they claimed those positions or
afterwards. I do not have enough empirical data either way, but upon reaching an elected
office politicians are swamped with information and they must rely on "filters" in the form
of staff etc., moreover they get media attention with concomitant media pressure. And under
that pressure and perceived "consensus" their positions evolve in the rotten direction.
Rather painfully, many "training moments" are well documented. As the First Lady, Hillary
Clinton was polite when hosting the wife of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafats which got her
vilified for years. Giving speeches to AIPAC meetings is much less traumatic. Obama tried to
move Israel/Palestinian situation in a positive direction for something like a year, and then
he gave up when it look futile and seemed to conflict with "other priorities". Very recently
we could observe "training" of Jeremy Corbyn resulting in admission that "of course he does
not trust Russia" and some perfunctory purge of "anti-Semites".
Basically, without a supporting and lasting political movements solidifying their
positions, politicians abandon those positions or are eliminated. This allows to keep some
hopes about "Corbynism", and in the case of USA, a more remote hope that a wider progressive
and/or sensitive movements will grow beyond their current narrow niches.
I have no intention to promote populism/nationalism. I am simply stating that when one
strips a population of its sovereignty and democracy, as the 'Globalist' project does,
eventually it leads to a revolt.
At this point the revolt is being led by the 'populists/nationalists'. As the devastation
that is being caused by the 'Globalist' project continues there will be fewer and fewer
people who to drink the 'Globalism' kool-aid.
Half the population prefers a politics that is racist and unethical, that demonises the poor
and idolises the rich, that eschews community and embraces amoral individuality. These people
don't care about the economic inconsistencies of neo-liberalism, they are far more attracted
to the divisive societal aspects of free market fundamentalism.
"... 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 . ..."
One of the most complicated and frustrating aspects of operating a global capitalist empire
is maintaining the fiction that it doesn't exist. Virtually every action you take has to be
carefully recontextualized or otherwise spun for public consumption. Every time you want to
bomb or invade some country to further your interests, you have to mount a whole PR campaign.
You can't even appoint a sadistic torture freak to run your own coup-fomenting agency, or shoot
a few thousand unarmed people you've imprisoned in a de facto ghetto, without having to do a
big song and dance about "defending democracy" and "democratic values."
Naked despotism is so much simpler, not to mention more emotionally gratifying. Ruling an
empire as a godlike dictator means never having to say you're sorry. You can torture and kill
anyone you want, and conquer and exploit whichever countries you want, without having to
explain yourself to anyone. Also, you get to have your humongous likeness muraled onto the
walls of buildings, make people swear allegiance to you, and all that other cool dictator
stuff.
Global capitalists do not have this luxury. Generating the simulation of democracy that most
Western consumers desperately need in order to be able to pretend to believe that they are not
just smoothly-functioning cogs in the machinery of a murderous global empire managed by a class
of obscenely wealthy and powerful international elites to whom their lives mean exactly
nothing, although extremely expensive and time-consuming, is essential to maintaining their
monopoly on power. Having conditioned most Westerners into believing they are "free," and not
just glorified peasants with gadgets, the global capitalist ruling classes have no choice but
to keep up this fiction. Without it, their empire would fall apart at the seams.
This is the devil's bargain modern capitalism made back in the 18th Century. In order to
wrest power from the feudal aristocracies that had dominated the West throughout the Middle
Ages, the bourgeoisie needed to sell the concept of "democracy" to the unwashed masses, who
they needed both to staff their factories and, in some cases, to fight revolutionary wars, or
depose and publicly guillotine monarchs. All that gobbledegook about taxes, tariffs, and the
unwieldy structure of the feudal system was not the easiest sell to the peasantry. "Liberty"
and "equality" went over much better. So "democracy" became their rallying cry, and,
eventually, the official narrative of capitalism. The global capitalist ruling classes have
been stuck with "democracy" ever since, or, more accurately, with the simulation of
democracy.
The purpose of this simulation of democracy is not to generate fake democracy and pass it
off as real democracy. Its purpose is to generate the concept of democracy , the only
form in which democracy exists. It does this by casting a magic spell (which I'll do my best to
demystify in a moment) that deceives us into perceiving the capitalist marketplace we
Westerners inhabit, not as a market, but as a society. An essentially democratic society. Not a
fully fledged democratic society, but a society progressing toward "democracy" which it is, and
simultaneously isn't.
Obviously, life under global capitalism is more democratic than under feudal despotism, not
to mention more comfortable and entertaining. Capitalism isn't "evil" or "bad." It's a machine.
Its fundamental function is to eliminate any and all despotic values and replace them with a
single value, i.e., exchange value, determined by the market. This despotic-value-decoding
machine is what freed us from the tyranny of kings and priests, which it did by subjecting us
to the tyranny of capitalists and the meaningless value of the so-called free market, wherein
everything is just another commodity toothpaste, cell phones, healthcare, food, education,
cosmetics, et cetera. Despite that, only an idiot would argue that capitalism is not preferable
to despotism, or that it hasn't increased our measure of freedom. So, yes, we have evolved
toward democracy, if we're comparing modern capitalism to medieval feudalism.
The problem is that capitalism is never going to lead to actual democracy (i.e., government
by and for the people). This is never going to happen. In fact, capitalism has already reached
the limits of the freedom it can safely offer us. This freedom grants us the ability to make an
ever-expanding variety of choices none of which have much to do with democracy. For example,
Western consumers are free to work for whatever corporation they want, and to buy whatever
products they want, and to assume as much debt as the market will allow to purchase a home
wherever they want, and to worship whichever gods they want (as long as they conform their
behavior to the values of capitalism and not their religion), and men can transform themselves
into women, and white people can deem themselves African Americans, or Native Americans, or
whatever they want, and anyone can mock or insult the President or the Queen of England on
Facebook and Twitter, none of which freedoms were even imaginable, much less possible, under
feudal despotism.
But this is as far as our "freedom" goes. The global capitalist ruling classes are never
going to allow us to govern ourselves, not in any meaningful way. In fact, since the mid-1970s,
they've been systematically dismantling the framework of social democracy throughout the West,
and otherwise relentlessly privatizing everything. They've been doing this more slowly in
Europe, where social democracy is more entrenched, but, make no mistake, American "society" is
the model for our dystopian future. The ruling classes and their debt-enslaved servants,
protected from the desperate masses by squads of hyper-militarized police, medicated in their
sanitized enclaves, watching Westworld on Amazon Prime as their shares in private
prisons rise and the forces of democracy defend their freedom by slaughtering men, women, and
children in some faraway country they can't find on a map, and would never visit on vacation
anyway this is where the USA already is, and where the rest of the West is headed.
Which is why it is absolutely crucial to maintain the simulation of democracy, and the
fiction that we're still living in a world where major geopolitical events are determined by
sovereign nations and their leaders, rather than by global corporations and a class of
supranational elites whose primary allegiance is to global capitalism, rather than to any
specific nation, much less to the actual people who live there. The global capitalist ruling
classes need the masses in the West to believe that they live in the United States of America,
the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and so on, and not in a global marketplace. Because, if
it's all one global marketplace, with one big global labor force (which global corporations can
exploit with impunity), and if it's one big global financial system (where the economies of
supposed adversaries like China and the United States, or the European Union and Russia, are
almost totally interdependent), then there is no United States of America, no United Kingdom,
no France, no Germany or not as we're conditioned to perceive them. There is only the global
capitalist empire, divided into "national" market territories, each performing slightly
different administrative functions within the empire and those territories that have not yet
surrendered their sovereignty and been absorbed into it. I think you know which those
territories are.
But getting back to the simulation of democracy (the purpose of which is to prevent us from
perceiving the world as I just suggested above), how that works is, we are all conditioned to
believe we are living in these imperfect democracies, which are inexorably evolving toward
"real" democracy but just haven't managed to get there quite yet. "Real" being the key word
here, because there is no such thing as real democracy. There never has been, except among
relatively small and homogenous groups of people. Like Baudrillard's Disneyland, "Western
democracy" is presented to us as "imperfect" or "unfinished" (in other words, as a replica of
"real democracy") in order to convince us that there exists such a thing as "real democracy,"
which we will achieve someday.
This is how simulations work. The replica does not exist to deceive us into believing it is
the "real" thing. It exists to convince us that there is a "real" thing . In essence, it
invokes the "real" thing by pretending to be a copy of it. Just as the images of God in church
invoke the "god" of which they are copies (if only in the minds of the faithful), our imperfect
replica of democracy invokes the concept of "real democracy" (which does not exist, and has
never existed, beyond the level of tribes and bands).
This is, of course, ceremonial magic but then so is everything else, really. Take out a
twenty dollar bill, or a twenty Euro note, or your driver's license. They are utterly
valueless, except as symbols, but no less powerful for being just symbols. Or look at some
supposedly solid object under an electron microscope. Try this with a tablespoon. As that bald
kid in The Matrix put it, you will "realize that there is no spoon" or, rather, that
there is only the spoon we've created by believing that there is a spoon.
Look, I don't mean to get all spooky. What that kid (among various others throughout
history) was trying to get us to understand is that we create reality, collectively, with
symbols or we allow reality to be created for us. Our collective reality is also our religion,
in that we live our lives and raise our children according to its precepts and values,
regardless of whatever other rituals we may or may not engage in on the weekend. Western
consumers, no matter whether nominally Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, or of any other
faith, live their lives and raise their children according to the values and rules of
capitalism. Capitalism is our religion. Like every religion, it has a cosmology.
In the cosmology of global capitalism, "democracy" is capitalist heaven. We hear it preached
about throughout our lives, we're surrounded by graven images of it, but we don't get to see it
until we're dead. Attempting to storm its pearly gates, or to create the Kingdom of Democracy
on Earth, is heresy, and is punishable by death. Denying its existence is blasphemy, for which
the punishment is excommunication, and consignment to the City of Dis, where the lost souls
shout back and forth at each other across the lower depths of the Internet, their infernal
voices unheard by the faithful but, hey, don't take the word of an apostate like me. Go ahead,
try it, and see what happens.
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 .
Really good, amusing article.
Our replica of democracy is not to deceive us, but to convince us that there really IS
an(unattainable) democracy. The promised land is always just beyond the horizon
"It does this by casting a magic spell that deceives us into perceiving the capitalist
marketplace we Westerners inhabit, not as a market, but as a society."
Yes. Consumer capitalism requires illusion and MK-ULTRA programs to function.
"We create reality, collectively, with symbols "
And those symbols, often repurposed from earlier iterations like the swastika, stem from
ancient sources. Maybe the structure of our reality was designed years ago.
"This is, of course, ceremonial magic but then so is everything else, really."
Yep. The narrow-focused rationalists who have degraded science into a religion will never
accept that there is a sliver of magic and sorcery, originating from Kabbalistic practices,
that operate as a higher level science, the mechanics of which non-initiates can't
quantify.
I agree with much of what this columnist wrote. However this entire globalist criminal
enterprise is rapidly crumbling. This is shown in the rise of patriotic/loyalist and Marxist
parties in Europe and the Far Right and Far Left in the U.S. The globalist elite 0.001%
empire of the banksters, crapitalists and fingerciers and their lackeys, knaves and varlets,
along with their political prostitute puppets, is built on sand. These worthless cretins have
loaded down every nation on earth, and especially in the West, with massive, crushing debt.
Ditto for individuals and businesses. It is not sustainable. In addition they have off shored
much of Western industry into Third World nations and flooded Western nations with Third
World proles to hold down wages and depress living conditions. Reaction among the native
Whites is building stronger by the day. At some point this volcano is going to blow. When it
does all bets are off as to how much destruction will happen.
At this point the super rich and their banks and trans-national corporations can either
gradually give way to democratic change and re-industrialize the West, discount all these
debts, and stop this Third World invasion and begin swift repatriation of these interlopers
and save much of their wealth and power or they will soon face armed revolution and
civil/class/racial war in the streets. These worthless elites have fouled their own nests
since they have left virtually no Western nation untouched by these triple evils of debt,
immigration and de-industrialization. They either never learned the lessons of the French and
Russian revolutions or believe it could not happen in the 21st Century to them. Either way it
makes no difference. Globalism is crumbling and going the way of other evil isms: Fascism,
Communism, Nazism, Imperialism, Colonialism, etc. Its days are numbered and the writing is on
the wall. Meanwhile those nations not controlled by the Western White Collar Mafia, namely
Russia and China, along with Iran and a few other Asian and Middle Eastern nations, are
building up their economies and militaries and increasingly challenging the Western tyrants.
We are definitely in for troubled times ahead. Always remember: Those who make peaceful
change impossible, make violent change inevitable. Globalism has had its evil day and its
black sun is setting. The only questions now are will it go peacefully and quietly or loudly
and violently and what will replace it. I hope and pray something good and true.A new world
order built that that is God and Christ and not man based with peace, prosperity, and justice
for all in a natural order of things.
Free movement of capital, in Europe since 1997, took away power from politicians.
The German Lafontaine made it clear.
He stated that when in Basel a German spoke to the bankers assembled there, blaming them,
they clapped their hands.
One sees it in the terminology used, what in the good old days was called protectionism, a
word suggesting something positive, now is trade war, definitely something bad.
It for me is the same as with privatisation of universal services, water, electricity, etc.,
neither privatising anything is good, also a state economy is not good, as the USSR made
clear.
In the good old days in W European countries we had mixed exonomies, commercial enterprises
for cars and jeans, state enterprise for electricity and public transport.
In my opinion a mixed world economy also is the best option, this means regulation of capital
movement, to mention one thing.
A little snapshot to illustrate the point. Standing in the passport control line at Newark
Airport -- interminably, because of about 24 stations for checking people back in to the
motherland, maybe five were manned. This was in mid-afternoon on a weekday, a time when many
international flights were arriving. The wait was about an hour and a half.
While waiting, you get a superb view through the window of the Manhattan skyline, and
might have occasion to think about all the swells in the financial sector whose ever-growing
prosperity has sucked money not only out of the real economy of goods and services, but out
of government as well, a point Michael Hudson often makes. E.g., cap those property taxes in
California, but drive housing prices in California and interest rates sky high to transfer
wealth out of the hands of home owners and governments, and into finance capital.
You can work yourself up into a pretty good lather thinking about this while you wait your
turn at an under-funded passport control station.
I would recommend this book to unz readers. I read it years ago and its basic premise becomes
more observably true every year .and pertains to the US as well, something Chu didn't
mention.
World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global
Instability
By Amy Chua
Category: World Politics | Economics | Management
"Chua shows how in non-Western countries around the globe, free markets have concentrated
starkly disproportionate wealth in the hands of a resented ethnic minority. These
"market-dominant minorities" – Chinese in Southeast Asia, Croatians in the former
Yugoslavia, whites in Latin America and South Africa, Indians in East Africa, Lebanese in
West Africa, Jews in post-communist Russia – become objects of violent hatred. At the same time, democracy empowers the impoverished majority, unleashing ethnic
demagoguery, confiscation, and sometimes genocidal revenge."
So maybe revolutions will be the new way of managing the world,
An ex furniture salesman, now the Prime Minister of Israel would not agree. He thinks
history has ended. Jerusalem is soon to be or already is the capital of the globalist world.
Hate speech laws replace the sanctity of the Monarchs and Churches with the sanctity of
Israel and identity politics. His lackeys have even taken away the freedom to shop via the
criminalisation of BDS. Talpiot program has turned everything into a video game. He is either
a genius or a complete fool. But I hope you are right and he is wrong. Another point.
Democracy real and simulated only became fashionable a hundred years ago.
That's the first I've heard of "progressing towards democracy" as a major feature of the
modern Western worldview (a la USSR progressing towards communism, I suppose). No, I've
encountered such ideas before among pundits, but I don't think most people in America, say,
believe that they currently don't live in a democracy but will later live in a "true"
democracy. That seems like a rather exotic notion outside of very narrow intellectual
circles.
Also, "as long as they conform their behavior to the values of capitalism and not their
religion". But people are free to conform their behaviour to the values of their religion to
a large extent. They're not free to violate the laws of what you'd call capitalist society.
But that is not the same as being forced to conform to its values.
Which is why it is absolutely crucial to maintain the simulation of democracy, and the
fiction that we're still living in a world where major geopolitical events are determined
by sovereign nations and their leaders, rather than by global corporations and a class of
supranational elites whose primary allegiance is to global capitalism, rather than to any
specific nation, much less to the actual people who live there.
But it can go wrong. The simulation was supposed to make Hillary Clinton President –
but, in the event, it veered over to real Democracy and produced Trump.
Equally the Brexit vote was planned to fail – but that also turned in a real
Democratic result with a majority for Brexit.
Simulated Democracy is a difficult process and it's probably due for more failures given
the difficulty of controlling the modern flow of information.
I suppose we are all going to spend the rest of our lives listening to bitter millenials rant
about the evils of capitalism. After all, they could move out of their parent's basement if
the government would force the banks to forgive all their student loans.
It should be obvious by now that all forms of government eventually morph into what we see
all around us today. But let's not confuse free market capitalism (which has never existed)
with the aristocratic fascisms that we call "Communism" or "Democracy."
The only way to really solve the problem of government is make government irrelevant.
Well, CJ, If I were your political science professor, I'd fail your sorry ass for 'communist
jargon' and 'Marxist jingoism' maybe that works fine if you're into looking for strokes when
singing to the choir but it won't build alliances that accomplish anything. But maybe that's
not your point, and the substance of your butt-hurt whining is about "I'm CJ Hopkins!" kinda
like "I'm Rick James!"
Look dude, if you want to get down and dirty with your enemies, hit below the belt, and do
it like this:
The worlds elites have us mind controlled and financially controlled via the Zionist Fed that
creates money out of thin air and then loans this money to our gov and we goyim and charge
interest on this ether created money and there in lies the control for by their control over
the money they control every thing.
In addition the Zionists fastened the IRS on we goyims and this IRS is a off shoot of the
FED and so our money is sent to the Zionist bankers who own the FED to make sure we pay for
the wars that the Zionists have arranged for we Americans and so this is a trap that has been
laid by the central bankers which insures their dominance for ever and ever.
This system of control has been in existence since 1913 when the zionist bankers fastened
the FED and the IRS on to the American people and the author of this article is exactly
right, we are in a financial prison a prison without bars but a prison none the less.
In regards to voting as Stalin said ie it is not who votes that counts but who counts the
votes.
These worthless cretins have loaded down every nation on earth, and especially in the
West, with massive, crushing debt. Ditto for individuals and businesses. It is not
sustainable.
Any given iteration of the capitalism model is unsustainable by its very nature, of
course. Any capitalist instantiation is self-exhausting, as capitalism eventually transfers
all wealth (or some very large fraction) to the wealthy. ALL. At that point, that instance
collapses at some rate determined by its state of monetization.
But not all wealth evaporates. After a financial collapse, a new zero-point establishes at
or near "true value". The capitalism model reasserts, and continues. It may be inherent to
the nature of Man.
'Democracy' is a scam that privatizes power, while socializing responsibility.
Reminds me of Oswald Spengler, though he is better read about than read, IMHO. From
wikipedia: "Spengler asserts that democracy is simply the political weapon of money, and the
media are the means through which money operates a democratic political system."
But one minor quibble: yes, for now, in the West, fake democracy is certainly better than
old-style feudalism. But it doesn't have to be, and it doesn't have to stay that way. In many
nominally capitalist and 'democratic' countries – like India, Bangladesh, etc. –
half the population is chronically malnourished, the physical standard of living well below
that of late medieval europe (!). Now that communism has been vanquished, capitalism has no
need of a bargain of power for a decent standard of living, and the rich are moving towards
dragging the entire world towards the Indian model of cheap-labor serfdom. Yes it can happen
here.
Citizens United isn't helping, brought to you by the corrupt Supreme Court. They're starting
to push putting Ted Cruz in SCOTUS, that would be a huge mistake.
"Democracy" is a sham, the candidates are carefully pre-selected and promoted by the
corrupt media, if that fails, the unelected delegates and super delegates can always void
your vote.
This is why we only get Mitt Romneys, Clintons, Bushes, the same ol dirtbags out of
millions of people.
Americans clearly want the homicidal wars to end, are the wars/occupations ending?
More Americans clearly are turning away from supporting Israel, does it matter?
Most Americans want mass immigration and illegal immigration stopped, is it stopping?
There is a petition to End the Federal Reserve scam, do any of the petitions go anywhere?
Go sign it, lets find out .
The Mexican maid is the answer to our collective misery. What do I mean? Well! The white boys
have given up on rebelling against the Empire (1% + 10% Jews and Whites with a small
sprinkling of non-white goys) and da coloreds (Indians and Chinese) are too wrapped up in
trying to prove their worth to the lost crackas while the niggas (Blacks et al) are simply
too stupid to understand, let alone do anything about improving their lot. Alas, fear not!
The unwelcome army of latinas from Central America, employed as caretakers will prove their
worth by simply poisoning the whole perfidious lot, slowly. So, welcome to America,
Guadalupe!
The suffocating hold that propaganda has on an uncritical public must rank as an historic
coup for the ages. It is the modern version of the allegory of the cave. Simpletons are
willing to die for their puppeteers in wars that serve no other purpose than to enrich their
owners. But die for their masters they will. Yet there is a glaring contradiction in foreign
wars and America's favorite pastime, regime change. The chances of "real" democracy, for
instance, taking root in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Emirates, Egypt are virtually non-existent.
Worse still, they are simply not allowed. And any other countries that steer an independent
course from American hegemony will suffer consequences -- regime change, economic sanctions
or direct military action. Yet it is the public sold on its exceptionalism, living in a
"real" democracy (confused with rampant consumerism and hedonism) that has so utterly failed
to see -- and act, on these contradictions. Although the notion of "inching" toward "real"
democracy may serve to pacify the public, with the ever growing militarization of the deep
police state, true democracy will simply not be allowed to flourish. It is the only credible
threat to rampant capitalism. What is significant is that the lumpen proletariat firmly
believe that they live in a democracy. So change is rendered redundant in such a scenario.
Best expression of capitalism, religion, democracy as a Weltanschauung.
To fuse the totalitarian, univeral concept that paires so well to 98% of the world
population we suggest consumerism.
Do not take for granted that our de facto global elites, and the mercenary middle-classes
have a clear understandig where they are heading. There is cognitive dissonance in idea,
method and projection of their in-group opportunism. Ethics being nothing more then superior
opportunism. Smart, but ailing and failing a religion. In fact the theory proves the
cognitive capacity of the authors.
The ongoing debunking of the sacred yet impossible '6M Jews' is what is really driving so
called "hate speech laws". What your told is merely the pretext.
Below is where free speech on the impossible 'holocaust' storyline is illegal, violators
go to prison for Thought Crimes.
An obvious admission that the storyline doesn't stand up to scientific, logical, &
rational scrutiny.
And coming to your neighborhood.
The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived.
That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist,
& privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that
denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from
scrutiny.
This is an elegant fleshing out of fashionable despair. Yes, self-rule is a myth. What does
Hopkins recommend to replace it with? Is the aspiration of a democratic republic the problem,
or is it money, media, and the subversion of power?
As flawed as our belief in democracy is, I haven't heard the better alternative. Just as
some say we must go to Mars because we are destroying earth, I think we should take care of
this earth as repairing and caring for it might be within our means. Instead of throwing
democracy out, we should try and make it work.
For example, been reading about the rise of antibiotic resistant germs and industrial
farming. The problem was long known, but there was no political will to do anything about it
because the industry could lobby and also control regulators. In theory, the government
worked for the greater good of all the people, but in practice it auctions us all to special
interest.
Capitalists defend the current system by saying it's not really capitalism. Well, whatever
it is, it came about because democracy was not actual but rather an ongoing auction of
national interest to special interest.
It's a good article and makes a good case, but you will have to wait just a bit longer
until us believers die off as you will not pry this democracy, our heritage and our best
chance, from my cold hands.
similar experience coming through Atlanta.
Want to create jobs? Coulda created 50 there. At least. And prevented missed flight
connections. Obama time.
I shall proudly call myself an idiot then, as I believe capitalism and democracy are both
bad.
The only system capable of inspiring passion and loyalty is some form of feudalism –
personal loyalty to a lord is a beautiful thing, noblesse oblige a beautiful thing, sacred
kingship is a beautiful thing, the tradition of beautiful craftsmanship that arises when
economic considerations are not uppermost is a beautiful thing, the standards of excellence
that are natural to a system that recognizes hierarchy and inequality is a beautiful
thing.
I also think personal freedom, and tolerance for eccentricity is far greater when the
social system is firmly grounded. In a democracy where nothing is secure conformity of
opinion and personality become urgent – to maintain even minimum stability.
Japan has retained elements of feudalism to this day yet is economically far more
egalitarian than America – because when economics is the sole standard of value, the
ambitious will gather all wealth into their hands.
Seeing the Japanese bow to each other – such a beautiful gesture.
Yeah, I suppose I could have half tried but the self-righteous indignation (tone) puts me
off. It's like Tom Englehardt, get people all tied up in some hopeless, helpless outrage that
accomplishes precisely nothing, no solutions, no pointing to a direction that might get
something done. In any case CJ is in Berlin but I bet he wouldn't give a New York second's
thought to risking his butt and work to put the German politicians nuts in a vise, but Hey!
you never know, here's his chance, he can promote this:
Of my five years exile in Germany, two of those years were in Berlin and I can assure you
the German political animal is an authentic coward, and Gregor Gysi of Die Linke is no
exception, he'd go after CJ before he'd go after the NATO war criminals is my best bet. Maybe
CJ has the balls to risk it?
Marxist twaddle about "democracy", lol. As if the founders didn't warn us so strenuously
about the tyranny of the majority.
Our government was formed not so that we could vote on what I am allowed to eat, but so
that others would have no say in it.
The centralization of power and conformity across previously sovereign states now
prohibits people from voting with their feet. The globalists are the next extension of the
same tyranny.
We don't have limited governments and free markets. We have big brother government and a
captured regulatory apparatus ensuring only large corporations can survive. Regulatory law is
nowhere in the constitution and they dictate over subjects also not in the constitution.
I knew it was over when the US electorate was swooned over Iraqis having purple fingers
voting "secret ballots". The candidates names were secret. But all you need to tell the
sheeple is that they voted.
This piece is typical Marxist sleight of hand. To have a government of the people, by the
people, and for the people, you limit what the government can do. Then you have liberty.
Self-rule.
Mr. Hopkins' article is an effective, accurate description of why and how things have
declined into a sort of soft fascism during the last 40 years or so in particular.
Democracy can easily be done on the individual level. There are plenty of resources for this.
I am not my brother's keeper anyway. don't tell me there is no democracy – just people
who want others to give it to them. Go all Thoreau on the world. Go off the grid, or Alaska,
or an island somewhere. Democracy is not for pansies.
no solutions, no pointing to a direction that might get something done
Preceding "solution" is description, and descriptive explanation. The article is not
intended as a set of solutions. It is a description and explanation.
Excellent article with much needed humor. We no longer have a word for an economic system
that supports human life. Hunting and gathering was early agriculture. Moving some rocks and
dirt out of the way to get some obsidian was mining. Knocking rocks against the obsidian was
early manufacturing. The excess from farms, mines and factories is what WAS called capital.
We are supposed to believe that a farmer can't plant a seed without a loan! We are in the
last stages of financialism. Since the word capitalism is useless how about "real stuffism"?
I'm a physical scientist and I can guarantee that math and the physical world always ends
financialism.
That line got me to laughing a lot harder than the rest of your bullshit, so I had to stop
reading. Your comments are now relegated to the "Duuuuuuuhhhhhh .MARXISM!!!" bin.
You could open up the scope of this post's valid point and say that it's not just democracy
that's simulated here. Rights and rule of law are simulated too. Democracy, fetishized though
it is, in degenerate ritual form, is a very small part of rights and rule of law
(specifically, ICCPR Article 25, one article of one of nine core human rights instruments or
about 100 total instruments in world-standard customary and conventional international law.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/UniversalHumanRightsInstruments.aspx
)
This exchange is a really good catch. Latching on to the term deep state allows CIA to bat
away a puffball question that avoids the real question. Their scripted answer to the scripted
easy question: employees 'aimed at' the president's objectives and Amerca's objectives. This
is clever first of all because it says objectives and not orders. It's a weaker formulation
that the Pike-Committee era line, CIA works for the president. CIA is trying to evade the US
commitment to command responsibility in the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against
Torture. Secondly, the DCI purports to interpret the president's objectives and proclaim
America's objectives. Used to be State or NSC did that, subject to presidential directives or
decision documents. Pompeo says CIA works for him. We're at the point Frank Zappa told us to
expect: CIA's removing the stage set so we're sitting looking at the brick wall. Pompeo's
telling you that CIA's in charge.
The hard question is: Does CIA have impunity in municipal law? The answer is yes, of
course it does. It's there in black and white in the Central Intelligence Agency Act, the
Houston memo, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the operational files exemption,
and the political questions doctrine. If the DCI had no impunity the new DCI would be in
prison. CIA is obligated to prosecute or extradite its torturers and murderers. Na ga happen.
CIA has the arbitrary life-and-death power of a totalitarian state. CIA is beyond criminal.
Its arbitrary suspension of non-derogable rights and jus cogens says, Law? Fuck law.
I agree that the US is the ultimate expression of materialism.
The original Pilgrim Fathers were looking for religious freedom, but later waves of
immigrants came for economic opportunity, and the US was the first place that "Citizens"
morphed into "Consumers".
Congressmen are bought and sold, and they're probably OK with that, along the lines that
their vote has value, and they'll support whoever bids the highest (which isn't the electors
back home).
Like AaronB says, the US (and West in general) has no spiritual foundation, and is just a
cynical game of exploitation and corruption pretending to be "Democratic" . Real Democracy
does exist, but it's not something that Americans would want to be involved with – it
requires a high level of personal commitment and responsibility (probably obligatory),
regular local public meetings, investment in studying issues, and the primacy of local
decision making and voting over Federal power ( i.e. power residing at the lowest level
possible – which in the US would be the County and State). In other words it's hard and
time consuming work.
To take a parallel, the late Roman Empire was also a sink of absolute corruption and self
interest that couldn't defend its frontiers and finally collapsed, first socially, then
economically.
The spiritual Phoenix that rose out of its ashes was Christianity, with the barbarian
invaders converting and building Christendom in Europe (Rome) and also in the Middle East
(Byzantium). The early Christian communities in the Late Roman Empire were heavily persecuted
but still recognized for their high level of morality, work ethic and "respectability", and
in its last days (too late), the Empire actually adopted to Christianity through the
conversion of Constantine.
It should be obvious by now that all forms of government eventually morph into what we
see all around us today. But let's not confuse free market capitalism (which has never
existed) with the aristocratic fascisms that we call "Communism" or "Democracy."
You are on the right path, good observations.
Thinking people are aware of the fact that Moderns have permission not freedom.
What a surprise another commie writer on economic issues on Unz! These economic pos articles
resemble what you read in the NY times. Sheesh.
"Western consumers are free to buy whatever products they want"
Pure crap. Depending on the state you live in, think for a moment of all the restrictions,
taxes and permission you must go through to own a car, buy gass, freon, herbicide. Pharmacy
products, illegal drugs guns etc. A list a mile long. Anyone who describes the USA as a free
market is plain wrong and has no idea about the problems we face.
Liberty and the free market are not part of the problem. They are part of the
solution.
Switzerland, Singapore, and old Hong Kong to name a few examples are some of the
wealthiest in the world because of low to no taxes and max economic freedom. Two of the three
were crushed by ww2. Came back stronger than ever in 40 yrs or so.
You only discuss democracy as some monolithic idea, with some idealised notion that 'real'
democracy can only be tribal or small scale. This is not true.
Representative democracy = evolutionary autocracy and the right to shout. Laws and
regulations, being made by representatives – and only representatives – remain
purely autocratic in their creation and destruction.
Direct democracy – those tribes. Doesn't work for a society that has a huge
population and needs a 'directing mind' as Aurelius likened the individuals' equivalent.
Semi-direct democracy – a combination of the power to create or strike law by both
representatives (elected or selected), and the electorate. Switzerland has it (to a degree
because of its media, just check the June 10th banking referendum propaganda machine), China
approximates it because it polls its population on every level, decision and preference.
At the very least, the electorate should have power to strike laws made by representatives
and rescind previously struck laws by representatives. This is only fair – people
should have a process for declaring directly what laws they want to abide by. Representatives
may not like it, but society is society, it should be able to make these choices, for good or
bad.
Representative democracy – democracy in the spirit of the law, and autocracy in the
letter of the law – is for the most part an autocracy, with a progressive dumbing down,
frustration, and marginalisation of the electorate due to their practical lack of true power
to change society.
Then there's the question of education and media, as you need a smart and well informed
public with semi-direct much more than with representative. And preferably constitutionally
enforced armed military neutrality, as herd behaviour often tends to violence.
Finally – revolutionary democracy: revolts against systems can often be democratic,
if bloody, so build an effective system that considers the opinions and worries of the
masses.
Three sentences and I was done; and a play wright living in Berlin. Berrrrlin Dude, lets do
some history, Socialism sucks. But I do agree that my vote has been diluted to zero, by
design.
Lemmings get what they deserve.
Almost always as the iron law of oligarchy implies. Period of
revolution and social upheaval are probably the only exceptions.
In 2018 there is no doubt that Trump is an agent of Deep State, and
probably the most militant part of neocons. What he the
agent from the beginning or not is not so important. He managed to
fool electorate with false promises like Obama before him and get
elected.
Ask yourself why Sessions ordered Rosenstein to resign and Trump
declined his resignation? Likely because Sessions was recused from
Russia investigation and could not be told Rosenstein was working for
Trump from day 1.
(Mueller also met with Trump the day before Rosenstein appointed him
SC.)
Also relevant, Rosenstein is Republican and in 2007/8 was blocked
from getting a seat on appeals court by Dems. Doesn't seem he would be
loyal to the Obama crowd and trying to take down Trump with a phony
investigation.
You better
believe it. What's happened to the NYC detectives who viewed
the "insurance policy" on Weiner's laptop? The kiddie stuff is
the real hot potato here. The power "elite" are pure
unadulterated filth.
Yes....when you start to add up various facts coming from this
investigation it is easy to argue that the prime beneficiary has
been Trump. Why would Trump even consider firing this guy? The
more Mueller digs the more crap surfaces about the Dems, and they
are in full support of it without any seeming awareness of the
results. They are so blinded by their hatred they cannot see
reality.
The info from Weiner's computer is really going to make for
major popcorn sales. All Hitlery's "lost" emails are in there. All
the names in his address book will also make for some interesting
reading. Just a guess but there are a lot of very nervous NYC
elected officials and pedos making sure their passports are up to
date. The Lolita Express to Gitmo....
You guys see everything through Trump colored glasses. Trump is dirty and just
because the evidence hasn't been shown to you doesn't mean it isn't there.
Mueller has the dirt on Trump. It will show. Does everyone here forget that
Watergate took 2 1/2 years to play out?
Being in the business he is in, there is little doubt that Trump has paid
out millions of dollars over the years in bribes and payoffs to greedy
politicians, regulators, and zoning commissioners given to filthy lucre in
return for building permits, zoning variances, and law changes.
I know he
is but what are they? This could be one reason the politicians, regulators,
and zoning commissioners hate him so much. He knows what they know.
Trump is no dirtier than other politicians and much less than some.
He is just dirty in a way (he was usually the payer, they were the payees)
that bothers the other ones.
There is no man or
woman who has or ever will run for office that is not dirty.
As Dershowitz so acutely pointed out, every one of them with an
opposition Special Counsel on his case, can find at least 3 crimes they
committed.
The only reason theBamster wasn't probed at all is because no one dared
go after the only black man to ever run and win for POTUS. HE instead, was
protected from any probes.
You're an idiot that doesn't know anything about what this is really all
about. Or pretending to. Or a troll. Fuck you for being any of them.
Obama has a history of taking out his opponents in their personal life, so
that he doesnt have to meet them in the political arena, just look at his
state campaigns, and then his senate campaign. Look at how he used the
bureaucracy during his admin to preempt opposition, not allowing opposition
groups to get tax exempt status and sending osha/fbi/treasury etc to harrass
people that were more than marginally effective.
With that context set I would like to know the following.
1. Did the brennan/comey/clapper cabal have investigations running on all
the gop primary front runners?
2. Did they promote Trump to win the GOP primary, to eliminate those
rivals from consideration, just to attempt to destroy him in the general with
the russian collusion narrative and his own words.
3. Was Comey's failure to ensure Hillary's victory due to incompetence or
arrogance? I say arrogance, because his little late day announcement of the
new emails was obviously ass covering so that he could pass whatever senate
hearing that would be required for his new post in the hillary administration.
Having to learn how to deal with mobbed-up lawyers and unions in NYC turns out
the be pretty damned good preparation to be President Of The United States. I
love watching this guy work.
The illegitimate liberal MSM is sucking all the oxygen out of the room for
legitimate criticism of Trump. This Russian Collusion stormy daniels stuff is
a bunch of bologna, and it's making a smokescreen for Trump to carry out his
zio-bankster agenda.
Hegelian dialectic, Divide and conquer, kabuki
theater
For the most part I like Peter Schiff. I don't think he talks
enough about the criminal manipulation of commodities by the
banksters and the seemingly endless reluctance by our glorious
leaders to prosecute them.
On this topic: The lawlessness of
the 17 agencies is beyond the pale. They have set themselves
apart and for this they will have to pay eventually. I have no
doubt that in the minds of the Bureau principals there was motive
and there was opportunity. I don't believe anything that comes
out of their mouths. Robert Mueller is a three letter word for a
donkey. He is a criminal and a totally owned puppet of the deep
and dark state. Last I heard, the FBI planted a mole in the Trump
campaign. Iff true, that speaks volumes...
It is amazing that President Trump is still standing on his feet and still out
there swinging. The man is no coward. I'm glad I voted for him, although I am
disappointed in some of his failings.
"although I am disappointed in some of his failings."...
Yeah I know
just what ya mean...
The treason of war crimes he's committed exceeding all of his
predecessor(s) in his short assed existence as President and threatening
war on two nuclear superpowers that could easily wipe his office and 4
thousand square miles of CONUS "
off the map
"!...
Endorsing a torturer murder to head the CIA condoning her efforts in
public "thumbing his nose" at Article 3 Geneva the U.S. Constitution and
for his military to tacitly continue disobeying the UCMJ as a response
to that "selection"!...
Telling the parasitic partner that owns him through blackmail that
Jerusalem is the Capital of IsraHell as over 200 Palestinians are
murdered and 3 thousand others injured in joyous celebration of that
violation of international law which is the equivalent of pouring
"gasoline" on a building that has already been reduced to "ash"...
They didn't really think things through when they plotted against Trump and
figured Hillary would win and they could sweep this under the rug and then she
lost. Funnier is that many expected her to lose as she never won an election
in her life despite her being "The Most Qualified" candidate as her parrots in
the media lovingly called her. Now Trump and his team will stomp them all into
the ground. My guess is that he'll pinch others in her gang who have big egos
so that they'll talk and drop a dime which they will. The libtards are turning
on themselves in every area now. Look at Hollywood and the sexual harassment
cases in the pipeline.
It's just so pleasurable watching your enemy fall on their sword while you
sit back and enjoy life and smile....
Was the Trump campaign "Set-up"? It's just another way the oligarchy
is deflecting what the real problem is. Americans are fed up with the
political status quo in this country, and wanted a change. Neither political
party offers any change for the better. It is also why Bernie Sanders had a
huge following, but no one is calling his campaign a "set-up", and he would
have been the more likely choice the Russians would have helped.
It really doesn't make any sense why the Russians would have selected
Trump, but it makes a lot of sense why the oligarchy would want to discredit
Trump any means availble to them. And since they have always hated Russia so
much, that is the big tip-off of who comes up with these stupid stories about
Russians meddling in our elections.
We voted against the powers that be. With Truman, we got a decent man that
was manipulated by the Deep State. With Trump, we got a not-so-decent man,
but still manipulated by the Deep State. Sigh.
there needs to be a schedule drawn up of charges against individuals. it's
all very well talking and talking anf talking around the water cooler, but
until the charges are drawn up and a grand jury empowered, it is all
pissing into the wind.
the individuals range from obama through clinton,
through the loathsome slimebags in the alphabet soup, through foundations,
through DNC leaders/politicians, through Weiner, Abedin, Rice and the
witches cabal (Wasserstein Schulz etc), UK intel agencies, awan brothers,
pakistan intel supplying Iran with classified documents and so on.
there are charges (of treason, sedition, wilful mishandling of classifed
documents, bribery, corruption, murder, child trafficking, election
rigging, spying for/collusion with foreign powers, funding terrorism, child
abuse, election rigging/tampering, misappropriation of federal funds, theft
etc as well as general malfeasance, failure to perform duties and so on)
that are not being brought that are so obvious, only a snowflake would miss
them.
what charges can be brought against the MSM for propaganda,
misdirection, lying, fabrication and attempting to ovetthrow a legitimately
elected president using these techniques to further their own ends? there
is no freedom of the press to lie and further civil unrest.
a list of charges against individuals in the DNC/alphabet soup is what
is needed. if the DoJ is so incompetent or corrupt that it is unable to do
its job, private law suits need to be brought to get all the facts out in
the open.
someone needs to write the book and make it butt hole shaped to shove up
all those that try to make a living out of making up gossip in the NYT,
WaPo, CNN, BBC, Economist, Madcow, SNL, Oliver and so on.
these people are guilty of being assholes and need their assholes
(mouths) plugged with a very think fifteen inch book.
Trump might become a deep stater but he definitely wasn't one of
them. Google "offer to pay trump to drop out of election" and see
how many stories there were. Here is one of them.
I hope someone writes a book on this with all of the timing and all of the
"little" things that happened on the way to the coronation of Hillary.
Comey "interviews" Hillary on 4th of July weekend. Wraps up case by 9am
Tuesday after 4th of July. By noon, Hillary and Obama are on Air Force 1
to begin campaign. Within a few weeks Seth Rich is dead and DWS avoids
being "killed in an armed robbery gone bad" when she steps down as head of
DNC. Above article forgets to mention that GPS also hired the wife of
someone in the government as part of the "fact gathering" team.
The dramatic rise fo the number of CIA-democrats as candidates from Democratic Party is not assedental. As regular clintonites
are discredited those guys can still appeal to patriotism to get elected.
Notable quotes:
"... Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests! ..."
"... Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries. ..."
"... After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire. ..."
"... It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate voters and steal the popular vote. ..."
"... This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq. ..."
During the 2016 Democratic party primaries we wrote that
what Bernie achieved, is to bring back the real political discussion in America, at least concerning the Democratic camp. Bernie
smartly "drags" his primary rival, Hillary Clinton, into the heart of the politics. Up until a few years ago, you could not observe
too much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, who were just following the pro-establishment "politics as usual",
probably with a few, occasional exceptions. The "politics as usual" so far, was "you can't touch the Wall Street", for example.
Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard
to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear
at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational
argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests!
Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was
forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries.
After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported
mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is
a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire.
It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from
the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate
voters and steal the popular vote.
Eric Draitser gives us valuable information for such a type of candidate. Key points:
One candidate currently generating some buzz in the race is Jeff Beals, a self-identified "Bernie democrat" whose campaign website
homepage describes him as a " local teacher and former U.S. diplomat endorsed by the national organization of former Bernie Sanders
staffers, the Justice Democrats. " And indeed, Beals centers his progressive bona fides to brand himself as one of the inheritors
of the progressive torch lit by Sanders in 2016. A smart political move, to be sure. But is it true?
Beals describes himself as a "former U.S. diplomat," touting his expertise on international issues born of his experience overseas.
In an email interview with CounterPunch, Beals describes his campaign as a " movement for diplomacy and peace in foreign affairs
and an end to militarism my experience as a U.S. diplomat is what drives it and gives this movement such force. " OK, sounds
good, a very progressive sounding answer. But what did Beals actually do during his time overseas?
By his own admission, Beals' overseas career began as an intelligence officer with the CIA. His fluency in Arabic and knowledge
of the region made him an obvious choice to be an intelligence spook during the latter stages of the Clinton Administration.
Beals shrewdly attempts to portray himself as an opponent of neocon imperialism in Iraq. In his interview with CounterPunch, Beals
argued that " The State Department was sidelined as the Bush administration and a neoconservative cabal plunged America into the
tragic Iraq War. As a U.S. diplomat fluent in Arabic and posted in Jerusalem at the time, I was called over a year into the war to
help our country find a way out. "
This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted
into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration
in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq.
Moreover, no one who knows anything about the Iraq War could possibly swallow the tripe that CIA/State Department officials in
Iraq were " looking to help our country find a way out " a year into the war. A year into the war, the bloodletting was only
just beginning, and Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the other corporate vultures had yet to fully exploit the country and make billions
off it. So, unfortunately for Beals, the historical memory of the anti-war Left is not that short.
It is self-evident that Beals has a laundry list of things in his past that he must answer for. For those of us, especially Millennials,
who cut our activist teeth demonstrating and organizing against the Iraq War, Beals' distortions about his role in Iraq go down like
hemlock tea. But it is the associations Beals maintains today that really should give any progressive serious pause.
When asked by CounterPunch whether he has any connections to either Bernie Sanders and his surrogates or Hillary Clinton and hers,
Beals responded by stating: " I am endorsed by Justice Democrats, a group of former Bernie Sanders staffers who are pledged to
electing progressives nationwide. I am also endorsed for the Greene County chapter of the New York Progressive Action Network, formerly
the Bernie Sanders network. My first hire was a former Sanders field coordinator who worked here in NY-19. "
However, conveniently missing from that response is the fact that Beals' campaign has been, and continues to be, directly managed
in nearly every respect by Bennett Ratcliff, a longtime friend and ally of Hillary Clinton. Ratcliff is not mentioned in any publicly
available documents as a campaign manager, though the most recent FEC filings show that as of April 1, 2018, Ratcliff was still on
the payroll of the Beals campaign. And in the video of Beals' campaign kickoff rally, Ratcliff introduces Beals, while only being
described as a member of the Onteora School Board in Ulster County . This is sort of like referring to Donald Trump as an avid
golfer.
Beals has studiously, and rather intelligently, avoided mentioning Ratcliff, or the presence of Clinton's inner circle on his
campaign. However, according to internal campaign documents and emails obtained by CounterPunch, Ratcliff manages nearly every aspect
of the campaign, acting as a sort of éminence grise behind the artifice of a progressive campaign fronted by a highly educated and
photogenic political novice.
By his own admission, Ratcliff's role on the campaign is strategy, message, and management. Sounds like a rather textbook description
of a campaign manager. Indeed, Ratcliff has been intimately involved in "guiding" Beals on nearly every important campaign decision,
especially those involving fundraising .
And it is in the realm of fundraising that Ratcliff really shines, but not in the way one would traditionally think. Rather than
focusing on large donations and powerful interests, Ratcliff is using the Beals campaign as a laboratory for his strategy of winning
elections without raising millions of dollars.
In fact, leaked campaign documents show that Ratcliff has explicitly instructed Beals and his staffers not to spend money on
food, decorations, and other standard campaign expenses in hopes of presenting the illusion of a grassroots, people-powered campaign
with no connections to big time donors or financial elites .
It seems that Ratcliff is the wizard behind the curtain, leveraging his decades of contact building and close ties to the Democratic
Party establishment while at the same time manufacturing an astroturfed progressive campaign using a front man in Beals .
One of Ratcliff's most infamous, and indefensible, acts of fealty to the Clinton machine came in 2009 when he and longtime Clinton
attorney and lobbyist, Lanny Davis, stumped around Washington to garner support for the illegal right-wing coup in Honduras, which
ousted the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in favor of the right-wing oligarchs who control the country today. Although
the UN, and even U.S. diplomats on the ground in Honduras, openly stated that the coup was illegal, Clinton was adamant to actively
keep Zelaya out.
Essentially then, Ratcliff is a chief architect of the right-wing government in Honduras – the same government assassinating feminist
and indigenous activists like Berta Cáceres, Margarita Murillo, and others, and forcibly displacing and ethnically cleansing Afro-indigenous
communities to make way for Carribbean resorts and golf courses.
And this Washington insider lobbyist and apologist for war criminals and crimes against humanity is the guy who's on a crusade
to reform campaign finance and fix Washington? This is the guy masquerading as a progressive? This is the guy working to elect an
"anti-war progressive"?
In a twisted way it makes sense. Ratcliff has the blood of tens of thousands of Hondurans (among others) on his hands, while Beals
is a creature of Langley, a CIA boy whose exceptional work in the service of Bush and Clinton administration war criminals is touted
as some kind of merit badge on his resume.
What also becomes clear after establishing the Ratcliff-Beals connection is the fact that Ratcliff's purported concern with
campaign financing and "taking back the Republic" is really just a pretext for attempting to provide a "proof of concept," as it
were, that neoliberal Democrats shouldn't fear and subvert the progressive wing of the party, but rather that they should co-opt
it with a phony grassroots facade all while maintaining links to U.S. intelligence, Wall Street, and the power brokers of the Democratic
Party .
The dramatic rise fo the number of CIA-democrats as candidates from Democratic Party is not assedental. As regular clintonites
are discredited those guys can still appeal to patriotism to get elected.
Notable quotes:
"... Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests! ..."
"... Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries. ..."
"... After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire. ..."
"... It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate voters and steal the popular vote. ..."
"... This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq. ..."
During the 2016 Democratic party primaries we wrote that
what Bernie achieved, is to bring back the real political discussion in America, at least concerning the Democratic camp. Bernie
smartly "drags" his primary rival, Hillary Clinton, into the heart of the politics. Up until a few years ago, you could not observe
too much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, who were just following the pro-establishment "politics as usual",
probably with a few, occasional exceptions. The "politics as usual" so far, was "you can't touch the Wall Street", for example.
Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard
to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear
at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational
argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests!
Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was
forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries.
After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported
mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is
a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire.
It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from
the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate
voters and steal the popular vote.
Eric Draitser gives us valuable information for such a type of candidate. Key points:
One candidate currently generating some buzz in the race is Jeff Beals, a self-identified "Bernie democrat" whose campaign website
homepage describes him as a " local teacher and former U.S. diplomat endorsed by the national organization of former Bernie Sanders
staffers, the Justice Democrats. " And indeed, Beals centers his progressive bona fides to brand himself as one of the inheritors
of the progressive torch lit by Sanders in 2016. A smart political move, to be sure. But is it true?
Beals describes himself as a "former U.S. diplomat," touting his expertise on international issues born of his experience overseas.
In an email interview with CounterPunch, Beals describes his campaign as a " movement for diplomacy and peace in foreign affairs
and an end to militarism my experience as a U.S. diplomat is what drives it and gives this movement such force. " OK, sounds
good, a very progressive sounding answer. But what did Beals actually do during his time overseas?
By his own admission, Beals' overseas career began as an intelligence officer with the CIA. His fluency in Arabic and knowledge
of the region made him an obvious choice to be an intelligence spook during the latter stages of the Clinton Administration.
Beals shrewdly attempts to portray himself as an opponent of neocon imperialism in Iraq. In his interview with CounterPunch, Beals
argued that " The State Department was sidelined as the Bush administration and a neoconservative cabal plunged America into the
tragic Iraq War. As a U.S. diplomat fluent in Arabic and posted in Jerusalem at the time, I was called over a year into the war to
help our country find a way out. "
This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted
into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration
in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq.
Moreover, no one who knows anything about the Iraq War could possibly swallow the tripe that CIA/State Department officials in
Iraq were " looking to help our country find a way out " a year into the war. A year into the war, the bloodletting was only
just beginning, and Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the other corporate vultures had yet to fully exploit the country and make billions
off it. So, unfortunately for Beals, the historical memory of the anti-war Left is not that short.
It is self-evident that Beals has a laundry list of things in his past that he must answer for. For those of us, especially Millennials,
who cut our activist teeth demonstrating and organizing against the Iraq War, Beals' distortions about his role in Iraq go down like
hemlock tea. But it is the associations Beals maintains today that really should give any progressive serious pause.
When asked by CounterPunch whether he has any connections to either Bernie Sanders and his surrogates or Hillary Clinton and hers,
Beals responded by stating: " I am endorsed by Justice Democrats, a group of former Bernie Sanders staffers who are pledged to
electing progressives nationwide. I am also endorsed for the Greene County chapter of the New York Progressive Action Network, formerly
the Bernie Sanders network. My first hire was a former Sanders field coordinator who worked here in NY-19. "
However, conveniently missing from that response is the fact that Beals' campaign has been, and continues to be, directly managed
in nearly every respect by Bennett Ratcliff, a longtime friend and ally of Hillary Clinton. Ratcliff is not mentioned in any publicly
available documents as a campaign manager, though the most recent FEC filings show that as of April 1, 2018, Ratcliff was still on
the payroll of the Beals campaign. And in the video of Beals' campaign kickoff rally, Ratcliff introduces Beals, while only being
described as a member of the Onteora School Board in Ulster County . This is sort of like referring to Donald Trump as an avid
golfer.
Beals has studiously, and rather intelligently, avoided mentioning Ratcliff, or the presence of Clinton's inner circle on his
campaign. However, according to internal campaign documents and emails obtained by CounterPunch, Ratcliff manages nearly every aspect
of the campaign, acting as a sort of éminence grise behind the artifice of a progressive campaign fronted by a highly educated and
photogenic political novice.
By his own admission, Ratcliff's role on the campaign is strategy, message, and management. Sounds like a rather textbook description
of a campaign manager. Indeed, Ratcliff has been intimately involved in "guiding" Beals on nearly every important campaign decision,
especially those involving fundraising .
And it is in the realm of fundraising that Ratcliff really shines, but not in the way one would traditionally think. Rather than
focusing on large donations and powerful interests, Ratcliff is using the Beals campaign as a laboratory for his strategy of winning
elections without raising millions of dollars.
In fact, leaked campaign documents show that Ratcliff has explicitly instructed Beals and his staffers not to spend money on
food, decorations, and other standard campaign expenses in hopes of presenting the illusion of a grassroots, people-powered campaign
with no connections to big time donors or financial elites .
It seems that Ratcliff is the wizard behind the curtain, leveraging his decades of contact building and close ties to the Democratic
Party establishment while at the same time manufacturing an astroturfed progressive campaign using a front man in Beals .
One of Ratcliff's most infamous, and indefensible, acts of fealty to the Clinton machine came in 2009 when he and longtime Clinton
attorney and lobbyist, Lanny Davis, stumped around Washington to garner support for the illegal right-wing coup in Honduras, which
ousted the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in favor of the right-wing oligarchs who control the country today. Although
the UN, and even U.S. diplomats on the ground in Honduras, openly stated that the coup was illegal, Clinton was adamant to actively
keep Zelaya out.
Essentially then, Ratcliff is a chief architect of the right-wing government in Honduras – the same government assassinating feminist
and indigenous activists like Berta Cáceres, Margarita Murillo, and others, and forcibly displacing and ethnically cleansing Afro-indigenous
communities to make way for Carribbean resorts and golf courses.
And this Washington insider lobbyist and apologist for war criminals and crimes against humanity is the guy who's on a crusade
to reform campaign finance and fix Washington? This is the guy masquerading as a progressive? This is the guy working to elect an
"anti-war progressive"?
In a twisted way it makes sense. Ratcliff has the blood of tens of thousands of Hondurans (among others) on his hands, while Beals
is a creature of Langley, a CIA boy whose exceptional work in the service of Bush and Clinton administration war criminals is touted
as some kind of merit badge on his resume.
What also becomes clear after establishing the Ratcliff-Beals connection is the fact that Ratcliff's purported concern with
campaign financing and "taking back the Republic" is really just a pretext for attempting to provide a "proof of concept," as it
were, that neoliberal Democrats shouldn't fear and subvert the progressive wing of the party, but rather that they should co-opt
it with a phony grassroots facade all while maintaining links to U.S. intelligence, Wall Street, and the power brokers of the Democratic
Party .
"... disgusting how anti-war pre-president trump becomes military pandering trumpanyahoo after election...his handlers, knowing he will need them in the near future, set him to constantly stroke the military every opportunity he has... ..."
"... The Western globalist billionaires and elites are ultimately responsible for any aggression coming from Israel. If they can conquer and control Iran and take over its oil and gas reserves, risking the fate of the millions of people in Iran, Syria and in Israel, then the losses to them will be incidental. ..."
"... I'm sure I'm missing some of the many "dots" but it logic suggests that both Obama and Trump are faux populists that - at least in foreign policy (where Presidential powers are greatest) - are greatly influenced by foreign(albeit "allied") interests. ..."
"... IMO Apologists for the faux populists also play an important part. They respond voraciously to the "crazy opposition" and thereby keep alive faith in the faux hero. ..."
"... Faux populist leaders seem to be a natural fit for our inverted totalitarian form of government. Perhaps any Empire will naturally gravitate to such a compromised government? Funny thing is, most Americans would say that USA is NOT an Empire. ..."
Not that there was much doubt who was behind it, but two days after "enemy" warplanes
attacked a Syrian military base near Hama on Sunday, killing at least 11 Iranians and dozens of others, and nobody had yet "claimed
responsibility" the attack, US officials
told
NBC that it was indeed Israeli F-15 fighter jets that struck the base,
NBC News
reported .
Ominously, the officials said Israel appears to be preparing for open warfare with Iran and is seeking U.S. help and support .
"On the list of the potentials for most likely live hostility around the world, the battle between Israel and Iran in Syria is
at the top of the list right now," said one senior U.S. official.
The US officials
told
NBC that Israeli F-15s hit Hama after Iran delivered weapons to a base that houses Iran's 47th Brigade, including surface-to-air
missiles. In addition to killing two dozen troops, including officers, the strike wounded three dozen others. The report adds that
the U.S. officials believe the shipments were intended for Iranian ground forces that would attack Israel.
Meanwhile, as we reported yesterday, the Syrian army said early on Monday that "enemy" rockets struck military bases belonging
to Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime. According to several outlets, the strikes targeted the 47th Brigade base in the southern
Hama district, a military facility in northwestern Hama and a facility north of the Aleppo International Airport.
Meanwhile, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Tuesday that Israel on Tuesday morning had four problems, one more than
the day before: "Iran, Iran, Iran and hypocrisy." The comment came one day after Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu "revealed" a cache
of documents the Mossad stole from Iran detailing the country's nuclear program, which however critics said were i) old and ii) not
indicative of Iran's current plans.
"This is the same Iran that cracks down on freedom of expression and on minorities. The same Iran that tried to develop nuclear
weapons and entered the [nuclear] deal for economic benefits," Lieberman said.
"The same Iran is trying to hide its weapons while everyone ignores it. The state of Israel cannot ignore Iran's threats, Iran,
whose senior officials promise to wipe out Israel," he said. "They are trying to harm us, and we'll have a response.
Iran's Defense Minister Amir Khatami threatened Israel on Tuesday, saying it should stop its "dangerous behavior" and vowing that
the "Iranian response will be surprising and you will regret it." Khatami's remarks came Following Netanyahu's speech which Khatami
described as Israeli "provocative actions," and two days after the strikes in Syria.
* * *
Meanwhile, in a potential hint at the upcoming conflict,
Haaretz writes that two and a half weeks after the bombing in which seven members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards were killed
at the T4 base in Syria, Israel is bracing for an Iranian retaliation for the Syrian strikes (and if one isn't forthcoming, well
that's what false flags are for).
As Haaretz writes, the Iranians' response, despite their frequent threats of revenge, is being postponed, screwing up Iran's war
planning. It's also possible that as time passes, Tehran is becoming more aware of the possible complex consequences of any action.
Still, the working assumption of Israeli defense officials remains that such a response is highly probable.
The Iranians appear to have many options. Revenge could come on the Syrian border, from the Lebanese border via Hezbollah,
directly from Iran by the launch of long-range missiles, or against an Israeli target abroad. In past decades Iran and Hezbollah
took part, separately and together, in two attacks in Argentina, a suicide attack in Bulgaria and attempts to strike at Israeli
diplomats and tourists in countries including India, Thailand and Azerbaijan.
In any case, Lebanon seems all but out of bounds until the country's May 6 parliamentary elections, and amid Hezbollah's fear
of being portrayed as an Iranian puppet. The firing of missiles from Iran would exacerbate the claims about Tehran's missile project
a moment before a possible U.S. decision on May 12 to abandon the nuclear agreement. Also, a strike at a target far from the Middle
East would require long preparation.
* * *
For now, an Israeli war with Iran in Syria is far from inevitable: the clash of intentions is clear: Iran is establishing itself
militarily in Syria and Israel has declared that it will prevent that by force. The question, of course, is whether this unstable
equilibrium will devolve into a lethal escalation, or if it will somehow be resolved through peaceful negotiation. Unfortunately,
in the context of recent events, and the upcoming breakdown of the Iran nuclear deal, the former is looking like the most likely
outcome.
disgusting how anti-war pre-president trump becomes military pandering trumpanyahoo after election...his handlers, knowing
he will need them in the near future, set him to constantly stroke the military every opportunity he has...
The Western globalist billionaires and elites are ultimately responsible for any aggression coming from Israel. If they
can conquer and control Iran and take over its oil and gas reserves, risking the fate of the millions of people in Iran, Syria
and in Israel, then the losses to them will be incidental. The Western-globalist-Zio-hawk Axis no doubt feels it has to act
now against Iran in case everything settles down in the ME with the Syrian war cooling off. Any expansion of Israeli turf or getting
control of resources to the north would be stymied with further waiting and allowing both Syrian and Iranian defense systems to
be further fortified. The Israelis appear to be completely confident that if they can instigate a war with Iran that it will be
backed by the US, the UK, France and other NATO nations.
That confidence could only come from the Western elites running things. However, after their last fizzled false-flag poison-gas
attack in Syria, the support by many NATO nations for more Axis aggression may not be that solid. So what does the Israeli tough
talk and threats mean at this time? Perhaps it means that Israel is in the process of concocting a massive and much more sophisticated
false-flag attack, like the taking out of a US war ship and blaming Iran for starting the war.
Remember Five points:
Isreal will fight to the very last American Soldiers Death.
The Zionist screams in Pain as he Stikes you.
The Yinon Plan.
Operation TALPIOT.
Qatari Pipeline Petro Dollar Vs. Russia / China Petro Yaun.
One bright aspect is the Anti-Isreal / Jew Zionist movement is gaining steam. More & more Individuals are speaking openly against
Israel's War Crimes, False Flag involvements, The Yinon Plan along with Pro Zionist immigrantion policy of migrating Muslim's
& Arabs to the EU & US without fear of retribution. Pro migration policy which supports territory boarder expansion via the Yinon
Plan & ethnic cleansing & migration of Arabs & Muslim's.
Not to mention the Billions in US foreign aid, AIPAC, ZioNeoConFascist NGO's & dual Israeli Citizen's which hold Political
Office in CONgress. Which must be outlawed.
As people become more disillusioned with Trump I think it's worthwhile to spend a moment to take stock of what happened in th
2016 election.
1) The US President is the primary determinant of US foreign and military power. The President is much weaker when addressing
domestic policy / internal affairs. Any small, paranoid nation with ambitious plans in its neighborhood would want ensure that
they have the President's ear ( or his balls). Too much at stake to take chances. And political influence is even easier when
you've developed close relation with an oil-rich ally (Saudis) with deep pockets.
2) US democracy is money-driven and no real populist stands much of a chance.
3) Despite a groundswell of discontent on both the left and the right, here were only two populists that ran in the election
(note: I'm not counting Rand Paul's because he didn't make an outright populist appeal - he merely spoke in a sensible way.
4) When Obama was President, he was kept in line by the "Birthers". Trump is kept in line by the allegation of Russian interference.
5) "Never Trump-ers" were mainly Jewish (AFAIK) and almost certainly pro-Israel. The Never Trump campaign began in earnest
with Kagan's Op-Ed in February 2016 ( some might date it to Bloomberg's public statement in January 2016 that neither Sanders
or Trump could be allowed to win).
6) AFAIK Pro-Israel oligarchs (like Saban, Soros, Bloomberg) are big donors to Democratic Party. Hillarry and DNC are known
to have colluded against 'sheep-dog' Sanders. Wouldn't Hillary just as easily collide FOR Trump (the Cinton's And Trump's are
known to have had close ties - and their daughters are still close).
I'm sure I'm missing some of the many "dots" but it logic suggests that both Obama and Trump are faux populists that -
at least in foreign policy (where Presidential powers are greatest) - are greatly influenced by foreign(albeit "allied") interests.
IMO Apologists for the faux populists also play an important part. They respond voraciously to the "crazy opposition" and
thereby keep alive faith in the faux hero.
Faux populist leaders seem to be a natural fit for our inverted totalitarian form of government. Perhaps any Empire will
naturally gravitate to such a compromised government? Funny thing is, most Americans would say that USA is NOT an Empire.
I should point out that "kept in line" (point #4) appears to be a convenience needed to excuse the faux populist's betrayals.
Both Obama and Trump seem more than willing to do as they are told.
And don't bother citing Obama's Iran deal as "proof" that Obama was independent. IMO That deal was made simply to buy time
because regime-change in Syria was taking longer than expected. It is foolish to think that Obama did everything the establishment
wanted but refused IN THAT ONE MATTER.
An interesting new term is used in this discussion: "CIA democrats". Probably originated in Patrick Martin March 7, 2018
article at WSWS The CIA Democrats Part one - World Socialist Web
Site but I would not draw an equivalence between military and intelligence agencies.
"f the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from
the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress."
Notable quotes:
"... @leveymg ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... "I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long ways since then." ..."
The left has never been welcome in the Republican party; and since the neoliberal Clinton machine showed up, they have not
been welcome in the Democratic party either. As Clinton debauched the historical, FDR/JFK/LBJ meaning of the word "liberal",
the left started calling itself "progressives". The left had long been the grassroots of the Democratic party; and after being
left in the lurch by John Kerry (no lawsuits against Ohio fraud), lied to by Barack Obama, and browbeaten by the increasingly
neocon Clintonite DNC, they enthusiastically coalesced around Bernie Sanders.
If our political system were honest, Bernie Sanders would have been the Democratic nominee; and Hillary Clinton and Debbie
W-S (of Aman Brothers infamy) would be on trial for violating national security and corrupting the DNC. But, our political
system isn't honest. Our political system, including the Democratic party, is completely bought and
paid for. And, unfortunately, Bernie Sanders - despite being a victim of that corruption - continues to refuse to make that point.
He refused to join the lawsuit (complete with dead process server and suspicious phone call from DWS's office) against the DNC.
All in the name of working within a party he does not even belong to.
After the 2016 election, the DNC, continuing its corrupt ways, blatantly favored Tom Perez over the "progressive" Keith Ellison,
smearing Ellison as a Moslem lover. Bernie's reaction to this continuing manipulation was muted. On foreign policy, Bernie continues
to be either AWOL or pro-MIC (F-35 plant in VT)/pro-Israel. These are not progressive positiions. AFAIAC, Bernie is half a leftist.
He is left on economics and social policy; but he is rightwing on the MIC, foreign policy, and Israel. There is very little democracy
left in this country, and I am not going to waste my time supporting Bernie, who has shown himself to be a sheepdog. That's my
take on the 2018 version of Bernie. I will always treasure the early 2016 version of Bernie, the only political candidate in my
life that I gave serious money to.
Neither will I waste my time pretending that honest, inside-the-system efforts can take the Democratic party back from the
plutocrats who own it, lock, stock, and checkbook. You might think there is a chance to work inside the system. You might think
the DNC is vulnerable because it learned nothing from the 2016 debacle; but you would be wrong. After the Hillary debacle, they
have learned how to manufacture more credible fake progressives.
------
For it seems that progressive candidates aren't the only ones who learned the lesson of Bernie Sanders in 2016; the neoliberal
Clintonites have too. So, while left-wing campaigns crop up in every corner of the country, so too do astroturf faux-progressive
campaigns. And it is for us on the left to parse through it all and separate the authentic from the frauds.
One candidate currently generating some buzz in the race is Jeff Beals, a self-identified "Bernie democrat"
whose campaign website homepage describes him as a "local teacher and former U.S. diplomat endorsed by the national organization
of former Bernie Sanders staffers, the Justice Democrats." And indeed, Beals centers his progressive bona fides to brand himself
as one of the inheritors of the progressive torch lit by Sanders in 2016. A smart political move, to be sure. But is it true?
By his own admission, Beals' overseas career began as an intelligence officer with the CIA. His fluency
in Arabic and knowledge of the region made him an obvious choice to be an intelligence spook during the latter stages of the
Clinton Administration.
Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an
influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration in its ever-expanding crime against humanity
in Iraq.
Moreover, no one who knows anything about the Iraq War could possibly swallow the tripe that CIA/State Department officials
in Iraq were "looking to help our country find a way out" a year into the war. A year into the war, the bloodletting was only
just beginning, and Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the other corporate vultures had yet to fully exploit the country and make
billions off it. So, unfortunately for Beals, the historical memory of the anti-war Left is not that short.
The takeaway here is that many of these self-declared "Bernie Democrats" are, in reality, the "CIA Democrats" that we have
been warned about. And Bernie has not called them out. Another thing he has not called out is the fact that the
party leadership is still blatantly sabotaging even modestly "progressive" candidates in the primaries.
In the latest striking example of how the Democratic Party resorts to cronyism (and perhaps corruption) to ensure that its
favored candidates beat back progressive challengers in local races, a candidate for Colorado's 6th Congressional District
has leaked a recording of a conversation with Minority Leader Steny Hoyer to The Intercept which published it overnight. In
it, Hoyer can be heard essentially lecturing the candidate about why he should step aside and let the Democratic Party
bosses - who of course have a better idea about which candidate will prevail over a popular Republican in the general
election - continue pulling the strings.
The candidate, Levi Tillemann, is hardly a party outsider. Tillemann had grandparents on both sides of his family who were
elected Democratic representatives, and his family is essentially Democratic Party royalty.
Still, the party's campaign arm - the notorious Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (better known as the DCCC, or
D-trip) - refused to provide Tillemann with access to party campaign data or any of the other resources he requested.
Here is yet another thing that Bernie has not called out: The DNC, which is reportedly badly behind in fundraising, is nevertheless
willing to spend obscene amounts of money in primaries just to keep progressives out of races - even Red district races that are
guaranteed losses for Democrats.
Dan Feehan has successfully bought the Democratic nomination for Minnesota's first congressional district (MN-CD1). Dan,
having lived outside the state since the age of 14, has allegedly misled the public on his FEC form, claiming residence at
his cousin's address. Here is Dan's FEC filing form. One can see that it his cousin who lives at this address...
Mr. Feehan has no chance to win in November. While nobody likes a candidate from Washington D.C., people
hate Washington money even more. To be fair to Dan he hasn't taken super PAC money, somehow. But he
has raised 565,000 dollars, an outrageous sum for a congressional race. 94% of this money has come from outside the district,
and 79% from outside the state. Where does this money come from? Well, according to the campaign, from people around
the country who want to keep Minnesota blue. If this was the case, why not wait to give money until Minnesota voted
for a candidate in the primary and then donate? And who on earth has this much money to pour into an obscure race outside of
their state?
Dan Feehan is of the same breed that most post-Trump Democrats are. Clean cut, military experience,
stern, anti-gun, anti-crazy Orange monsters, anti-negativity, and anti-discrimination of rich people who fall under a marginalized
group. What are they for? No one knows. If pushed they want "good" education, health care, jobs, environment,
etc. But they want Big money too for various reasons, but the ones cited are: because that is the only way to win,
because rich people are smart and poor people are dumb, and because money is speech. So they cannot and will not make
any concrete commitments. Hence energy becomes "all inclusive", as if balancing clean and dirty energy was a college admissions
department diversity issue, rather than a question of life or death for the entire planet. Healthcare becomes not a right,
but a requirement with a giant handout to insurance companies. Near full employment (with the near being very important, when
we consider leverage) comes with part-time, short-term, and low paying work.
The Clintonite Democrats and their spawn are postmodern progressives. In their world, there is no way to test if one is progressive.
Within the world of the Democratic party, there is no relativity. It is merely a universe that exists only to clash with (but
mostly submit to) the parallel Republican universe. Whoever proves to be the victor should be united behind without a thought
given to their place within the political spectrum of Democrat voters. They believe, if I were to paraphrase René Descartes:
"I Democrat, therefore I progressive."
Tell me again why I must be a loyal Democrat, why I must support candidates who are corporate/MIC shills, why I must submit
to the constant harassment and sabotage of progressive efforts. Tell me again how Bernie is fighting the party leadership. (That
is, explain away all the non-activity related to the items posted above.)
I'm with Chris Hedges. Formal democracy is dead in the US; all we have left are actions in the streets (and those are being
slowly made illegal). The only people in this country who deserve my support are: 1) the striking teachers, many of them non-unionized,
2) the oil pipeline protestors, who are being crushed by police state tactics, 3) the fighters for $15 minimum wage, again non-unionized.
The Democratic Party used to stand for unions. It doesn't any more. It doesn't stand for anything except getting more money from
the 1% to sell out the 99% with fake progressive CIA candidates. Oh, and it stands for pussy hats.
Anyone who tells me to get in line behind Bernie is either a naive pollyana or a disingenuous purity troll.
leveymg on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 9:44am
We have all been here before. 1948.
That was the year that the clawback of the Democratic Party and the purge of the Left was formalized. It really dates to the engineered
hijacking of the nomination of Henry Wallace at the 1944 Democratic Convention. History does repeat itself for those who didn't
learn or weren't adequately taught it.
however tragic it is. Instead of a true leftwinger, we got Harry Truman, a naive wardheeler from corrupt Kansas City. He was
led by the nose to create the CIA.
I do take your point; but the question is, can anything be done? If democracy has become meaningless kabuki, and the neocon
warmongers are in charge no matter whom we "elect", what is there to do besides build that bomb shelter?
That is why I say that only genuine issues will galvanize the public; and even then, they can run a hybrid war against the
left. They have created this ludicrous Identity Politics boogeyman that energizes the right and makes the postmodern progressives
look stupid. No matter what tactic I think of, TPTB have already covered that base. The problem is that the left has absolutely
no base in the U.S. today.
How will the pseudo-progressives be able to justify being both "progressive" and pro-war?
Talk about cognitive dissonance. But wait. Democraps of any stripe, don't cogitate, hence no dissonance.
zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 10:12am
Appreciate you posting this essay This
is only one of the many troubling signs which convince me he is being controlled by my enemy.
The takeaway here is that many of these self-declared "Bernie Democrats" are, in reality, the "CIA Democrats" that we have
been warned about. And Bernie has not called them out.
CS in AZ on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:12am
Thanks for the essay, arendt I came
to this site in the great purge at daily kos, and I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long
ways since then. Thanks to the people here.
And to kos, who now rather infamously said "if you think Hillary Clinton can't beat Donald Trump, you're a fucking moron. Seriously,
you're dumb as rocks." And he said if you're not going to cheerlead for democrats, "go the fuck away. This is not your place."
True words!!
So this site was here and Bernie supporters flocked here. Including me. But over this time I have seen the mistakes I made.
Such a lot of wasted time and energy.
Still searching for answers myself, but I know what doesn't work, and how important for the status quo to keep the illusion
of democracy alive. But more and more people are not buying it anymore. I suspect that a few more crumbs will be forthcoming on
some issues. That's the very best way to keep the show going. And the show must go on.
Pulling back the curtain is really the first and most important weapon we have. Thank you for doing that.
zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:45am zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:45am
Countered with Russia, Russia, Russia. God he was such a prick.
I came to this site in the great purge at daily kos, and I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come
a very long ways since then. Thanks to the people here.
And to kos, who now rather infamously said "if you think Hillary Clinton can't beat Donald Trump, you're a fucking moron.
Seriously, you're dumb as rocks." And he said if you're not going to cheerlead for democrats, "go the fuck away. This is not
your place." True words!!
So this site was here and Bernie supporters flocked here. Including me. But over this time I have seen the mistakes I made.
Such a lot of wasted time and energy.
Still searching for answers myself, but I know what doesn't work, and how important for the status quo to keep the illusion
of democracy alive. But more and more people are not buying it anymore. I suspect that a few more crumbs will be forthcoming
on some issues. That's the very best way to keep the show going. And the show must go on.
Pulling back the curtain is really the first and most important weapon we have. Thank you for doing that.
That's how I feel about it. I've been suckered one time too many. The 2016 election was a complete farce. Bernie was sabotaged.
The DNC and Hillary broke their own rules to do it. But Bernie, with a perfect opportunity and lots of support, just walked away
from the fight that he had promised his people.
Sheep dog.
TPTB want the political "fight" to be between slightly different flavors of neoliberal looting/neocon warmongering. They want
unions, teachers, environmentalists, and minorities to, in the words of a UK asshole, "shut up and go away".
The CIA literally paid $600M to the Washington Post, whose purchase price was only $300M. Bezos made 200% of his money back
in a month. The media is completely corporatized; and they are coming for the internet with censorship. Where is Bernie on this?
Haven't heard a word.
Sheep dog.
As TPTB simply buy what is left of the Democratic party, they will enforce this kabuki politics. Any deviation will be labeled
Putin-loving, Assad-loving, China-loving, etc.
You can't have a democracy when free speech is instantly labeled fake news or enemy propaganda.
"I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long ways since then."
This is how I see the way some people feel about him. This same thing happened after I voted for Obama. I thought that he would
do what "I heard him say that he would", but he let me down by not even bothering to try doing anything.
What soured me on Bernie was his saying that Her won the election fair and square after everything we saw happen. Even after
learning how the primary was rigged against him. And now he has jumped on the Russian interference propaganda train when he knows
that Russia had no hand with Trump beating Her out the presidency.
Bottom line is that I no longer believe that Bernie is being up front with me. I know that others feel differently, but remember
how people changed their minds on Obama and never accepted Herheinous! People should be free here to say how they feel.
Isn't making it "easier" for them to cheat when they are already doing that. What participating in their corruption does do
is keep the illusion of democracy alive for their benefit. Easier? They're already achieving their end game. Controlling us, electing
their candidates, and collecting our taxes.
Frankly we've been participating in their potemkin village passing as democracy for decades with no effect.
First, a boycott is not "ignoring" voting. It's an organized protest against fake elections. It's actually not that uncommon
for people in other countries to call for election boycotts in protest when a significant portion of people feel the election
is staged or rigged with a predetermined outcome, or where all of the candidates are chosen by the elite so none represent the
will of the people.
In that type of situation, boycotting the election -- and obviously that means saying why, and making a protest out of it --
is really the only recourse people have. It may not be effective at stopping the fake election, but it lets the world know the
vote was fake.
If you line up to go obediently cast your vote anyway, then you are the one who is empowering the enemy, by giving the illusion
of legitimacy to the fake vote.
Now about this big worry about what "they" will say... first, look at what they already say about third party voters.
In the media and political world, third party voters are a joke, useful idiots, who can be simultaneously written off as "fringe"
wackos who can and should be ignored, and also childish spoilers who can be scapegoated and blamed for eternity for election loses.
Witness Ralph Nader and Jill Stein. Of course people should still vote third party if there's someone that truly represents them,
and if they believe the election process is genuine. Because you don't let your voting choices be dictated by what the powers
that be say about it!
For those of us who believe the election process is a sham and a scam, voting is playing into their hands, giving legitimacy
to their show. That is what makes it easier for them to keep the status quo firmly in place, and is literally helping them do
it.
As has been pointed out, if an organized protest/boycott that called the elections fake were to take root and grow, they would
not be able to say we don't care. That's a big if, obviously, but it's better than playing your assigned role in The Voting Show.
Because that show is what everyone points to as proof that the American people want this fucked up warmongering government we
keep voting back into power every two years.
Enough is enough. One of Bernie's slogans, which I still agree with.
An interesting new term is used in this discussion: "CIA democrats". Probably originated in Patrick Martin March 7, 2018
article at WSWS The CIA Democrats Part one - World Socialist Web
Site but I would not draw an equivalence between military and intelligence agencies.
"f the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from
the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress."
Notable quotes:
"... @leveymg ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... "I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long ways since then." ..."
The left has never been welcome in the Republican party; and since the neoliberal Clinton machine showed up, they have not
been welcome in the Democratic party either. As Clinton debauched the historical, FDR/JFK/LBJ meaning of the word "liberal",
the left started calling itself "progressives". The left had long been the grassroots of the Democratic party; and after being
left in the lurch by John Kerry (no lawsuits against Ohio fraud), lied to by Barack Obama, and browbeaten by the increasingly
neocon Clintonite DNC, they enthusiastically coalesced around Bernie Sanders.
If our political system were honest, Bernie Sanders would have been the Democratic nominee; and Hillary Clinton and Debbie
W-S (of Aman Brothers infamy) would be on trial for violating national security and corrupting the DNC. But, our political
system isn't honest. Our political system, including the Democratic party, is completely bought and
paid for. And, unfortunately, Bernie Sanders - despite being a victim of that corruption - continues to refuse to make that point.
He refused to join the lawsuit (complete with dead process server and suspicious phone call from DWS's office) against the DNC.
All in the name of working within a party he does not even belong to.
After the 2016 election, the DNC, continuing its corrupt ways, blatantly favored Tom Perez over the "progressive" Keith Ellison,
smearing Ellison as a Moslem lover. Bernie's reaction to this continuing manipulation was muted. On foreign policy, Bernie continues
to be either AWOL or pro-MIC (F-35 plant in VT)/pro-Israel. These are not progressive positiions. AFAIAC, Bernie is half a leftist.
He is left on economics and social policy; but he is rightwing on the MIC, foreign policy, and Israel. There is very little democracy
left in this country, and I am not going to waste my time supporting Bernie, who has shown himself to be a sheepdog. That's my
take on the 2018 version of Bernie. I will always treasure the early 2016 version of Bernie, the only political candidate in my
life that I gave serious money to.
Neither will I waste my time pretending that honest, inside-the-system efforts can take the Democratic party back from the
plutocrats who own it, lock, stock, and checkbook. You might think there is a chance to work inside the system. You might think
the DNC is vulnerable because it learned nothing from the 2016 debacle; but you would be wrong. After the Hillary debacle, they
have learned how to manufacture more credible fake progressives.
------
For it seems that progressive candidates aren't the only ones who learned the lesson of Bernie Sanders in 2016; the neoliberal
Clintonites have too. So, while left-wing campaigns crop up in every corner of the country, so too do astroturf faux-progressive
campaigns. And it is for us on the left to parse through it all and separate the authentic from the frauds.
One candidate currently generating some buzz in the race is Jeff Beals, a self-identified "Bernie democrat"
whose campaign website homepage describes him as a "local teacher and former U.S. diplomat endorsed by the national organization
of former Bernie Sanders staffers, the Justice Democrats." And indeed, Beals centers his progressive bona fides to brand himself
as one of the inheritors of the progressive torch lit by Sanders in 2016. A smart political move, to be sure. But is it true?
By his own admission, Beals' overseas career began as an intelligence officer with the CIA. His fluency
in Arabic and knowledge of the region made him an obvious choice to be an intelligence spook during the latter stages of the
Clinton Administration.
Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an
influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration in its ever-expanding crime against humanity
in Iraq.
Moreover, no one who knows anything about the Iraq War could possibly swallow the tripe that CIA/State Department officials
in Iraq were "looking to help our country find a way out" a year into the war. A year into the war, the bloodletting was only
just beginning, and Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the other corporate vultures had yet to fully exploit the country and make
billions off it. So, unfortunately for Beals, the historical memory of the anti-war Left is not that short.
The takeaway here is that many of these self-declared "Bernie Democrats" are, in reality, the "CIA Democrats" that we have
been warned about. And Bernie has not called them out. Another thing he has not called out is the fact that the
party leadership is still blatantly sabotaging even modestly "progressive" candidates in the primaries.
In the latest striking example of how the Democratic Party resorts to cronyism (and perhaps corruption) to ensure that its
favored candidates beat back progressive challengers in local races, a candidate for Colorado's 6th Congressional District
has leaked a recording of a conversation with Minority Leader Steny Hoyer to The Intercept which published it overnight. In
it, Hoyer can be heard essentially lecturing the candidate about why he should step aside and let the Democratic Party
bosses - who of course have a better idea about which candidate will prevail over a popular Republican in the general
election - continue pulling the strings.
The candidate, Levi Tillemann, is hardly a party outsider. Tillemann had grandparents on both sides of his family who were
elected Democratic representatives, and his family is essentially Democratic Party royalty.
Still, the party's campaign arm - the notorious Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (better known as the DCCC, or
D-trip) - refused to provide Tillemann with access to party campaign data or any of the other resources he requested.
Here is yet another thing that Bernie has not called out: The DNC, which is reportedly badly behind in fundraising, is nevertheless
willing to spend obscene amounts of money in primaries just to keep progressives out of races - even Red district races that are
guaranteed losses for Democrats.
Dan Feehan has successfully bought the Democratic nomination for Minnesota's first congressional district (MN-CD1). Dan,
having lived outside the state since the age of 14, has allegedly misled the public on his FEC form, claiming residence at
his cousin's address. Here is Dan's FEC filing form. One can see that it his cousin who lives at this address...
Mr. Feehan has no chance to win in November. While nobody likes a candidate from Washington D.C., people
hate Washington money even more. To be fair to Dan he hasn't taken super PAC money, somehow. But he
has raised 565,000 dollars, an outrageous sum for a congressional race. 94% of this money has come from outside the district,
and 79% from outside the state. Where does this money come from? Well, according to the campaign, from people around
the country who want to keep Minnesota blue. If this was the case, why not wait to give money until Minnesota voted
for a candidate in the primary and then donate? And who on earth has this much money to pour into an obscure race outside of
their state?
Dan Feehan is of the same breed that most post-Trump Democrats are. Clean cut, military experience,
stern, anti-gun, anti-crazy Orange monsters, anti-negativity, and anti-discrimination of rich people who fall under a marginalized
group. What are they for? No one knows. If pushed they want "good" education, health care, jobs, environment,
etc. But they want Big money too for various reasons, but the ones cited are: because that is the only way to win,
because rich people are smart and poor people are dumb, and because money is speech. So they cannot and will not make
any concrete commitments. Hence energy becomes "all inclusive", as if balancing clean and dirty energy was a college admissions
department diversity issue, rather than a question of life or death for the entire planet. Healthcare becomes not a right,
but a requirement with a giant handout to insurance companies. Near full employment (with the near being very important, when
we consider leverage) comes with part-time, short-term, and low paying work.
The Clintonite Democrats and their spawn are postmodern progressives. In their world, there is no way to test if one is progressive.
Within the world of the Democratic party, there is no relativity. It is merely a universe that exists only to clash with (but
mostly submit to) the parallel Republican universe. Whoever proves to be the victor should be united behind without a thought
given to their place within the political spectrum of Democrat voters. They believe, if I were to paraphrase René Descartes:
"I Democrat, therefore I progressive."
Tell me again why I must be a loyal Democrat, why I must support candidates who are corporate/MIC shills, why I must submit
to the constant harassment and sabotage of progressive efforts. Tell me again how Bernie is fighting the party leadership. (That
is, explain away all the non-activity related to the items posted above.)
I'm with Chris Hedges. Formal democracy is dead in the US; all we have left are actions in the streets (and those are being
slowly made illegal). The only people in this country who deserve my support are: 1) the striking teachers, many of them non-unionized,
2) the oil pipeline protestors, who are being crushed by police state tactics, 3) the fighters for $15 minimum wage, again non-unionized.
The Democratic Party used to stand for unions. It doesn't any more. It doesn't stand for anything except getting more money from
the 1% to sell out the 99% with fake progressive CIA candidates. Oh, and it stands for pussy hats.
Anyone who tells me to get in line behind Bernie is either a naive pollyana or a disingenuous purity troll.
leveymg on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 9:44am
We have all been here before. 1948.
That was the year that the clawback of the Democratic Party and the purge of the Left was formalized. It really dates to the engineered
hijacking of the nomination of Henry Wallace at the 1944 Democratic Convention. History does repeat itself for those who didn't
learn or weren't adequately taught it.
however tragic it is. Instead of a true leftwinger, we got Harry Truman, a naive wardheeler from corrupt Kansas City. He was
led by the nose to create the CIA.
I do take your point; but the question is, can anything be done? If democracy has become meaningless kabuki, and the neocon
warmongers are in charge no matter whom we "elect", what is there to do besides build that bomb shelter?
That is why I say that only genuine issues will galvanize the public; and even then, they can run a hybrid war against the
left. They have created this ludicrous Identity Politics boogeyman that energizes the right and makes the postmodern progressives
look stupid. No matter what tactic I think of, TPTB have already covered that base. The problem is that the left has absolutely
no base in the U.S. today.
How will the pseudo-progressives be able to justify being both "progressive" and pro-war?
Talk about cognitive dissonance. But wait. Democraps of any stripe, don't cogitate, hence no dissonance.
zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 10:12am
Appreciate you posting this essay This
is only one of the many troubling signs which convince me he is being controlled by my enemy.
The takeaway here is that many of these self-declared "Bernie Democrats" are, in reality, the "CIA Democrats" that we have
been warned about. And Bernie has not called them out.
CS in AZ on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:12am
Thanks for the essay, arendt I came
to this site in the great purge at daily kos, and I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long
ways since then. Thanks to the people here.
And to kos, who now rather infamously said "if you think Hillary Clinton can't beat Donald Trump, you're a fucking moron. Seriously,
you're dumb as rocks." And he said if you're not going to cheerlead for democrats, "go the fuck away. This is not your place."
True words!!
So this site was here and Bernie supporters flocked here. Including me. But over this time I have seen the mistakes I made.
Such a lot of wasted time and energy.
Still searching for answers myself, but I know what doesn't work, and how important for the status quo to keep the illusion
of democracy alive. But more and more people are not buying it anymore. I suspect that a few more crumbs will be forthcoming on
some issues. That's the very best way to keep the show going. And the show must go on.
Pulling back the curtain is really the first and most important weapon we have. Thank you for doing that.
zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:45am zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:45am
Countered with Russia, Russia, Russia. God he was such a prick.
I came to this site in the great purge at daily kos, and I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come
a very long ways since then. Thanks to the people here.
And to kos, who now rather infamously said "if you think Hillary Clinton can't beat Donald Trump, you're a fucking moron.
Seriously, you're dumb as rocks." And he said if you're not going to cheerlead for democrats, "go the fuck away. This is not
your place." True words!!
So this site was here and Bernie supporters flocked here. Including me. But over this time I have seen the mistakes I made.
Such a lot of wasted time and energy.
Still searching for answers myself, but I know what doesn't work, and how important for the status quo to keep the illusion
of democracy alive. But more and more people are not buying it anymore. I suspect that a few more crumbs will be forthcoming
on some issues. That's the very best way to keep the show going. And the show must go on.
Pulling back the curtain is really the first and most important weapon we have. Thank you for doing that.
That's how I feel about it. I've been suckered one time too many. The 2016 election was a complete farce. Bernie was sabotaged.
The DNC and Hillary broke their own rules to do it. But Bernie, with a perfect opportunity and lots of support, just walked away
from the fight that he had promised his people.
Sheep dog.
TPTB want the political "fight" to be between slightly different flavors of neoliberal looting/neocon warmongering. They want
unions, teachers, environmentalists, and minorities to, in the words of a UK asshole, "shut up and go away".
The CIA literally paid $600M to the Washington Post, whose purchase price was only $300M. Bezos made 200% of his money back
in a month. The media is completely corporatized; and they are coming for the internet with censorship. Where is Bernie on this?
Haven't heard a word.
Sheep dog.
As TPTB simply buy what is left of the Democratic party, they will enforce this kabuki politics. Any deviation will be labeled
Putin-loving, Assad-loving, China-loving, etc.
You can't have a democracy when free speech is instantly labeled fake news or enemy propaganda.
"I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long ways since then."
This is how I see the way some people feel about him. This same thing happened after I voted for Obama. I thought that he would
do what "I heard him say that he would", but he let me down by not even bothering to try doing anything.
What soured me on Bernie was his saying that Her won the election fair and square after everything we saw happen. Even after
learning how the primary was rigged against him. And now he has jumped on the Russian interference propaganda train when he knows
that Russia had no hand with Trump beating Her out the presidency.
Bottom line is that I no longer believe that Bernie is being up front with me. I know that others feel differently, but remember
how people changed their minds on Obama and never accepted Herheinous! People should be free here to say how they feel.
Isn't making it "easier" for them to cheat when they are already doing that. What participating in their corruption does do
is keep the illusion of democracy alive for their benefit. Easier? They're already achieving their end game. Controlling us, electing
their candidates, and collecting our taxes.
Frankly we've been participating in their potemkin village passing as democracy for decades with no effect.
First, a boycott is not "ignoring" voting. It's an organized protest against fake elections. It's actually not that uncommon
for people in other countries to call for election boycotts in protest when a significant portion of people feel the election
is staged or rigged with a predetermined outcome, or where all of the candidates are chosen by the elite so none represent the
will of the people.
In that type of situation, boycotting the election -- and obviously that means saying why, and making a protest out of it --
is really the only recourse people have. It may not be effective at stopping the fake election, but it lets the world know the
vote was fake.
If you line up to go obediently cast your vote anyway, then you are the one who is empowering the enemy, by giving the illusion
of legitimacy to the fake vote.
Now about this big worry about what "they" will say... first, look at what they already say about third party voters.
In the media and political world, third party voters are a joke, useful idiots, who can be simultaneously written off as "fringe"
wackos who can and should be ignored, and also childish spoilers who can be scapegoated and blamed for eternity for election loses.
Witness Ralph Nader and Jill Stein. Of course people should still vote third party if there's someone that truly represents them,
and if they believe the election process is genuine. Because you don't let your voting choices be dictated by what the powers
that be say about it!
For those of us who believe the election process is a sham and a scam, voting is playing into their hands, giving legitimacy
to their show. That is what makes it easier for them to keep the status quo firmly in place, and is literally helping them do
it.
As has been pointed out, if an organized protest/boycott that called the elections fake were to take root and grow, they would
not be able to say we don't care. That's a big if, obviously, but it's better than playing your assigned role in The Voting Show.
Because that show is what everyone points to as proof that the American people want this fucked up warmongering government we
keep voting back into power every two years.
Enough is enough. One of Bernie's slogans, which I still agree with.
Trump betrayal of his voters is as staggering as Obama betrayal. May even more so.
Notable quotes:
"... It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him. ..."
"... North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are right to keep them. ..."
"... Pompeo's recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson. ..."
"... Instead, as Pompeo's current trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless, staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020. ..."
It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief
diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite
and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with
the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so
dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him.
Pompeo also
said this weekend that he didn't think North Korea would care if the U.S. withdrew from the
agreement:
"I don't think Kim Jong Un is staring at the Iran deal and saying, 'Oh goodness, if they
get out of that deal, I won't talk to the Americans anymore,'" Pompeo told reporters
traveling on his plane en route from Saudi Arabia to Israel. "There are higher priorities,
things that he is more concerned about than whether or not the Americans stay in the
[agreement]."
It is obvious that North Korea has bigger concerns than U.S. adherence to the JCPOA, but it
doesn't follow that they won't take U.S. withdrawal as another sign that negotiating with
Washington is pointless. North Korea already has other reasons to doubt U.S. trustworthiness.
John Bolton's
endorsement of using negotiations with Libya as a model couldn't be more tone-deaf, since
North Korean officials frequently cite the overthrow and death of Gaddafi as a cautionary tale
of what happens when a government makes a deal with the U.S. It is possible that North Korea
won't put much stock in what happens to the JCPOA one way or another for a very different
reason: unlike Iran, North Korea has no intention of making significant concessions, and it is
engaged in talks with the U.S. to get as much as it can out of the fact that it is now a
full-fledged nuclear weapons state.
North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons
anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are
right to keep them.
Our involvement in international "diplomacy", already weird, embarrassing, and destabilizing
because of Trump's random behavior, now seems to be spinning out of control. Pompeo's
recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and
sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson.
Wake me up when any senior member of this government turns out to be something other than
crooked, stupid, vulgar, incompetent, or some kind of foreign agent. We voted for Trump
hoping for a radical re-dedication to American interests. Instead, as Pompeo's current
trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East
crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
November 2018 is already slated to be a Republican bloodbath, in great part because our
government, the Congress in particular, is serving foreign interests and Wall Street instead
of America. And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless,
staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020.
Trump betrayal of his voters is as staggering as Obama betrayal. May even more so.
Notable quotes:
"... It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him. ..."
"... North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are right to keep them. ..."
"... Pompeo's recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson. ..."
"... Instead, as Pompeo's current trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless, staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020. ..."
It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief
diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite
and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with
the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so
dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him.
Pompeo also
said this weekend that he didn't think North Korea would care if the U.S. withdrew from the
agreement:
"I don't think Kim Jong Un is staring at the Iran deal and saying, 'Oh goodness, if they
get out of that deal, I won't talk to the Americans anymore,'" Pompeo told reporters
traveling on his plane en route from Saudi Arabia to Israel. "There are higher priorities,
things that he is more concerned about than whether or not the Americans stay in the
[agreement]."
It is obvious that North Korea has bigger concerns than U.S. adherence to the JCPOA, but it
doesn't follow that they won't take U.S. withdrawal as another sign that negotiating with
Washington is pointless. North Korea already has other reasons to doubt U.S. trustworthiness.
John Bolton's
endorsement of using negotiations with Libya as a model couldn't be more tone-deaf, since
North Korean officials frequently cite the overthrow and death of Gaddafi as a cautionary tale
of what happens when a government makes a deal with the U.S. It is possible that North Korea
won't put much stock in what happens to the JCPOA one way or another for a very different
reason: unlike Iran, North Korea has no intention of making significant concessions, and it is
engaged in talks with the U.S. to get as much as it can out of the fact that it is now a
full-fledged nuclear weapons state.
North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons
anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are
right to keep them.
Our involvement in international "diplomacy", already weird, embarrassing, and destabilizing
because of Trump's random behavior, now seems to be spinning out of control. Pompeo's
recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and
sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson.
Wake me up when any senior member of this government turns out to be something other than
crooked, stupid, vulgar, incompetent, or some kind of foreign agent. We voted for Trump
hoping for a radical re-dedication to American interests. Instead, as Pompeo's current
trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East
crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
November 2018 is already slated to be a Republican bloodbath, in great part because our
government, the Congress in particular, is serving foreign interests and Wall Street instead
of America. And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless,
staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020.
I suspect Goad is verboten on UR, but allow me to excerpt from "I Didn't Vote for
This" of recent Goad production.
I voted for Trump because he promised to build a wall. Fifteen months into his
presidency, the wall has not been built.
He promised to repeal Obamacare. It has not been repealed.
He promised to focus on domestic rather than foreign issues and pledged a huge program
to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure. No such program has materialized.
He promised to remove the nation's millions of illegal aliens. They are still here.
He promised to defund sanctuary cities. They have not been defunded.
He promised a complete ban on new Muslim immigration.
He promised to eliminate the massive federal debt in eight years. Rather than even
beginning to leave a dent in the debt, it is now over $1.1 trillion higher than it was the
day he took office.
One of the keystones of his campaign was that China was a currency manipulator and
therefore needed to be dealt with harshly. Only three months into his presidency, he
reneged and declared that China was not a currency manipulator.
On the campaign trail, he relentlessly hammered the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Only
three days into his presidency, he withdrew the US from the TPP. And now he's openly
considering rejoining it.
Cogent points, in Reed's context. The only consolation is recognition that a Clinton
presidency would have been much worse. Maybe so, huh?
Yes, but the order of magnitude ebbs. Not that I would make the trade, but dammit, what
happened to America? We've been fucked, and fucked ROYAL, yet all that climbs out of the
political woodwork is flying monkeys.
Aye, clobbering time it may well come to. But pray do not leave out the media whores when
loving ministrations are being meted out. The whole bunch of these lying, whoring, war
drumbeating progeny of Satan need special ministrations, perhaps even more care than the
flying monkeys. Stringing these bastards upside down from meat hooks in public squares may be
too ordinary a ministration, so better and brighter ideas need to be supplied by minds keener
than mine.
"... Last week, after a series of controversial prime-time episodes of "Tucker Carlson Tonight," which questioned whether it is in America's best national security interest to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria; what the ultimate end-game looks like, considering the post-coup mess America's made of Libya and Iraq; and if the recent alleged chemical warfare assault on children was actually the work of Assad or even if it happened -- Tucker Carlson was M.I.A. from his own show Wednesday, Thursday and Friday nights. ..."
"... I hear Tucker Carlson is MIA in the USA. Has he been Arkanicided? ..."
"... He recently did an interview totally challenging the permanent state spin on world affairs. As much as I detest the conservatives I absolutely value his honesty and calm tenacity. ..."
We're nearing apocalypse if I'm out here carrying water for Fox News' Tucker Carlson, who is
hopefully not being water-boarded as I type this.
Last week, after a series of controversial prime-time episodes of "Tucker Carlson Tonight,"
which questioned whether it is in America's best national security interest to overthrow Bashar
al-Assad in Syria; what the ultimate end-game looks like, considering the post-coup mess
America's made of Libya and Iraq; and if the recent alleged chemical warfare assault on
children was actually the work of Assad or even if it happened -- Tucker Carlson was M.I.A.
from his own show Wednesday, Thursday and Friday nights.
Tucker Carlson has a tweet up from four hours ago, saying that he will be back on Fox News
tonight, after three days off.
Posted by: lysias | Apr 23, 2018 4:13:07 PM | 123
Let's see if he continues to entertain any truth on Syria. One of the most outstanding
pieces of MSM busting work there recently. Thought he was on the edge of getting Ben Swann'd
on the back of that effort, or maybe even some threatened with some mild waterboarding.
Thanks for the Carla Ortiz post b. She is a great and brave reporter.
I hear Tucker Carlson is MIA in the USA. Has he been Arkanicided?
He recently did an interview totally challenging the permanent state spin on world affairs.
As much as I detest the conservatives I absolutely value his honesty and calm tenacity.
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.
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.
Trump's actions have not matched his election rhetoric. Just like faux populist Obama. Obama also "caved" to pressure, and
even set himself up for failure by emphasing "bipartisanship".
That is how the political mechanism of faux populism works.
Obama: Change you can believe in
Trump: Make America Great Again
Obama: Most transparent administration ever
Trump: Drain the Swamp
Obama: Deceiver: "Man of Peace" engaging in covert ops
Trump: Distractor: twitter, personal vendettas
Weakened by claims of unpatriotic inclinations:
Obama: Birthers (led by Trump who was close to Clinton's) - "Muslim socialist"!
Trump: Russia influence (pushed by 'NeverTrump' Clinton loyalists) - Putin's bitch!
Now the color revolution against Trump just does not make any sense. We got to the point
where Trump=Hillary. Muller should embrace and kiss Trump and go home... Nobody care if Trump is impeached anymore.
Donald Trump's far-right loyal fans must be really pissed off right now after permanently
switching himself to pro-war mode with that evil,
warmongering triplet in charge and the second bombing against Syria. Even worse,
this time he has done it together with Theresa May and the neoliberal globalist Emmanuel
Macron.
We can tell that by watching the mind-blowing reactions of one of his most fanatic alt-right
media supporters: Alex Jones. Jones nearly cried(!) in front of the camera, feeling betrayed
from his 'anti-establishment', 'anti-interventionist' idol and declared that he won't support
Trump anymore. Well, what did you expect, Alex? expect, Alex?
A
year before the 2016 US national elections, the blog already warned that Trump is a pure
product of the neoliberal barbarism , stating that the rhetoric of extreme cynicism
used by Trump goes back to the Thatcherian cynicism and the division of people between
"capable" and "useless".
Right after the elections, we supported that the US
establishment gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in
power, against the only candidate that the same establishment identified as a real threat:
Bernie Sanders. Right after the elections, we supported that the US
establishment gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in
power, against the only candidate that the same establishment identified as a real threat:
Bernie Sanders.
The only hope that has been left, was to resist against starting a war with Russia, as the US
deep state (and Hillary of course) wanted. Well, it was proven to be only a hope too. Last
year, Trump bombed Syria under the same pretext resembling the lies that led us to the Iraq war
disaster. Despite the fact that the US Tomahawk missile attack had zero value in operational
level (the United States allegedly warned Russia and Syria, while the targeted airport was
operating normally just hours after the attack), Trump sent a clear message to the US deep
state that he is prepared to meet all its demands - and especially the escalation of
confrontation with Russia. Indeed, a year later, Trump already built a pro-war team that
includes the most bloodthirsty, hawkish triplet.
And then, Donnie ordered a second airstrike against Syria, together with his neo-colonial
friends.
It seems that neither this strike was a serious attempt against the Syrian army and its allies.
Yet, Donnie probably won't dare to escalate tension in the Syrian battlefield before the next
US national elections. That's because many of his supporters are already pissed off with him
and therefore, he wants to go with good chances for a second term.
Although we really hope that we are are wrong this time, we guess that, surrounded by all these
warmongering hawks, Donnie, in a potential second term, will be pushed to open another war
front in Syria and probably in Iran, defying the Russians and the consequent danger for a
WWIII.
Poor Alex et al: we told you about Trump from the beginning. You didn't listen ...
Now the color revolution against Trump just does not make any sense. We got to the point
where Trump=Hillary. Muller should embrace and kiss Trump and go home... Nobody care if Trump is impeached anymore.
Donald Trump's far-right loyal fans must be really pissed off right now after permanently
switching himself to pro-war mode with that evil,
warmongering triplet in charge and the second bombing against Syria. Even worse,
this time he has done it together with Theresa May and the neoliberal globalist Emmanuel
Macron.
We can tell that by watching the mind-blowing reactions of one of his most fanatic alt-right
media supporters: Alex Jones. Jones nearly cried(!) in front of the camera, feeling betrayed
from his 'anti-establishment', 'anti-interventionist' idol and declared that he won't support
Trump anymore. Well, what did you expect, Alex? expect, Alex?
A
year before the 2016 US national elections, the blog already warned that Trump is a pure
product of the neoliberal barbarism , stating that the rhetoric of extreme cynicism
used by Trump goes back to the Thatcherian cynicism and the division of people between
"capable" and "useless".
Right after the elections, we supported that the US
establishment gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in
power, against the only candidate that the same establishment identified as a real threat:
Bernie Sanders. Right after the elections, we supported that the US
establishment gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in
power, against the only candidate that the same establishment identified as a real threat:
Bernie Sanders.
The only hope that has been left, was to resist against starting a war with Russia, as the US
deep state (and Hillary of course) wanted. Well, it was proven to be only a hope too. Last
year, Trump bombed Syria under the same pretext resembling the lies that led us to the Iraq war
disaster. Despite the fact that the US Tomahawk missile attack had zero value in operational
level (the United States allegedly warned Russia and Syria, while the targeted airport was
operating normally just hours after the attack), Trump sent a clear message to the US deep
state that he is prepared to meet all its demands - and especially the escalation of
confrontation with Russia. Indeed, a year later, Trump already built a pro-war team that
includes the most bloodthirsty, hawkish triplet.
And then, Donnie ordered a second airstrike against Syria, together with his neo-colonial
friends.
It seems that neither this strike was a serious attempt against the Syrian army and its allies.
Yet, Donnie probably won't dare to escalate tension in the Syrian battlefield before the next
US national elections. That's because many of his supporters are already pissed off with him
and therefore, he wants to go with good chances for a second term.
Although we really hope that we are are wrong this time, we guess that, surrounded by all these
warmongering hawks, Donnie, in a potential second term, will be pushed to open another war
front in Syria and probably in Iran, defying the Russians and the consequent danger for a
WWIII.
Poor Alex et al: we told you about Trump from the beginning. You didn't listen ...
"... 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.
"... 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.
The US has been cracking down on protected First Amendment rights for years now. Just heard
that someone was kicked off the post office lawn last week for protesting, so FIrday's peace
vigil may be at risk again.We haven't had any problems with the police harassing us for
probably 12 years, but that may be raising its head again.
The US government has a lot to answer for in terms of press freedom and its reaction to
organized protest. One only need remember the clusterfuck at Standing Rock during the final
months of Obama's presidency to see that this country has major problems with racism,
violence, liberty, equality, fraternity. The US is by no means a "functioning democracy with
proper rule of law". More like a corrupt plutocracy riding full-speed into overt fascism,
where who you know and who you blow makes the most difference if you wind up in trouble with
the law.
I never take First Amendment rights for granted. I am totally aware that if you don't use
your rights, and often, you lose them. I have never had an account on Facebook, but sometimes
I cruise other people's pages to the extent that Zuckerburg will allow without gathering my
information(or maybe they can get it if you just look at a page). Always thought it was a
supremely wrong idea to allow your identity to be taken away by some fat cat with a clever
idea.
"... It's impossible to overstate the significance of the survey. The data suggest that representative democracy is a largely a fraud, that congressmen and senators are mostly sock-puppets who do the bidding of wealthy powerbrokers, and that the entire system is impervious to the will of the people. These are pretty damning results and a clear indication of how corrupt the system really is. ..."
"... So, along with the fact, that most Americans think democracy is a pipe-dream, a clear majority also believe that the country has changed into a frightening, lock-down police state in which government agents gather all-manner of electronic communications on everyone without the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing. ..."
"... There's no doubt in my mind that the relentless attacks on Donald Trump have reinforced the public's belief that the country is controlled by an invisible group of elites whose agents in the bureaucracy follow their diktats ..."
"... Brennan says "America will triumph over you." But whose America is he talking about? The American people elected Trump, he is the legitimate president of the United States. Many people may not like his policies, but they respect the system that put him in office. ..."
"... Brennan and his cadres of rogue agents have been at war with Trump since Day 1. Brennan does not accept the results of the election because it did not produce the outcome that he and his powerful constituents wanted. Brennan wants to destroy Trump. He even admits as much in his statement. ..."
"... And why do Brennan and his fatcat allies hate Trump so much? They don't. Because it's not really about Trump. It's about the presidency, the highest office in the land. The US Plutocrat Class honestly believe that they are entitled to govern the country that they physically own. It's theirs, they own it and they are taking it back. That's what this is all about ..."
On Monday, the Monmouth University Polling Institute released the results of a survey that
found that "a large bipartisan majority feel that national policy is being manipulated or
directed by a 'Deep State' of unelected government officials ..
[1] Public Troubled By Deep State, Monmouth University Polling Institute
The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from March 2 to 5, 2018
with 803 adults in the United States. The results in this release have a margin of error of +/-
3.5 percent. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long
Branch, NJ.
According to the survey:" 6-in-10 Americans (60%) feel that unelected or appointed
government officials have too much influence in determining federal policy. Just 26% say the
right balance of power exists between elected and unelected officials in determining policy.
Democrats (59%), Republicans (59%) and independents (62%) agree that appointed officials hold
too much sway in the federal government. ("Public Troubled by 'Deep State", Monmouth.edu)
The survey appears to confirm that democracy in the United States is largely a sham. Our
elected representatives are not the agents of political change, but cogs in a vast bureaucratic
machine that operates mainly in the interests of the behemoth corporations and banks.
Surprisingly, most Americans have not been taken in by the media's promotional hoopla about
elections and democracy. They have a fairly-decent grasp of how the system works and who
ultimately benefits from it. Check it out:
" Few Americans (13%) are very familiar with the term "Deep State ;" another 24%
are somewhat familiar, while 63% say they are not familiar with this term. However, when
the term is described as a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly
manipulate or direct national policy, nearly 3-in-4 (74%) say they believe this type of
apparatus exists in Washington. Only 1-in-5 say it does not exist." Belief in the
probable existence of a Deep State comes from more than 7-in-10 Americans in each partisan
group "
So while the cable news channels dismiss anyone who believes in the "Deep State" as a
conspiracy theorist, it's clear that the majority of people think that's how the system really
works, that is, "a group of unelected government and military officials secretly manipulate or
direct national policy."
It's impossible to overstate the significance of the survey. The data suggest that
representative democracy is a largely a fraud, that congressmen and senators are mostly
sock-puppets who do the bidding of wealthy powerbrokers, and that the entire system is
impervious to the will of the people. These are pretty damning results and a clear indication
of how corrupt the system really is.
The Monmouth survey also found that "A majority of the American public believe that the U.S.
government engages in widespread monitoring of its own citizens and worry that the U.S.
government could be invading their own privacy." .
"Fully 8-in-10 believe that the U.S. government currently monitors or spies on the
activities of American citizens, including a majority (53%)who say this activity is
widespread Few Americans (18%) say government monitoring or spying on U.S. citizens is
usually justified, with most (53%) saying it is only sometimes justified. Another 28% say
this activity is rarely or never justified ." ("Public Troubled by 'Deep State",
Monmouth.edu)
So, along with the fact, that most Americans think democracy is a pipe-dream, a clear
majority also believe that the country has changed into a frightening, lock-down police state
in which government agents gather all-manner of electronic communications on everyone without
the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing. Once again, the data suggests that the American people
know what is going on, know that the US has gone from a reasonably free country where civil
liberties were protected under the law, to a state-of-the-art surveillance state ruled by
invisible elites who see the American people as an obstacle to their global ambitions–but
their awareness has not evolved into an organized movement for change. In any event, the public
seems to understand that the USG is not as committed to human rights and civil liberties as the
media would have one believe. That's a start.
There's no doubt in my mind that the relentless attacks on Donald Trump have reinforced the
public's belief that the country is controlled by an invisible group of elites whose agents in
the bureaucracy follow their diktats. From the time Trump became the GOP presidential nominee
more than 18 months ago, a powerful faction of the Intelligence Community, law enforcement
(FBI) and even elements form the Obama DOJ, have vigorously tried to sabotage his presidency,
his credibility and his agenda. Without a scintilla of hard evidence to make their case, this
same group and their dissembling allies in the media, have cast Trump as a disloyal
collaborator who conspired to win the election by colluding with a foreign government. The
magnitude of this fabrication is beyond anything we've seen before in American political
history, and the absence of any verifiable proof makes it all the more alarming. As it happens,
the Deep State is so powerful it can wage a full-blown assault on the highest elected office in
the country without even showing probable cause. In other words, the president of the United
States is not even accorded the same rights as a common crook. How does that happen?
Over the weekend, former CIA Director and "Russia-gate" ringleader John Brennan fired off an
angry salvo at Trump on his Twitter account. Here's what he said:
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes
known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history.
You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America America will triumph over
you."
Doesn't Brennan's statement help to reinforce the public's belief in the Deep State? How
does a career bureaucrat who has never been elected to public office decide that it is
appropriate to use the credibility of his former office to conduct a pitch-battle with the
President of the United States?
Brennan says "America will triumph over you." But whose America is he talking about? The
American people elected Trump, he is the legitimate president of the United States. Many people
may not like his policies, but they respect the system that put him in office.
Not so, Brennan. Brennan and his cadres of rogue agents have been at war with Trump since
Day 1. Brennan does not accept the results of the election because it did not produce the
outcome that he and his powerful constituents wanted. Brennan wants to destroy Trump. He even
admits as much in his statement.
And Brennan has been given a platform on the cable news channels so he can continue his
assault on the presidency, not because he can prove that Trump is guilty of collusion or
obstruction or whatever, but because the people who own the media have mobilized their deep
state agents to carry out their vendetta to remove Trump from office by any means possible.
This is the "America" of which Brennan speaks. Not my America, but deep state America.
And why do Brennan and his fatcat allies hate Trump so much? They don't. Because it's not really about Trump. It's about the presidency, the highest office in the land. The US Plutocrat
Class honestly believe that they are entitled to govern the country that they physically own. It's theirs, they own it and they
are taking it back. That's what this is all about
President Donald Trump has ordered the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats and the closure of
the Russian consulate in Seattle. It comes in response to the poisoning of Sergei Skripal in
Salisbury, which the UK has blamed on Russia. The move follows major diplomatic pressure by the
UK on its allies to follow their lead in expelling Russian diplomats. The Russian embassy in
Washington had previously urged Trump not to heed the "fake news " on Skripal's
poisoning.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has accused Moscow of being behind the poisoning of the
former spy Skripal and his daughter in the town of Salisbury in early March.
Breaking: US to expel 48 Russian embassy workers in Washington, D.C. and 12 at the Russian
mission to the U.N. U.S. says they were intel officers using diplo status as cover.
pic.twitter.com/mRuwY8Tes6
Of the 60 diplomats expelled, 12 formed part of the Russian mission to the United Nations.
In a statement, US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said the 12 Russians in question had "
abused their privilege of residence" in the US and had "engaged in espionage
activities that are adverse to our national security."
"... 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.
"... 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.
"... If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress. ..."
"... Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored "star" recruit. ..."
"... The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. ..."
An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA,
Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic
candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of
military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political
history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely
predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as
half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the
lower chamber of Congress.
Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting
candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the
best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the
field for a favored "star" recruit.
A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who
worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top
aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence. After her deep
involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal
deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of
responsibility included drone warfare, "homeland defense" and cyber warfare.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its
top candidates, part of the so-called "Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable
Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which
includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term
Republican Representative Mike Bishop.
The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At
the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political
vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of the Democratic
Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic
primary campaigns that, with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call "spy vs. spy."
Trump's game looks more and more like a V2.0 of Obama's "bait and switch" game... Another "change we can believe in" scam to
artificially extend the shelf life of neoliberal as a social system.
Notable quotes:
"... My take on his support: DT support is far higher than one would expect (duh.. it just isn't visible in the MSM, remember I predicted he would win when he threw his hat in). ..."
"... DT has lost some who voted for him, typically 'anything but Hillary' types, "give him a chance", who are disapointed at his poor performance on some/any/all issues. Some others have checked out of any involvement in MS pols. and have joined Doomsters, Refusniks, and even (imho) to my surprise, quasi-anarchists (who lack a platform.) ..."
"... The rapidly degrading US socio-economic landscape is no doubt responsible, more so than the person of DT. (Arguably he is contributing to the decline, other story.) Poverty, sagging life expectancy, opioid crisis, homelessness, student debt, crumbling infrastructure, cuts in social aid or 'benefits' as the brits say, no future generation, etc. ..."
"... On the other hand, DT supporters have become more 'radical and committed' ..."
"... The USA has become completely a-political, an oligarchy run by a convoluted circuit of top-dogs and gals, fights going on at the top (mafia 1 vs. team 2) for grabbing the leftovers of power/revenue/capture/ etc., not new but now evident. ..."
"... The top 20% chooses sides, as they have to, merely in function of who is paying them, where their status comes from, what hopes for children. The rest can check out and face their fate, or choose a cult, a tribe The next question is, what are the attitudes to civil war? How is that going to play out? ..."
I keep vague track of Trump support by consulting various sites. DT enthusiasts are all very
keen on GAB, the censorship on twitter - reddit - youtube and other pop. drives them totally
crazy.
My take on his support: DT support is far higher than one would expect (duh.. it just isn't
visible in the MSM, remember I predicted he would win when he threw his hat in).
DT has lost
some who voted for him, typically 'anything but Hillary' types, "give him a chance", who are disapointed at his poor performance on some/any/all issues. Some others have checked out of any
involvement in MS pols. and have joined Doomsters, Refusniks, and even (imho) to my surprise,
quasi-anarchists (who lack a platform.)
Technotopists are going out of fashion (> global warming disasters.) -- The rapidly
degrading US socio-economic landscape is no doubt responsible, more so than the person of DT.
(Arguably he is contributing to the decline, other story.) Poverty, sagging life expectancy,
opioid crisis, homelessness, student debt, crumbling infrastructure, cuts in social aid or
'benefits' as the brits say, no future generation, etc.
On the other hand, DT supporters have become more 'radical and committed' as is always the
case in these kind of 'tribal' belonging scenes, they have dragged in family members / friends,
through the usual conduits of social influence in micro-circles. Which has been made
exceptionally easy by the terminal idiocy, blindness and contradictions of the MSM, Dems and
the PTB (incl. top Republicans, corporations, etc.) generally. Authoritarian impulses (which DT
embraces in part - the WALL is a good ex. - for the rest, hmm..) will flourish up to a
point.
The USA has become completely a-political, an oligarchy run by a convoluted circuit of
top-dogs and gals, fights going on at the top (mafia 1 vs. team 2) for grabbing the leftovers
of power/revenue/capture/ etc., not new but now evident.
The top 20% chooses sides, as they have to, merely in function of who is paying them,
where their status comes from, what hopes for children. The rest can check out and face their
fate, or choose a cult, a tribe The next question is, what are the attitudes to civil war? How
is that going to play out?
About non-posts, I was going to go into the murder of Kim Jong-Nam (brother of today's Kim)
which ties two threads together - NKorea and murder by nerve gas. (Hoarse mentioned this in the
other thread.)
Trump's game looks more and more like a V2.0 of Obama's "bait and switch" game... Another "change we can believe in" scam to
artificially extend the shelf life of neoliberal as a social system.
Notable quotes:
"... My take on his support: DT support is far higher than one would expect (duh.. it just isn't visible in the MSM, remember I predicted he would win when he threw his hat in). ..."
"... DT has lost some who voted for him, typically 'anything but Hillary' types, "give him a chance", who are disapointed at his poor performance on some/any/all issues. Some others have checked out of any involvement in MS pols. and have joined Doomsters, Refusniks, and even (imho) to my surprise, quasi-anarchists (who lack a platform.) ..."
"... The rapidly degrading US socio-economic landscape is no doubt responsible, more so than the person of DT. (Arguably he is contributing to the decline, other story.) Poverty, sagging life expectancy, opioid crisis, homelessness, student debt, crumbling infrastructure, cuts in social aid or 'benefits' as the brits say, no future generation, etc. ..."
"... On the other hand, DT supporters have become more 'radical and committed' ..."
"... The USA has become completely a-political, an oligarchy run by a convoluted circuit of top-dogs and gals, fights going on at the top (mafia 1 vs. team 2) for grabbing the leftovers of power/revenue/capture/ etc., not new but now evident. ..."
"... The top 20% chooses sides, as they have to, merely in function of who is paying them, where their status comes from, what hopes for children. The rest can check out and face their fate, or choose a cult, a tribe The next question is, what are the attitudes to civil war? How is that going to play out? ..."
I keep vague track of Trump support by consulting various sites. DT enthusiasts are all very
keen on GAB, the censorship on twitter - reddit - youtube and other pop. drives them totally
crazy.
My take on his support: DT support is far higher than one would expect (duh.. it just isn't
visible in the MSM, remember I predicted he would win when he threw his hat in).
DT has lost
some who voted for him, typically 'anything but Hillary' types, "give him a chance", who are disapointed at his poor performance on some/any/all issues. Some others have checked out of any
involvement in MS pols. and have joined Doomsters, Refusniks, and even (imho) to my surprise,
quasi-anarchists (who lack a platform.)
Technotopists are going out of fashion (> global warming disasters.) -- The rapidly
degrading US socio-economic landscape is no doubt responsible, more so than the person of DT.
(Arguably he is contributing to the decline, other story.) Poverty, sagging life expectancy,
opioid crisis, homelessness, student debt, crumbling infrastructure, cuts in social aid or
'benefits' as the brits say, no future generation, etc.
On the other hand, DT supporters have become more 'radical and committed' as is always the
case in these kind of 'tribal' belonging scenes, they have dragged in family members / friends,
through the usual conduits of social influence in micro-circles. Which has been made
exceptionally easy by the terminal idiocy, blindness and contradictions of the MSM, Dems and
the PTB (incl. top Republicans, corporations, etc.) generally. Authoritarian impulses (which DT
embraces in part - the WALL is a good ex. - for the rest, hmm..) will flourish up to a
point.
The USA has become completely a-political, an oligarchy run by a convoluted circuit of
top-dogs and gals, fights going on at the top (mafia 1 vs. team 2) for grabbing the leftovers
of power/revenue/capture/ etc., not new but now evident.
The top 20% chooses sides, as they have to, merely in function of who is paying them,
where their status comes from, what hopes for children. The rest can check out and face their
fate, or choose a cult, a tribe The next question is, what are the attitudes to civil war? How
is that going to play out?
About non-posts, I was going to go into the murder of Kim Jong-Nam (brother of today's Kim)
which ties two threads together - NKorea and murder by nerve gas. (Hoarse mentioned this in the
other thread.)
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...
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...
Loss of legitimacy of neoliberal elite reminds loss of legitimacy of Nomenklatura in the USSR.
This descent "into tribalism due to the loss of jobs, the drug epidemic and environmental exploitation " also reminds epidemic
of alcoholism due to lack of persepdtives both in job environment and housing crisis, where young families did not
have a space to live in the USSR.
The logical end on the US empire might well be the USSR style crisis. which might eventually lead to the disintegration of the country.
Notable quotes:
"... NBC News daily has Kumbaya propaganda to facilitate importing of cheap labor and goods. But, what good is a service economy if there is no service? Just like Soviet propaganda, corporate media today is in service of the oligarch owners and sold out party elite. It tries to avoid the truth. Although, NBC did report on the astronomical rise in cost of ambulance service. A couple thousand dollars for mile and half trip to the hospital. They said it was due to the 2008 recession and the cutting of local volunteer emergency services to save tax money. ..."
"... I agree the Democrats shot themselves in the foot because they are unconcerned for the bottom 80% except for their identity issues. They serve their paymasters. ..."
"... The recent Italian election documents the complete collapse of left leaning parties that ignored the plight of the workers in the West. To me, to win, the left in America must write off student debt, implement Medicare for All, end the forever wars and tax George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Pierre Omidyar, the Koch Brothers and the Walton Family to pay for it. To work, criminal bankers need to be jailed and corporate boards required to manage for long term profits that benefit society not just quarterly and themselves only. ..."
Have you seen the movie "Wind River" yet? It is the best depiction I've seen of the USA
descending into tribalism due to the loss of jobs, the drug epidemic and environmental
exploitation.
NBC News daily has Kumbaya propaganda to facilitate importing of cheap labor and
goods. But, what good is a service economy if there is no service? Just like Soviet
propaganda, corporate media today is in service of the oligarch owners and sold out party
elite. It tries to avoid the truth. Although, NBC did report on the astronomical rise in cost
of ambulance service. A couple thousand dollars for mile and half trip to the hospital. They
said it was due to the 2008 recession and the cutting of local volunteer emergency services
to save tax money.
Rather than tax the wealthy and corporations, the middle class is going into debt to pay
for education, medical bills, and $40 Northern Virginia one-way tolls. Federal taxes on the
middle class support the endless wars.
I agree the Democrats shot themselves in the foot because they are unconcerned for the
bottom 80% except for their identity issues. They serve their paymasters.
The recent Italian election documents the complete collapse of left leaning parties
that ignored the plight of the workers in the West. To me, to win, the left in America must
write off student debt, implement Medicare for All, end the forever wars and tax George
Soros, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Pierre Omidyar, the Koch Brothers and the
Walton Family to pay for it. To work, criminal bankers need to be jailed and corporate boards
required to manage for long term profits that benefit society not just quarterly and
themselves only.
Is it so difficult to understand that there are strong incentives to create the "Russia
Threat" to hide the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. The current can of political worms
and infighting in Washington, DC between POTUS and intelligence agencies factions supporting
anti-trump color revolution clearly demonstrate that this crisis is systemic in nature. In
this sense, we can talk about the transformation of the US political system into something
new.
One feature of this new system is that the US foreign policy now is influenced, if not
controlled by intelligence agencies. The latter also proved to be capable of acting as the
kingmakers in the US Presidential elections (this time with side effects: derailing Sanders
eventually led to the election of Trump; that's why efforts to depose Trump commenced
immediately.)
A large part of the US elite is willing to create the situation of balancing on the edge
of nuclear war because it allows them to swipe the dirt under the carpet and unite the nation
on bogus premises, suppressing the crisis of confidence in the neoliberal elite.
Neo-McCarthyism witch hunt serves exactly this purpose.
Also now it is clear that the intelligence agencies and Pentagon, play active, and maybe
even decisive part in determining the US foreign policy, US population and elected POTUS be
damned.
Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and his staff showed this new arrangement in Syria in July
2017. And the fact that he was not fired on the spot might well signify the change in
political power between the "deep state" and the "surface state". With the latter one step
closer to being just a Potemkin Village.
So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and
entrapment artists, all talking about alleged evidence that we are not allowed to see?
Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own
peoples ZOMG!" debacle?
Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to
coincide with the agenda of empire.
It will be interesting to see why the interviewing FBI Agents to whom Flynn has admitted to
the Mueller Op telling a lie, or lies, did not avail Flynn the opportunity of the 'lie
circumstantial." From what I think I know about the case, the answers to the questions put to
Flynn were already known to the Agents from wire overhears; and their substance did not
constitute a crime in any case. Why would not the Agents interviewing Flynn have said "If
you're telling me this, we have reason to think that you're mistaken?" If I'm correct in my
understanding, in my opinion, the Agents conducted themselves in a very chickenshit fashion
and I would suspect an Agenda was in play.
Making a more general observation regarding the Mueller Op, it seems to me that not the
least reprehensible effect of its existence is that de facto it has usurped the authority of
the White House and the State Department to conduct Foreign Policy vis a vis Russia. For
example, I doubt very much whether Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating to the
Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been SOP for any FBI Office or
USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind. And even if Mueller did, what would, what
could the WH or State response have been given the mishapen political climate and the track
record of outrageous leaking that so far have gone on without consequence to the leaker.
So the net effect is that Mueller's office is conducting our Russian foreign policy.
Authority without either responsibility or expertise is not a desirable thing when it comes
to forging correct relations with a nuclear power.
"... he Dems disgust me with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations). ..."
"... Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this around and I doubt it's even possible. ..."
"... The Real Reason Establishment Frauds Hate Trump and Obsess About Russia https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2018/02/20/the-real-reason-establishment-frauds-hate-trump-and-obsess-about-russia/ ..."
"... Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party. ..."
jsn @16 & 40, in complete agreement with you. Great comments! T he Dems disgust me
with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out
their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in
waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations).
Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and
it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a
basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a
form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the
personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the
wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this
around and I doubt it's even possible.
Back when I used to subscribe to STRATFOR, founder George Friedman always made a point of
evaluating the elites of whatever country he was analyzing and how they operated amongst
themselves and relative to the people and how effective they were or were not in governing a
country. But he never did that for the US. I would have paid extra for that report! But of
course he could not stay in business if he did such a thing as those people are his
clients.
I think Mike Krieger over at Liberty Blitzkrieg nails it from another perspective with this
post:
Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various
defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war
based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched
reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly,
for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the
Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before
Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party.
By throwing every problem in Putin's lap, the entrenched bipartisan status quo can tell
themselves (and everybody else) that it wasn't really them and their policies that voters
rejected in 2016, rather, the American public was tricked by cunning, nefarious Russians.
Ridiculous for sure, but never underestimate the instinctive human desire to deny
accountability for one's own failures. It's always easier to blame than to accept
responsibility.
That said, there's a much bigger game afoot beyond the motivations of individuals looking to
save face. The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united against
Trump has nothing to do with his actual policies. Instead, they're terrified that -- unlike
Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for empire. This sort of Presidential instability threatens
the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train. Hillary Clinton was a
sure thing, Donald Trump remains an unpredictable wildcard.
... Obama said all the right things while methodically doing the bidding of oligarchy. He
captured the imagination of millions, if not billions, around the world with his soaring
rhetoric, yet rarely skipped a beat when it came to the advancement of imperial policies. He
made bailing out Wall Street, droning civilians and cracking down on journalists seem
progressive. He said one thing, did another, and people ate it up. This is an extraordinarily
valuable quality when it comes to a vicious and unelected deep state that wants to keep a
corrupt empire together.
Trump has the exact opposite effect. Sure, he also frequently says one thing and then does
another, but he doesn't provide the same feel good quality to empire that Obama did. He's
simply not the warm and fuzzy salesman for oligarchy and empire Obama was, thus his inability
to sugarcoat state-sanctioned murder forces a lot of people to confront the uncomfortable
hypocrisies in our society that many would prefer not to admit.
------------
I can't stand Kushner's smirky face and got a good chuckle from this prince's fall as I am
not a fan of his passion for Israel. But I don't think he's a stupid idiot either. He's
probably very smart in business, but he seems to have no feel for politics. Trump is much
better at it than Kushner. Of course they are going after Kushner as a way to attack and
disadvantage Trump. Politics is a form of warfare after all.
My take is that Trump survives but mostly contained by the Borg
There is a Russian term for the political condition into which the USA political establishment has arrived: The USA
became "nedogovorosposobniy" -- a derogatory term for people who are iether mentally incapacitated or are such crooks that
nobody can't be rely on signed by them treaties and who can break any promises given and signed in writing with ease.
After painful months of negotiation with the US, Sergei Lavrov regretfully announced that the Americans were such. There are
rules, and the Americans do not know how to observe them. There are boundaries, but no-one has taught them to the Americans. In this
sense, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Iranians are grown-ups. It is possible to do business with them without risking the
survival of the species.'
That's a sign of a "failed state"
Notable quotes:
"... He described the Western sanctions over Crimea and the insurgency in eastern Ukraine as part of "illegitimate and unfair" efforts to contain Russia, adding that "we will win in the long run." He added that "those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and poison themselves." ..."
Putin then ... vented his frustration with the U.S. political system saying "
it has demonstrated
its inefficiency and has been eating itself up."
"
It's quite difficult to interact with such a system, because it's unpredictable
,"
Putin said.
Russian hopes for a detente and better ties with Washington have been dashed by the ongoing
congressional and FBI investigations into allegations of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia.
Speaking about the bitter tensions in Russia-West relations, Putin said they have been rooted in Western
efforts to contain and weaken Russia.
"We are a great power, and no one likes competition," he said.
Turning his attention to a particularly sensitive topic, Putin said he was dismayed by what he
described as the U.S. role in the ouster of Ukraine's Russia-friendly president in February 2014 amid
massive protests.
Putin charged that the U.S. had asked Russia to help persuade then-President Viktor Yanukovych not to
use force against protesters and then "rudely and blatantly" cheated Russia,
sponsoring what he
called a "coup.
" Russia responded by rushing through a referendum in Ukraine's Crimean
Peninsula, whose result was an overwhelming majority voting to join Russia.
"
Few expected us to act so quickly and so resolutely, not to say daringly
," Putin
said.
He described the Western sanctions over Crimea and the insurgency in eastern Ukraine as part of
"illegitimate and unfair" efforts to contain Russia, adding that "we will win in the long run." He added
that "those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and poison themselves."
Responding to a question about Russia's growing global leverage, Putin responded: "If we play
strongly with weak cards, it means the others are just poor players, they aren't as strong as it seemed,
they must be lacking something."
* * *
Finally, Putin, who presented a sweeping array of new Russian
nuclear weapons last week
, voiced hope that nuclear weapons will never be used --
but warned
that Russia will retaliate in kind if it comes under a nuclear attack.
"The decision to use nuclear weapons can only be made if our early warning system not only detects a
missile launch but clearly forecasts its flight path and the time when warheads reach the Russian
territory," he said. "If someone makes a decision to destroy Russia, then we have a legitimate right to
respond."
He concluded ominously:
"Yes, it will mean a global catastrophe for mankind, for the entire
world. But as a citizen of Russia and the head of Russian state I would ask: What is such a world for, if
there were no Russia?"
Tags
War Conflict
Politics
"Yes, it will mean a global catastrophe for mankind, for the entire
world. But as a citizen of Russia and the head of Russian state I would ask: What
is such a world for, if there were no Russia?"
Many Americans are angry that Soviet socialists threw their communist
comrades out. Putin, a better capitalist than most US presidents in
recent decades, hates communists as much as everyone else does.
Well. It was obvious for some time that a corrupt gov will lead
unfortunately to capitalism going rogue and eating itself up.
Don't get me wrong, is not the capitalism failure is the failure
of the ones who supposedly had to ensure the existence of a true
free but balanced market, and that's the gov, so as in the former
Soviet bloc this proves again that too big and powerful gov
naturally evolves into an oligarchy which drives the system to
self cannibalize.
"... So, you and I don't agree on a lot of issues but I think we share the same concern about this story, and that is that American journalists are being manipulated for whatever reason by the intelligence community in the United States, and I'm wondering why after years of having this happen to American journalists, they are allowing this to happen again. ..."
"... Well, that's the thing I would refrain that a little bit. I don't actually think so much that journalists are the victims in the sense of that formulation that they're being manipulated. I think at best what you can say for them is they are willingly and eagerly being manipulated. ..."
"... Because what you see is over and over they publish really inflammatory stories that turn out to be totally false and what happens in those cases? Nothing. They get enormous benefits when they publish recklessly. They get applause on social media from their peers, they get zillions of re-tweets, huge amounts of traffic, they end up on TV. They get applauded across the spectrum because people are so giddy and eager to hear more about this Russia and Trump story. ..."
Tucker
Carlson interviews Green Greenwald of The Intercept about journalists "willingly" being
taken advantage of by the intelligence community on stories about Russia to reap the benefits,
even when they know what they are publishing is "totally false."
From Tuesday's broadcast of Tucker Carlson Tonight on the FOX News Channel:
TUCKER CARLSON: So, Glenn, just to get to the facts of this story, it is conclusively shown
that the story about the 21 voting systems being hacked is untrue, correct?
GLENN GREENWALD, JOURNALIST: It's false in two ways, one is that several of the states
included in the list, such as Wisconsin, California, and Texas, said that the websites that
the Homeland Security Department cited had nothing to do with voting systems, they are
entirely unrelated.
And it's false in a second way, which is a lot of the stories, in fact, most of them said
that Russia tried to hack into the voting systems when in fact even Homeland Security, it can
only show that what they did was scan those computer systems, which is basically casing
something to say for vulnerabilities and made no attempts to actually hack into them. So, it
was false on various levels.
CARLSON: So, you and I don't agree on a lot of issues but I think we share the same
concern about this story, and that is that American journalists are being manipulated for
whatever reason by the intelligence community in the United States, and I'm wondering why
after years of having this happen to American journalists, they are allowing this to happen
again.
GREENWALD: Well, that's the thing I would refrain that a little bit. I don't actually
think so much that journalists are the victims in the sense of that formulation that they're
being manipulated. I think at best what you can say for them is they are willingly and
eagerly being manipulated.
(LAUGHTER)
Because what you see is over and over they publish really inflammatory stories that turn
out to be totally false and what happens in those cases? Nothing. They get enormous benefits
when they publish recklessly. They get applause on social media from their peers, they get
zillions of re-tweets, huge amounts of traffic, they end up on TV. They get applauded across the spectrum
because people are so giddy and eager to hear more about this Russia and Trump story.
And when their stories get completely debunked, it just kind of, everybody agrees to
ignore it and everyone moves on and they pay no price. At the same time, they are feeling and
pleasing their sources by publishing these sources that their sources want them to publish.
And so, there is huge amounts of career benefits and reputational benefits and very little
cost when they publish stories that end up being debunked because the narrative they are
serving is a popular one, at least within their peer circles.
CARLSON: Gosh! That is so dishonest. I mean, I think all of us and journalism have gotten
things wrong, I certainly have. If you feel bad about it, I mean, you really do and there's a
consequence. Do you really think there's that level of dishonesty in the American press?
GREENWALD: I think what it is more than dishonesty is a really warped incentive scheme
bolstered by this very severe groupthink that social media is fostering in ways that we don't
yet fully understand.
CARLSON: Yes.
GREENWALD: Most journalists these days are in Congressional Committees or at zoning board
meetings or using -- they're sitting on Twitter talking to one another and this produces this
extreme groupthink where these orthodoxies arise in deviating from them or questioning them
or challenging, believe me, results in all kinds of recrimination and scorn. And embracing
them produces this sort of in group mentality where you are rewarded, and I think a lot of it
is about that kind of behavior.
CARLSON: That is really deep. I mean, you live in a foreign country, I'm not on social
media, so maybe we have a little bit of distance from this, where do you think the story is
going? What's the next incarnation of it?
GREENWALD: Well, the odd part about it, and about the inpatients that journalists have in
trying to just jump to the finish line is that there are numerous investigations underway in
the city, including by credible investigators, including Senator Burr and Warner and the
Senate Intelligence Committee, which most people seem to trust and certainly Robert Mueller
who is armed with subpoena power, and everyone is really eager to lavish with praise.
So, we are going to find out presumably one way or the other soon enough. I guess that one
thing that is so odd to me Tucker, is that, this has been going on now for a year, this
accusation that the Trump administration or the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to
hack the DNC and John Podesta's email and we know that there are huge numbers of people
inside the government who are willing to leak, even at the expense of committing crimes in
order to undermine Trump and yet, there has been no leaks so far showing any evidence of that
kind of collusion leading one to wonder why that is.
So, I hope that everybody is willing to wait until the actual investigation reveals
finally the real answers. But it doesn't seem that will be the case.
CARLSON: Bravery is when you disagree in public with your peers. And by that definition,
you are a very brave man. Glenn Greenwald, thanks for joining us tonight. I appreciate
it.
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.
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.
"... In addition, financial capital leads to inequality, and that inequality, as you've seen in the United States and in Europe and many other places, it increases. And suddenly, not suddenly, but bit by bit, people begin to realize that they aren't getting their share and that means that the government, to protect capitalism, must use force to maintain the order of financial capital. And I think Trump is the fulfillment of that, and I think there are other examples too which I can go into. So, basically, my argument is that with the rise of finance and its unproductive activities, you've got the decline in living standards of the vast majority, and in order to maintain order in such a system where people no longer think that they're sort of getting their share, and so justice doesn't become, a just distribution doesn't become the reason why people support this system, increasingly it has to be done through force. ..."
"... I think that as The Real News has pointed out, that many of Trump's policies appear just to be more extreme versions of things that George Bush did, and in some cases not that much different from what Barack Obama did. ..."
"... The difference with Trump is, he has complete contempt for all of those constraints. That is, he is an authoritarian. I don't think he's a fascist, not yet, but he is an authoritarian. He does not accept that there are constraints which he should respect. There are constraints which bother him, and he wants to get rid of them, and he actually takes steps to do so. ..."
"... Erdoğan so infamously said? "Democracy is like a train. You take it to where you want to go and then you get off." No. Progressive view is that democracy is what it's all about. Democracy is the way that we build the present and we build a future. ..."
"... I think that the struggle in the United States is extremely difficult because of the role of the big money and the media, which you know more about than I do. But it is a struggle which we have to keep at, and we have to be optimistic about it. It's a good bit easier over here, but as we saw, and you reported, during the last presidential election, a progressive came very close to being President of the United States. That, I don't think was a one-off event, not to be repeated. I think it lays the basis for hope in the future. ..."
"... The democratic nation-state basically operates like a criminal cartel, forcing honest citizens to surrender large portions of their wealth to pay for stuff like roads and hospitals and schools. ..."
"... Any hierarchic system will be exploited by intelligent sociopaths. Systems will not save us. ..."
"... What I gleaned from my quick Wikiread was the apparent pattern of economic inequality causing the masses to huddle in fear & loathing to one corner – desperation, and then some clever autocrat subverts the energy from their F&L into political power by demonizing various minorities and other non-causal perps. ..."
"... Like nearly every past fascism emergence in history, US Trumpismo is capitalizing on inequality, and fear & loathing (his capital if you will) to seize power. That brings us to Today – to Trump, and an era (brief I hope) of US flirtation with fascism. Thank God Trump is crippled by a narcissism that fuels F&L within his own regime. Otherwise, I might be joining a survivalist group or something. :-) ..."
Yves here. This Real News Network interview with professor emeritus John Weeks discussed how economic ideology has weakened or
eliminated public accountability of institutions like the Fed and promote neo[neo]liberal policies that undermine democracy.
SHARMINI PERIES: It's The Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore. The concept of the [neo]liberal democracy
is generally based on capitalistic markets along with respect for individual freedoms and human rights and equality in the face of
the law. The rise of financial capital and its efforts to deregulate financial markets, however, raises the question whether [neo]liberal
democracy is a sustainable form of government. Sooner or later, democratic institutions make way for the interests of large capital
to supersede.
Political economist John Weeks recently gave this year's David Gordon Memorial Lecture at the meeting of the American Economic
Association in Philadelphia where he addressed these issues with a talk titled, Free Markets and the Decline of Democracy. Joining
us now is John Weeks. He joins us from London to discuss the issues raised in his lecture. You can find a link to this lecture just
below the player, and John is, as you know, Professor Emeritus of the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies
and author of Economics of the 1%: How Mainstream Economics Serves the Rich, Obscures Reality and Distorts Policy. John, good to
have you back on The Real News.
JOHN WEEKS: Thank you very much for having me.
SHARMINI PERIES: John, let me start with your talk. Your talk describes a struggle between efforts to create a democratic
control over the economy and the interest of capital, which seeks to subjugate government to the interest, its own interest. In your
assessment, it looks like this is a losing battle for democracy. Explain this further.
JOHN WEEKS: Yeah, so I think that Marx in Capital, in the first volume of Capital, refers to a concept called bourgeois
right, by which he meant that, you said it in the introduction, that in a capitalist society there is a form of equality that mimics
the relationship of exchange. Every commodity looks equal in exchange and there is a system of ownership that you might say is the
shadow of that. I think more important, in the early stages of development of capitalism, of development of factories, that those
institutions or those factories prompted the growth of trade unions and workers' struggles in general. Those workers' struggles were
key to the development, or further development of democracy, freedom of speech, a whole range of rights, the right to vote.
However, with the development of finance capital, you've got quite a different dynamic within the capitalist system. Let me say,
I don't want to romanticize the early period of capitalism, but you did have struggles, mass struggles for rights. Finance capital
produces nothing productive, it doesn't do anything productive. So, what finance capital does basically is it redistributes the income,
the wealth, the, what Marx would call the surplus value, from other sectors of society to itself. And it employs relatively few people,
so that dynamic of the capital, industrial capital, generating its antithesis So, that a labor movement doesn't occur under financial
capital.
In addition, financial capital leads to inequality, and that inequality, as you've seen in the United States and in Europe
and many other places, it increases. And suddenly, not suddenly, but bit by bit, people begin to realize that they aren't getting
their share and that means that the government, to protect capitalism, must use force to maintain the order of financial capital.
And I think Trump is the fulfillment of that, and I think there are other examples too which I can go into. So, basically, my argument
is that with the rise of finance and its unproductive activities, you've got the decline in living standards of the vast majority,
and in order to maintain order in such a system where people no longer think that they're sort of getting their share, and so justice
doesn't become, a just distribution doesn't become the reason why people support this system, increasingly it has to be done through
force.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right, John. Before we get further into the relationship between neo[neo]liberalism and democracy, give
us a brief summary of what you mean by neo[neo]liberalism. You say that it's not really about deregulation, as most people usually conceive
of it. If that's not what it's about, what is it, then?
JOHN WEEKS: I think that if you think about the movements in the United States, and as much as I can, I will take examples
from the United States because most of your listeners will be familiar with those, beginning in the early part of the twentieth century,
in the United States you have reform movements, the breaking up of the large monopolies, tobacco monopoly, a whole range of Standard
Oil, all of that. And then of course under Roosevelt you began to get the regulation of capital in the interests of the majority,
much of that driven by Roosevelt's trade union support. So, that was moving from a system where capital was relatively unregulated
to where it was being regulated in the interests of the vast majority. I also would say, though, I won't go into detail, to a certain
extent it was regulated in the interest of capital itself to moderate competition and therefore, I'd say, ensure a relatively tranquil
market environment.
Neo[neo]liberalism involves not the deregulation of the capitalist system, but the reregulation of it in the interest of capital. So,
it involves moving from a system in which capital is regulated in the interests of stability and the many to regulation in a way
that enhances capital. These regulations, to get specific about them, restrictions on trade unions, as you, on Real News, a number
of people have talked about this. The United States now have many restrictions on the organizing of trade unions which were not present
50 or 60 years ago, making it harder to have a mass movement of labor against capital, restrictions on the right to demonstrate,
a whole range of things. Then within capital itself, the regulations on the movement of capital that facilitate speculation in international
markets. We have a capitalism in which the form of regulation is shifted from the regulation of capital in the interest of labor
to regulation of capital in the interest of capital.
SHARMINI PERIES: John, give us a brief summary of the ways in which neo[neo]liberalism undermines democracy.
JOHN WEEKS: Well, I think that there are many examples, but I'm going to focus on economic policy. For an obvious case
is the role of the Central Bank, in the case of the United States' Federal Reserve System, in which reducing its accountability to
the public, one way you can do that is by assigning goals to it, such as fighting inflation, which then override other goals. Originally,
the Federal Reserve System, its charter, or I'll say its terms of reference, if you want me to use that phrase, included full employment
and a stable economy. Those have been overridden in more recent legislation, which puts a great emphasis on the control of inflation.
Control of inflation basically means maintaining an economy at a relatively high level of unemployment or part-time employment, or
flexible employment, where people have relatively few rights at work. And that the Central Bank becomes a vehicle for enforcing a
neo[neo]liberal economic policy.
Second of all, probably most of your viewers will not remember the days when we had fixed exchange rates. We had a world of fixed
exchange rates in those days that represented the policy, which government could use to affect its trade and also affect its domestic
policy. There have been deregulation of that. We now have floating exchange rates. That takes away a tool, an instrument of economic
policy. And in fiscal policy, there the, here it's more ideology than laws, though there are also laws. There's a law requiring that
the government balance its budget, but more important than that, the introduction into the public consciousness, I'd say grinding
into the public consciousness, the idea that deficits are a bad thing, government debt is a bad thing, and that's a completely neo[neo]liberal
ideology.
In summary, one way that the democracy has been undermined is to take away economic policy from the public realm and move it to
the realm of experts. So, we have certain allegedly expert guidelines that we have to follow. Inflation should be low. We should
not run deficits. The national debt should be small. These are things that are just made up ideologically. There is no technical
basis to them. And so, in doing that, you might say, the term I like to use is, you decommission the democratic process and economic
policy.
SHARMINI PERIES: John, speaking of ideology, in your talk you refer to the challenge that fascism posed or poses to neo[neo]liberal
democracies. Now, it is interesting when you take Europe into consideration and National Socialist in Germany, for example, appeal
mostly to the working class, as does contemporary far-right leaders in Poland and Hungary, that they support more explicit neo[neo]liberal
agendas. Why would people support a neo[neo]liberal agenda that exasperate inequalities and harm public services that they depend on,
including jobs?
JOHN WEEKS: I think that to a great extent it is country-specific, but I can make generalizations. First of all, I'm talking
about Europe, because you raised a case in some European countries, and then I'll make some comments about the United States and
Trump, if you want me to. I think in Europe, a combination of three things resulted in the rise of fascism and authoritarian movements
which are verging on fascism. One is that the European integration project, which let me say that I have supported, and I would still
prefer Britain not to leave the European Union, but nevertheless, the European Union integration project has been a project run by
elites.
It has not been a bottom-up process. It has been a process very much run by elite politicians, in which they get together in closed
door, and they make policies which they subsequently announce, and many of the decisions they come to being extremely, the meaning
of them being extremely opaque. So, therefore, you have the development in Europe of the European Union which, not from the bottom
up, but very much from the top down. You might suggest from the top, but I'm not sure how much goes down. That's one.
The second key factor, I would say, for about 20 years in European integration, it was relatively benign elitism because it was social
democratic, it had the support of the working class, or the trade unions, at any rate. Then, increasingly, it began to become neo[neo]liberal.
So, you have an elite project which was turning into a neo[neo]liberal project. Specifically, what I mean by neo[neo]liberal is where they're
generating flexibility rules for the labor market, austerity policies, bank, balanced budgets, low inflation, the things I was talking
about before.
Then the third element, toxic, the most toxic of them, but the other, they're volatile, is the legacy of fascism in Europe. Every
European country, with the exception of Britain, had a substantial fascist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. I can go into why Britain
didn't sometime. It had to do with the particular class struggle of the, I mean, class structure of Britain. Poland, ironically enough,
though, is one of them. It was overrun by the Nazis, and occupied, and incorporated into the German Reich. Ironically, it had a very
right-wing government with a lot of sympathies towards fascism when it was invaded in the late summer of 1939.
France had a strong fascist movement. Of course, Italy had a fascist government, and Hungary, where now you have a right-wing
government, a very strong fascist movement. The incorporation of these countries into the Soviet sphere of influence, or the empire,
as it were, did not destroy that fascism. It certainly suppressed it, but it didn't destroy it. So, as soon as the European project
began to transform into a neo[neo]liberal project, and that gathered strength in the early 1990s, I mean, the neo[neo]liberal aspect of the
European Union gathered strength in the early 1990s, exactly when you were getting the "liberation" of many countries from Soviet
rule. And so, when you put those together, it led to, It was a rise of fascism waiting to happen and now it is happening.
SHARMINI PERIES: John, earlier, you said you'll factor in Trump. How does Trump fit into this phenomena?
JOHN WEEKS: I think that as The Real News has pointed out, that many of Trump's policies appear just to be more extreme
versions of things that George Bush did, and in some cases not that much different from what Barack Obama did. Now, though I
wouldn't go too deeply into that, I think that that is the most serious offenses by Obama that have been carried on by Trump have
to do with the use of drones and the military. But at any rate, but there's a big difference from Trump. For the most part, the previous
Republican presidents, and Democratic presidents, accepted the framework of, the formal framework of [neo]liberal democracy in the United
States. That is, formally accepted the constraints imposed by the Constitution.
Now, of course, they probably didn't do it out of the goodness of their heart. They did it because they saw that the things that
they wanted to achieve, the neo[neo]liberal goals that they wanted to achieve were perfectly consistent with the Constitution's framework
and guarantees of rights and so on, that most of those rights are guaranteed in a way that's so weak that you didn't have to repeal
the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution in order to have repressive policies.
The difference with Trump is, he has complete contempt for all of those constraints. That is, he is an authoritarian. I don't
think he's a fascist, not yet, but he is an authoritarian. He does not accept that there are constraints which he should respect.
There are constraints which bother him, and he wants to get rid of them, and he actually takes steps to do so. What you have
in Trump, I think, is a sea change. You have a, we've had right-wing presidents before, certainly. What the difference with Trump
is, he is a right-wing president that sees no reason to respect the institutions of democratic government, or even, you might say,
the institution of representative government. I won't even use a term as strong as "democratic." That lays the basis for an explicitly
authoritarian United States, and I'd say that we're beginning to see the vehicle by which this will occur, the restriction on voting
rights. Of course, that was going on before Trump, it does in a more aggressive way. I think the, soon, we will have a Supreme Court
that will be quite lenient with his tendency towards authoritarian rule.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right, John. Let's end this segment with what can be done. I mean, what must be done to prevent neo[neo]liberal
interests from undermining democracy? And who do you believe is leading the struggle for democracy now, and what is the right strategy
that people should be fighting for?
JOHN WEEKS: Well, one thing, I think, where I'd begin is that I think progressives, as The Real News represents, and Bernie
Sanders, and all the people that support him, and Jeremy Corbyn over here, I'll come back to talk about a bit about Jeremy. We must
be explicit that we view democracy, by which we mean the participation of people at the grassroots, their participation in the government,
we view that as a goal. It's not merely a technique, or a tool which, what was it that Erdoğan so infamously said? "Democracy
is like a train. You take it to where you want to go and then you get off." No. Progressive view is that democracy is what it's all
about. Democracy is the way that we build the present and we build a future.
I'm quite fortunate in that I live in perhaps the only large country in the world where there's imminent possibility of a progressive,
left-wing, anti-authoritarian government. I think that is the monumental importance of Jeremy Corbyn and his second-in-command, John
McDonnell, and others like Emily Thornberry, who is the Foreign Secretary. These people are committed to democracy. In the United
States, Bernie Sanders is committed to a democracy, and a lot of other people are too, Elizabeth Warren. So, I think that the
struggle in the United States is extremely difficult because of the role of the big money and the media, which you know more about
than I do. But it is a struggle which we have to keep at, and we have to be optimistic about it. It's a good bit easier over here,
but as we saw, and you reported, during the last presidential election, a progressive came very close to being President of the United
States. That, I don't think was a one-off event, not to be repeated. I think it lays the basis for hope in the future.
"A lot of money" in those days- Some say JI "bought land" with the shekels. An early form of asset swap? A precursor to current
financialist activities?
Good article. If it were any bleaker, I'd suspect Chris Hedges having a hand in writing it.
The democratic nation-state basically operates like a criminal cartel, forcing honest citizens to surrender large portions
of their wealth to pay for stuff like roads and hospitals and schools.
There it is, the Gorgon Thiel, surrounded by terror and rout.
"Altman felt that OpenAI's mission was to babysit its wunderkind until it was ready to be adopted by the world. He'd been reading
James Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention for guidance in managing the transition. 'We're planning a way to allow
wide swaths of the world to elect representatives to a new governance board,' he said."
I was having trouble choosing which of the passages in this article to provide a mad quote from. Some other choices were
Altman's going to work with the Department of Defense, then help defend the world from them.
Or:
OpenAI's going to take over from humans, but don't worry because they're going to make it (somehow) so OpenAI can only terminate
bad people. Before releasing it to the world.
Or:
Altman says 'add a 0 to whatever you're doing but never more than that.'
But if this sort of wisdom (somehow) doesn't work out well for everybody and the world collapses, he's flying with Peter Thiel
in the private jet to the New Zealand's south island to wait out the Zombie Apocalypse on a converted sheep farm. (Before returning
to the Valley work with more startups?)
I think it's revealing that the only type of democracy discussed, in spite of the title, is "[neo]liberal democracy", which the
host describes as "based on capitalistic markets along with respect for individual freedoms and human rights and equality in the
face of the law."
I've always argued that [neo]liberal democracy is a contradiction in terms, and you can see why from that quotation. [neo]liberalism (leaving
aside special uses of the term in the US) is about individuals exercising their personal economic freedom and personal
autonomy as much as they can, with as little control by government as possible.
But given massive imbalances in economic power, the influence
of media-backed single issue campaigns and the growth of professional political parties, policy is decided by the interventions
of powerful and well-organised groups, without ordinary people being consulted. At the end, Weeks does start to talk of grassroots
participation, but seems to have no more in mind than a campaign to get people to vote for Sanders in 2020, which hardly addresses
the problem. The answer, if there is one, is a system of direct democracy, involving referendums and popular assemblies chosen
at random.
This has been much talked about, but since you would have the entire political class against you, it's not going to
happen. In the meantime, we are stuck with [neo]liberal democracy, whose contradictions, I'm afraid are becoming ever more obvious.
"Contradictions?" One question for me at least would be whether the features and motions of the current regime are best characterized
as "contradictions." If so, to what? And implicit in the use of the word is some kind of resolution, via actual class conflict
or something, leading to "better" or at least "different." All I see from my front porch is more of the same, and worse. "The
Matrix" in that myth gave some comforting illusions to the mopery. I think the political economy/collapsed planet portrayed in
"Soylent Green" is a lot closer to the likely endpoints.
At least in the movie fable, the C-Suite-er of the Soylent Corp. as the lede in the film, was sickened of what he was helping
to maintain, and bethought himself to blow his tiny little personal whistle that nobody would really hear, and got axed for his
disloyalty to the ruling collective. I doubt the ranks of corporatists of MonsantoDuPont and LockheedMartin and the rest include
any significant numbers of folks sickened by "the contradictions" that get them their perks and bennies and power (as long as
they color inside the lines.)
I hope I am way off the mark, but within that genre & in terms of where we could be heading, the film " Snowpiercer " sums
it up best for me- a dystopian world society illustrated through the passengers on one long train.
Thanks for the Real News Network for covering issues that never see the light of day on the corporate media and never mentioned
by the Rachel Maddow's of the "news" shows.
I actually like the term and find it useful, insofar as it describes an ideology -- as oposed a real political-economic arrangement.
The presence of "free markets" may not be a characteristic of the neo[neo]liberal phase, but the belief in them sure is.
(Which is not to say there aren't people who don't believe in free markets but do invoke them rhetorically for
other ends. That's a feature of many if not most successful ideologies.)
' Originally, the Federal Reserve charter included full employment and a stable economy. Those have been overridden in more
recent legislation, which puts a great emphasis on the control of inflation.
Eh, this is fractured history. The Fed was set up in 1913 as a lender of last resort -- a discounter of government and private
bills.
In late 1978 Jimmy Carter signed the Humphrey Hawkins Act instructing the Fed to pursue three goals: stable prices, maximum
employment, and moderate long-term interest rates, though the latter is rarely mentioned now and the Fed is widely viewed as having
a dual mandate.
The Fed's two percent inflation target it simply adopted at its own initiative -- it's not enshrined in no Perpetual Inflation
Act.
' We had a world of fixed exchange rates which government could use to affect its trade and also affect its domestic policy.
We now have floating exchange rates. That takes away a tool. '
LOL! This is totally inverted and flat wrong. The Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system prevented radical monetary experiments
such as QE which would have broken the peg. Nixon unilaterally suspended fixed exchange rates in 1971 because he was unwilling
to take the political hit of formally devaluing the dollar (or even more unlikely, sweating out Vietnam War inflation with falling
prices to maintain the peg).
Floating rates are a new and potentially lethal monetary tool which have produced a number of sad examples of "governments
gone wild" with radical monetary experiments and currency swings. Bad boys Japan & Switzerland come readily to mind.
To render history accurately requires getting hands dirty with dusty old books. Icky, I know. :-(
Yes but globalisation meant that all central banks and finance ministers had to act concertedly as in G-20 and similar meetings.
While we may talk of floating exchange rates, each country fixes its interest rate to maintain parity with the others. Isn't that
so?
I think that the key piece of info is that the Federal Reserve was created on December 23rd, 1913. That sounds like that it
was slipped in the legislative back door when everybody was going away for the Christmas holidays.
===== quote =====
Second of all, probably most of your viewers will not remember the days when we had fixed exchange rates. We had a world of fixed
exchange rates in those days that represented the policy, which government could use to affect its trade and also affect its domestic
policy. There have been deregulation of that. We now have floating exchange rates. That takes away a tool, an instrument of economic
policy. And in fiscal policy, there the, here it's more ideology than laws, though there are also laws. There's a law requiring
that the government balance its budget, but more important than that, the introduction into the public consciousness, I'd say
grinding into the public consciousness, the idea that deficits are a bad thing, government debt is a bad thing, and that's a completely
neo[neo]liberal ideology.
===== /quote =====
This makes absolutely no sense and seems to have the case exactly backward. Our federal government has no rule that the budget
must be balanced. Fixed exchange rates were not a tool that could be used to affect trade and domestic policy in a good way.
I enjoyed John Weeks' point of view. He's the first person I've read who refers to the usefulness of a fixed exchange rate.
Useful for a sovereign government with a social spending agenda. We have always been a sovereign government with a military agenda
which is at odds with a social agenda.
Guns and butter are a dangerous combination if you are dedicated to at least maintaining
the illusion of a "strong dollar." That's basically what Nixon finessed. John Conally told him not to worry, we could go off the
gold standard and it wasn't our problem since we were the reserve currency – it was everybody else's problem and we promptly exported
our inflation all around the world. And now it has come home to roost because it was fudging and it couldn't last forever.
Much
better to concede to some fix for the currency and maintain the sovereign power to devalue the dollar as necessary to maintain
proper social spending. I don't understand why sovereign governments cannot see that a deficit is just the mirror image of a healthy
social economy (Stephanie Kelton).
And to that end "fix" an exchange rate that maintains a reasonable purchasing power of the
currency by pegging it to the long term health of the economy. What we do now is peg the dollar to a "basket of goods and services"-
Ben Bernanke. That "basket" is effectively "the market" and has very little to do with good social policy.
There's no reason we
can't dispense with the market and simply fiat the value of our currency based on the social return estimated for our social investments.
Etc. Keeping the dollar stubbornly strong is just tyranny favoring those few who benefit from extreme inequality.
" Democracy is not under stress – it's under aggressive attack, as unconstrained financial greed overrides public accountability
."
I request a lessatorium* on the term 'democracy', because there aren't any democracies. Rather than redefine the term, why
not use a more accurate one, like 'plutocracy', or 'corporatocracy'.
-- -- -- -
* It's like a moratorium, you just do less of it.
I had not given much thought to "Fascist" until the term was challenged as a synonym for "bully." So, I started reading Wikipedia's
take on Fascismo. What I discovered was the foremost, my USA education did not teach jack s -- about Fascism – and I went to elite
high school in libr'l Chicago.
Is Fascism right or left? Does it matter? What goes around comes around.
What I gleaned from my quick Wikiread was the apparent pattern of economic inequality causing the masses to huddle in fear
& loathing to one corner – desperation, and then some clever autocrat subverts the energy from their F&L into political power
by demonizing various minorities and other non-causal perps.
Like nearly every past fascism emergence in history, US Trumpismo is capitalizing on inequality, and fear & loathing (his capital
if you will) to seize power. That brings us to Today – to Trump, and an era (brief I hope) of US flirtation with fascism. Thank
God Trump is crippled by a narcissism that fuels F&L within his own regime. Otherwise, I might be joining a survivalist group
or something. :-)
Neoliberalism involves not the deregulation of the capitalist system, but the reregulation of it in the interest of capital.
So, it involves moving from a system in which capital is regulated in the interests of stability and the many to regulation in
a way that enhances capital.
Prominent politicians in the US and UK have spent their entire political careers representing neoliberalism's agenda at the
expense of representing the voters' issues. The voters are tired of the conservative and [neo]liberal political establishments' focus
on neoliberal policy. This is also true in Germany as well France and Italy. The West's current political establishments see the
way forward as "staying the neoliberal course." Voters are saying "change course." See:
'German Politics Enters an Era of Instability' – Der Speigel
"... This rings true as well; "The implications for the future of the American republic were terrifying, Tesich concluded. His words are haunting to read today: We are rapidly becoming prototypes of a people that totalitarian monsters could only drool about in their dreams. All the dictators up to now have had to work hard at suppressing the truth. We, by our actions, are saying that this is no longer necessary, that we have acquired a spiritual mechanism that can denude truth of any significance. In a very fundamental way we, as a free people, have freely decided that we want to live in some post-truth world." ..."
"... This also applies to the UK. What goodwill, mythology ("worldliness, pragmatism") etc. that was attached by continentals to the UK has been "exploded". ..."
"... Lately, I've detected a certain sense of malaise among my fellow citizens. In my opinion, it's long been apparent that this won't end well. All of these factors points to a day of reckoning that is rapidly approaching. Perhaps the prevalence of school shootings is acting as the proverbial canary in the coal mine? ..."
"... Don't think that the elite have not noticed the way things are moving. In my own line of work I interact with the 1% on a regular basis. I can tell you that even though they are doing better that ever, there is a sense of discreet terror. It's obvious when they discuss all the ways that they're trying to replicating their own advantages in the education of their little darlings. ..."
"... I think it's dawning on us that we're not re-experiencing the moment before the election of Franklin Roosevelt, and the beginning of the New Deal, we're actually just now realizing the necessity of the daunting task of organizing, which makes our times resemble 1890 more than 1935. ..."
"... Even if it takes half as much time to defeat the Robber Barons this go-round, many of us will not see anything resembling ' victory ' in our lifetimes, so we have to make adjustments in our expectations, and accept the monumental nature of the tasks ahead. ..."
"... I think delegitimization is upon us. General malaise is nearly to the point of a general strike. The house of cards is in a slow motion but certain wind storm. Those thousand dollar checks at Wal-Mart payday will vanish overnight while the wealthy reap tax benefits for years on end. We are down to the twenty seven percent (Dems) waging false battles with the twenty six percent (Reps). Only the 47 percent rest of us will grow in numbers from here on out. ..."
"... The Anglo-American countries can not be anything but in a class of their own. They include the mother country with former colonies, some especially successful, and rule the world by virtue of language, wealth and, often necessarily, violence, almost always gratuitous. ..."
"... Violence has an effect on peoples lives at both the giving and receiving ends. ..."
"... Image you are in Baghdad on the glorious, glittering night of Shock and Awe to get a feel for things. That happened when the US was supposedly great. ..."
"... Intelligence makes us pessimists, and our will makes us optimists. ..."
"... But Trump is not the problem here, only the Front Man for something larger. Even during the early oughts one could perceive a fundamental societal drift, empowered by a 'conservative' (read: fascist) willingness to do whatever was necessary in pursuit of their particular vision. It is not a vision of returning disempowered white folks to some rosy past that never existed; I sense a more feudal vision, with princes and lords in gated communities, with peasants conned into doing their bidding, every day being fleeced even further. ..."
"... The angst feels not like the angst of an impending, singular catastrophe, but rather the angst of decline. There's a late empire feel to the current mood: leaders without agency, more interested in their own, internal sense of normalcy and maintaining their perches, perches that increasingly feel pointless as they're all just listless figureheads doing what the Magister Militum tells them to do. ..."
"... The military feels all-encompassing yet simultaneously incapable of exercising its will in the theater of war, so dispersed and aimless, as the missions are no longer about winning wars but about resume building ..."
"... Civililizations don't collapse like falling off a table. They stress resources of materials and people and such stresses build and build. This has serious psychological impacts. ..."
"... The moderate catastrophic disasters like Trumps election cause much bigger disruptions to the civilizational equilibrium, but only for a time. We all know deep inside that what comes next in Brexit or say Trumps removal will actually be worse than what we have now. ..."
"... For me the frame changed with the restart of the Cold War. I remember "Duck and Cover, McCarthyism, John Birchers, and Who Lost China". It has all come back. The Democrats are idiots for scapegoating Russia. President Donald Trump is incompetent. ..."
All of the warnings, predictions, knowledge, tech advances and humor of sci-fi, real
science, history, and literature alike has boiled down to this? This low quality "news" that
reports on the latest predictable, preventable outrage/injustice when it not intentionally
turning up the hysteria/fear tuner? It's like living in a simulation of a society ruled by
the insane and hearing about its unwinding day after day.
This rings true as well;
"The implications for the future of the American republic were terrifying, Tesich concluded.
His words are haunting to read today: We are rapidly becoming prototypes of a people that totalitarian monsters could only drool
about in their dreams. All the dictators up to now have had to work hard at suppressing the
truth. We, by our actions, are saying that this is no longer necessary, that we have acquired
a spiritual mechanism that can denude truth of any significance. In a very fundamental way
we, as a free people, have freely decided that we want to live in some post-truth world."
Yeat's captures the inexorable feel of our times perfectly;
William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
THE SECOND COMING
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
This also applies to the UK. What goodwill, mythology ("worldliness, pragmatism") etc.
that was attached by continentals to the UK has been "exploded".
This makes me wonder whether the US will exist in its current form. Is it desirable?
Genuine questions from someone who visits annually, including "fly over", and enjoys doing
so. I don't see the UK existing as currently constituted much beyond the next decade.
Lately, I've detected a certain sense of malaise among my fellow citizens. In my opinion, it's long been apparent that this won't end well.
All of these factors points to a day of reckoning that is rapidly approaching. Perhaps the
prevalence of school shootings is acting as the proverbial canary in the coal mine?
Don't think that the elite have not noticed the way things are moving. In my own line of
work I interact with the 1% on a regular basis. I can tell you that even though they are
doing better that ever, there is a sense of discreet terror. It's obvious when they discuss
all the ways that they're trying to replicating their own advantages in the education of
their little darlings.
I'm starting to think that what we are experiencing is the realization that we've spent
way too much time expecting that explaining our selves, our diverse grievances, and our
political insights would naturally result in growing an irresistible movement that would wash
over, and cleanse our politics of the filth that is the status quo.
It is sobering to realize that it took almost four decades for the original Progressive
Era organizers to bring about even the possibility of change.
I think it's dawning on us that we're not re-experiencing the moment before the election
of Franklin Roosevelt, and the beginning of the New Deal, we're actually just now realizing
the necessity of the daunting task of organizing, which makes our times resemble 1890 more
than 1935.
Government by the people, and for the people has been drowned in the bath-tub, and the
murderers have not only taken the reigns of power, but have convinced half the population
that their murderous act represents a political correction that will return America to
greatness.
It remains to be seen whether we will find it in our hearts to embrace both the hard, and
un-glamorous work of relieving the pain inflicted by the regime that has engulfed us, and the
necessity of embracing as brothers and sisters those who haven't yet realized that it is the
rich and powerful who are the problem, and not all the other poor and oppressed.
The difficulty of affecting political change might be explained the way Black-Smiths
describe their problem;
Life so short the craft so long to learn.
Even if it takes half as much time to defeat the Robber Barons this go-round, many of us
will not see anything resembling ' victory ' in our lifetimes, so we have to make
adjustments in our expectations, and accept the monumental nature of the tasks ahead.
"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of
the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
A nice excerpt from the non-binding Gettysburg address. Too bad he was referring to a
system of governance which never existed.
In a conversation with several friends yesterday.. all of us found among our greatest
despairs the behavior of our long time friends who are Democrats. Much more pig-headed and
determined to stay that way than Republicans ever were during the Bush Jr. years. Pretending
we live in some sort of system (much less a party) which could or would possibly represent.
Seemingly incapable of listening, blinded by delusion and propaganda demanding anyone in
their presence double down on what's failed so many of us for far longer than we have
lived.
All of us men in our fifties. Hard working. None of us had kids of our own, but several
are in relationships with women who did. None of us have anything close to high living
standards. Barely getting by now with great uncertainty ahead. Hell, we all own our homes
outright, drive ten to twenty year old cars, buy most clothes second hand, grow much of our
own food, cut our own firewood, several live off the grid entirely. Only one has access to
health care and that's because he's on disability due to spinal injury on the job and an
inherited heart condition. He's also the only one who might be able to get by in 'retirement'
years on what he will receive. Every one of the rest of us realized if we lose our current
jobs we would be hard pressed to replace them at half the income we have now.
I went to orientation for jury duty this week. Out of a hundred and fifty people I was the
only man wearing a button down shirt and a sport coat. The only man who removed his hat in
the courtroom. And I felt like a freak. It was all I could do to not ask the judge about jury
nullification. The only reason I held back is because I knew every citizen in the joint just
wanted out of there.
I think delegitimization is upon us. General malaise is nearly to the point of a general
strike. The house of cards is in a slow motion but certain wind storm. Those thousand dollar
checks at Wal-Mart payday will vanish overnight while the wealthy reap tax benefits for years
on end. We are down to the twenty seven percent (Dems) waging false battles with the twenty
six percent (Reps). Only the 47 percent rest of us will grow in numbers from here on out.
Only the 47 percent rest of us will grow in numbers from here on out.
So there is our hope. Personally, I suspect that Trump's working-class supporters will join us sooner than the
deluded, diehard Clintonista faction of the democratic base. And let's hope the false battles don't turn into real battles. It's obvious there are some
who would love to have us throwing rocks at each other, or worse.
Yes, indeed, you have it. Delegitimization is the appropriate word. My thought on seeing
the headline that 17 died in the Florida school shooting was how many months to go before the
school year ends. I won't read anything about the shooter, or the deaths, or the bravery and
self sacrifice. There have been too many; there will be far too many more.
It is an end-of-Vietnam moment. It is a moment for poems such as the above mentioned, and
for me T.S.Eliot's 'Four Quartets'.
Book: The Administration of Fear – Paul Virilio.
From the back cover:
We are facing the emergence of a real, collective madness reinforced by the synchronization
of emotions: the sudden globalization of affects in real time that hits all of humanity at
the same time, and in the name of Progress. Emergency exit: we have entered a time of general
panic.
-- --
Perhaps because I live in the UK, I echo particularly what Clive, Windsock and Plutonium
Kun say.
Having spent much of the winter in Belgium, Mauritius, Spain and France, so none
Anglo-Saxon, it was a relief to get away from the UK in the same way as JLS felt. Although
these countries have their issues, I did notice their MSM appear not as venal as the UK and
US MSM and seem more focused on local bread and butter. Brexit and Trump were mentioned very
briefly, the latter nothing as hysterical and diversionary as in the UK and US. There were
little identity politics on parade. Locals don't seem as worn out, in all respects, as one
observes in Blighty.
With regard to PK's reference about Pearl Harbour, I know some well informed remainers who
want a hard Brexit just for the relief that it will bring. Others, not necessarily remainers,
have no idea what's going on and think Trump is a bigger threat. I must confess to, often,
sharing what the former think, if only to bring the neo-liberal house down once and for
all.
All this makes me think whether anglo-saxon countries are in a class of their own and how,
after Brexit, the EU27 will evolve, shorn of the UK. This is not to say that the UK (the
neo-liberal bit) is the only rotten apple in the EU.
If it was not for this site and community, I know of no other place where I would get a
better source of news, insight and sanity. I know a dozen journalists, mainly in London, well
and echo what Norello said.
The Anglo-American countries can not be anything but in a class of their own. They include
the mother country with former colonies, some especially successful, and rule the world by
virtue of language, wealth and, often necessarily, violence, almost always gratuitous.
Violence has an effect on peoples lives at both the giving and receiving ends. What was this
school shooting? The 13th or something since the beginning of the year. War. Nuclear war. A
fear of war is the undertone which has been droning (!) on long before Donald Trump took
power. Image you are in Baghdad on the glorious, glittering night of Shock and Awe to get a
feel for things. That happened when the US was supposedly great.
Is pretending all is well a rational defense against the overwhelming feeling that there
is nothing an individual can do to deflect the trajectory we are on? And the emotional energy
it takes to keep up that pretense is exhausting.
I think for myself and others that the complete hopelessness of our situation is starting
to take more of a toll. The amount of personal and social capital used to finally get some
sanity back in government after Bush and the disastrous wasted opportunity of Obama that led
to Trump is overwhelming. The complete loss of fairness is everywhere and my pet one this
week is how Experian after losing over 200 million personal financial records is now
advertising during the Olympics as the personal security service experts instead of being
prosecuted out of business.
Yesterday was peculiar, Yves Smith. You should have sent me an e-mail! My colleagues were
having meltdowns (overtired, I think). My computers were glitchy. The WWW seemed to switch on
and off all day long. I am of a mind that it has to due with the false spring: We had a thaw
in Chicago.
Like Lambert, and I won't speak for Lambert, who can speak for himself, I am guardedly
optimistic: I have attended Our Revolution meetings here in Chicago as well as community
meetings. There are many hardworking and savvy people out there. Yet I also believe that we
are seeing the collapse of the old order without knowing what will arise anew. And as always,
I am not one who believes that we should advocate more suffering so that people "learn their
lesson." There is already too much suffering in the world–witness the endless U.S.
sponsored wars in the Middle East. (The great un-covered story of our time: The horrors of
the U.S.-Israeli-Saudi sponsored massacres from Algeria to Pakistan.)
I tend to think that the Anglo-American world is having a well-deserved nervous
breakdown.
I note on my FB page that a "regular Democrat" is calling for war by invoking Orwell. When
someone has reached that point of rottenness, not even knowing that Orwell was almost by
nature anti-war, the rot can only continue its collapse.
So I offer Antonio Gramsci, who in spite of everything, used to write witty letters from
prison. >>
My state of mind brings together these two sentiments and surpasses them: I am pessimistic
because of intelligence, but a willed optimist. I think, in every circumstance, of the worst
scenario so I can marshal all of my reserves of will and be ready to overcome the obstacle. I
never allow myself illusions, and I have never had disappointments. I am always specially
armed with endless patience, not passive or inert, but patience animated by perseverance. –Antonio Gramsci, letter to his brother Gennaro, December 1929. Translation DJG.
Every collapse brings intellectual and moral disorder in its wake. So we must foster
people who are sober, have patience, who do not despair when faced with the worst horrors yet
who do not become elated over every stupid misstep. Intelligence makes us pessimists, and our
will makes us optimists. –Antonio Gramsci, first Prison Notebook, 1929-1930. Translation DJG.
So: Commenting groundlings and comrades, we must be alert, somewhat severe in our
judgments of people and of the news, and yet open to a revolution that includes bread and
roses.
Nice find, DJG: "Our intelligence makes us pessimists, and our will makes us
optimists."
Too big for a bumper sticker . but good for a bedside table or the bathroom mirror. To
remind us that, for the realists, being optimistic takes an effort of will, a determined
reach every single morning to find just one small thing that will keep us going for that day
and give us hope for the future. It could be a rosy sunrise, or the imminent arrival of a
grandchild, or a packet of seeds ready to be sown. Or meeting a good friend for coffee, or
mastering a new dance step or a difficult passage on the fiddle.
Not denial of the world's shameful faults and of our increasingly precarious position
within it, but a refusal to allow them to grind us down completely.
Intelligence makes us pessimists, and our will makes us optimists.
My favorite quote. What else is there?
And if you want to know who the enemy is, it is all those whose cure for what ails us is
either "Just going on living your life (i.e. shopping)" or "just vote". I view the current
period of disquiet and all of us wondering what we can and should do, and who will be
alongside us, or opposed to us, when we do.
> Pessimism of the the intellect, optimism of the will
I think -- call me Pollyanna if you wish -- that optimism of the intellect is warranted as
well. My only concern is that collapse will come (or be induced) when "the good guys,"* let
us say, are still to weak to take advantage of the moment. That's why I keep saying that
gridlock is our friend.
* Who in the nature of the case have been unaccustomed to wielding real power.
I have been fortunate, in the past decade, to have 'hung out' with lots of 20-somethings
(and a few older beings) who have been passionately optimistic about what they can accomplish
against the forces of darkness. From the environmentalists who are fighting the corporations
who would build pipelines and LNG terminals to activists building tiny houses for the
homeless and working with the city to find land to place them on, and those who happily get
arrested for sleeping under a blanket, in protest against 'urban camping' bans, to a woman
who for the last five years has served Friday night meals for all, on sidewalks in front of
businesses supporting the urban camping ban.
And, I have been constantly in awe of those who, in the face of centuries of being
relocated, dispossessed, despised and massacred, will not give up on protecting their lands
and their way of life. These Lakota and Kiowa and Dineh people are truly optimistic that they
will prevail. Or, perhaps fatalistic is a better description; hey know they may die
trying.
Looks like this article has a lot of legs on it but will wait to read more commentator's
thoughts and ideas before doing so myself. Too much to take in. In the meantime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WatQeG5fMU
As a New Zealander living in the USA for around 7 years now (but routinely spending
Christmas months back in NZ, and often multi month stints remote working in Europe) the
'tension' just living in the USA – NYC / LA is through the roof.
I can remember being in Vienna some time after trump won, a few days shy of returning to
the US and wondering what the hell I was thinking – and that's related to people /
media's reaction to trump just as much as trump being in charge.
It's hard to put your finger on exactly what it is – partly just the 'big
metropolis' thing.. but there's also something else nasty in the air.
Similar (but amplified) feeling at work last week at the office as one quarter of the
company were sacked on a days notice – a downsizing at a start up that supposedly has
'great culture'.
It's that nasty squeeze of fast capitalism I believe that has a grip on everyone's psyche
– elevated fear levels, etc.
Re-read Ames' 'going postal' a few weeks back, which covers brilliantly the vicious
cultural turn under Reagan.
Ps – Naked Capitalism has become my 'News refuge' having dropped off social media
entirely, and wanting to avoid the general insanity of the news cycle but not disengage,
thank you!
It's not so much the presence of angst that I see, among my working brethren we're pretty
numb to the current hopeless future and tend to focus instead on the present for efficiencies
sake, for if one thinks too much about the hopeless future it's hard to get up and get going
on fighting back the tide and muddling through the hopeless present that will be more
hopeless if you don't do anything. (as an aside my opinion is that this psychology has much
to do with the current homeless crisis it takes confidence to try and those who can delude
themselves into doing so seem to be a little better off) But now the angst is in the the
10%er's in my acquaintance, who claim to be really worried about nuclear war. Not
surprisingly they're mostly informed by npr, which as far as I can see makes people really
stupid. The trump as crazy fascist narrative has them in it's clutches so much so that his
weekend I had to give the "don't be too pessimistic b/c if the world doesn't end you will be
unprepared for it, and if it ends who cares?" speech normally reserved for youngsters who see
no point in trying due to end of the world thinking (as anecdote since when I was in college
in the early '80's I was pretty certain there would be a nuclear war and made different
choices than the best ones,, anyone remember the star wars missile defense system?). That
said I think the "we're all gonna die" theme is just more bs sour grapes and more proof that
the residence of hopelessness is actually the democrat partisans who refuse to live in the
present, so denial is where they are at. But isn't that the thing about angst, it doesn't
have to be real to effect one's life negatively, and I'm hearing it from people who I think
should know better, but I read nc daily and live out in the woods (highly recommended, almost
as good as being in another country as the rural areas of the US are actually
another country) and npr was so unhinged this weekend that I felt that even the reporters
were having a hard time mustering the outrage. As Hope said commenting on the uber series
"What a pleasure it is to read a genuine (and all too rare) piece of financial analysis."
I couldn't agree more, and I might send it on to a 10%er, but they seem kind of fragile
lately and I don't know if they could handle "uber is a failing enterprise", they might not
get out of bed
Don't know if I'm any more sensitive than you guys, and I'm certainly not that good at
articulating what's going in with something this subtle.
I will say that when the dogs stop barking its time to start getting REALLY worried. What
we may now be hearing, or not hearing, may be a sign of fatigue, but more depressingly,
impending resignation. EVERY day for the past year there's been yet another affront, and the
opposition has been ineffective in any meaningful sense. Trump has apparently learned that
the way to parry any thrust is to counter with something even more outrageous, literally in a
matter of minutes. The initiative he is thus able to maintain is scary, and something I see
no way to surmount.
But Trump is not the problem here, only the Front Man for something larger. Even during
the early oughts one could perceive a fundamental societal drift, empowered by a
'conservative' (read: fascist) willingness to do whatever was necessary in pursuit of their
particular vision. It is not a vision of returning disempowered white folks to some rosy past
that never existed; I sense a more feudal vision, with princes and lords in gated
communities, with peasants conned into doing their bidding, every day being fleeced even
further.
Hence, having the means, though by no means being rich, I began my move off-shore over ten
years ago. I now have 3 passports and permanent residency on as many continents. What
Jerri-Lynn senses is very, very real, as I learned in the US over Xmas past in a series of
vignettes I'll spare anyone reading this. I was sharing my experiences there to a local
student recently (here in South America) who had once lived in the US and who continues to be
enamored of the now frayed, and largely repudiated, American Dream. As I explained to him,
it's not a pretty picture, and hardly one to succumb to.
My sense is that the media has succeeded in instilling into the North American zeitgeist a
sense of the US being At War against the rest of the world, not unlike that of the mentality
of Israel, which has a far more real situation to contend with. The tragedy, in the case of
the US, is that it really, really does not have to be like this. This is a hole we have begun
digging ourselves into only recently, as opposed to Israel, which at this point can hardly
see the light of day.
At some point this mentality becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and while the US could
easily turn itself around, the momentum is strong and decidedly in the other direction. The
vision of the fascists and the imperatives of the media pretty much guarantee the US, and by
extension the world, is on a collision course with negative time and space.
I'm probably the last person able to comment on this topic having spent the last three
months ignoring the news and not even reading Naked Capitalism daily. I was never bothered by
the big stories like the drama over North Korea which I thought of as nothing more than a
psy-op incidentally aimed at the American populace. Nor did I find Liberal Hezbollah (The
Resistance) or #Metoo to be anything more than a joke. I kinda suspected that American
culture would be plagued by another round of hysterical superstition driven by Calvinist
social-jihadism.
If there seems to be a lack of consequential events it's because history doesn't move as
swiftly as we might want. It doesn't mean that we aren't moving towards more worldview
shattering events which will challenge the ability of our body politic to react to them. The
United States continues to collapse driven by external and internal factors. The lack of
clarity and unity of action will eventually usher in the end of the empire aboard. The
inability of our ruling class to respond to Trump's election in such a manner which would
constructively restore faith in our institutions will only accelerate the process at home.
There isn't a lack of stories which serve as a useful guide through history. The story about
American troops being ambushed and dying in Niger was significant.
A few years before the Islamic State steamrolled through Iraq and Syria it was mostly
unnoticed that the French were contending with rebels marauding through their African
protection racket in Mali and the Central African Republic. The fact that the US is having to
prop up the French and that the chaos has been migrating southward is significant especially
given the economic factors at stake. Another story I found interesting was a recent DW
article about the woeful state of readiness of the German military given it is assuming
leadership of a prominent position in NATO. It notably reveals that in the aftermath of the
2008 economic crisis and euro crisis the Germans, but probably the European countries as a
whole, have been strip-mining their military budgets which is something that America did
during the Great Depression. I'm sure there is even more stories out there that are little
pieces of a much larger puzzle but to be honest I've mostly spent my downtime playing video
games.
True enough. It shouldn't go unnoticed that Obama was calling for NATO nations to increase
their military spending 'til they reach 2% of their GDP. The Germans wouldn't theoretically
have any trouble meeting under normal circumstances. It's also a far cry from what Germany
spent on the eve of both World Wars.
"Basically everything and anything anti-Republican & anti-Trump that gets published on
Facebook gets re-posted on our church Facebook page."
Hmmm. Are you losing parishioners as a result? Or gaining them? It doesn't seem to me like
what people would be looking for in a faith community – an overload of politics –
but what do I know.
Oh, I see that you've already sort of answered that question.
the tendency to excessive rage when identity is questioned is a feature of narcissism.
excessive, misplaced, out of proportion rage (at being denied what was expected, at being
wrong, at being seen as incompetent, whatever conflicts with the rager's identity) is what
this sounds like to me. which is I guess another form of not thinking enough, unfortunately
narcissism isn't curable.
in fact so much of this thread makes me feel like we're all suffering a bit as grey rocks
in a narcissistic abuse scenario. the narcissism is at the individual level and at the
societal level; we're all just trying to keep our heads down and avoid the maelstrom, which
keeps increasing in intensity to get our attention back.
What I have noticed is: a sense of powerlessness and not being able to control basic
aspects of your life .that at any moment things could spiral widely out of control; people
have become more enraged, meaner and feel they don't even have to be polite anymore (my
friends and I have noticed this even with drivers); people who normally would be considered
comfortable are feeling more and more financially insecure. Almost everyone I know feels this
tension and is trying to figure out what they need to do to survive – I know several
who are exploring becoming expats. I think we are rapidly moving towards a breaking point
.
The angst feels not like the angst of an impending, singular catastrophe, but rather the
angst of decline. There's a late empire feel to the current mood: leaders without agency,
more interested in their own, internal sense of normalcy and maintaining their perches,
perches that increasingly feel pointless as they're all just listless figureheads doing what
the Magister Militum tells them to do.
The military feels all-encompassing yet simultaneously
incapable of exercising its will in the theater of war, so dispersed and aimless, as the
missions are no longer about winning wars but about resume building. Same for the security
agencies, whose invasive practices feel less like a preparation for a 1984-style security
state, and more a cover for their own incompetence and inability to do proper legwork, as
these mass shootings seem to inevitably come with the revelation about how authorities were
alerted prior to the fact of the shooter's warning signs and did no follow up. Meanwhile,
standards of living decline for the vast majority of Americans, the sense of national unity
is eroding as regional and rural/urban identities are superseding that of country. Not to
mention the slow simmer that is global warming and climate change.
So yeah, nothing that translates to a flashy headline or all-at-once collapse, but
definitely an angst of a slow slide down, with too much resistance to the change needed to
reverse it.
My feeling is that the U$A, along with various sovereign entities around much the planet
will, within a decade or so, cease to exist in their current form. When people coalesce and
societies reform, is when one gets/is forced .. to choose their 'new' afilliation(s) !
It will be facinating to behold, if one is alive to partake in it !
As for positive, or negative outcomes who knows ?
I believe that what is happening is that slowly but surely the numbers of people who are
subconsciously reacting to the ongoing collapse of civilization are growing. They are uneasy,
anxious, deflated, waiting for Godot, in depression and so on.
Civililizations don't collapse like falling off a table. They stress resources of
materials and people and such stresses build and build. This has serious psychological
impacts. Numbness to new is bad news. Or what used to be bad news has to be Trumped by
exceedingly bad news before folks can rise to deal with them, but for a shorter time than
they had the ability they used to. As the number of people grows who have reached their
capacity to tolerate the stress we will find more and more of them just shut down as their
subconscious tells them there is no point in caring anymore as things are just going to get
worse.
We all see things getting worse.
So we have little collapses on a regular basis which hardly ruffle anyone's feathers
anymore. The moderate catastrophic disasters like Trumps election cause much bigger
disruptions to the civilizational equilibrium, but only for a time. We all know deep inside
that what comes next in Brexit or say Trumps removal will actually be worse than what we have
now. And we know that such will be the trend for the duration. Each time we seem to overcome
a disaster we will be presented with another building disaster. A worse one. As we continue
to stair step down the long slope that our civilization climbed during the renaissance and
the enlightenment. Trump and Brexit are medium steps down.
The Black Swan is out there somewhere watching us. The big step down. We can feel it
coming and we cannot stop it. We know that what seems bad now is going to be a lot worse in
the future. We know this and it makes us helpless.
Skip above has the word on this.
"The centre does not hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world".
The Worst Well-Being Year on Record for the U.S. – Gallup
"Americans' well-being took a big hit nationally in 2017, according to the
Gallup-Sharecare Well-Being Index, which recorded declines in 21 states. Why did well-being
drop, and where were the declines most pronounced?"
OK- no endorsement from me re the validity of this Index, BUT the podcast raises an
important point vis a vis 2009 downturn in their Index.
I think what we have here is a Mexican standoff the likes of which has perhaps never been
seen. I am 51 years old. For most of my life there has been a polite changing of the guards
to no great effect every four years. Trump rode into Washington on a bridge burning mission
and all that has changed. Or were the bridges burned upon his approach, after which he was
framed for the crime? This is the essence of the problem we face as a country, and the world
watching on with bated breath.
I still do not know what is "true" about any of this "Russiagate" contretemps. Perhaps
none of it. Perhaps all of it. I suspect both parties and candidates were hand fed dubious
information then tried to hide the wrappers from the "authorities" who (naturally) were only
interested in how any of it impacted them personally and institutionally, and so on and so
forth, etc. etc.
But where does that get us a nation? If you are a child and you walk into your parent's
bedroom to find your mother screwing the gardener you may be upset. But then if you run down
the hall to your brother's room to tell him and find your father en flagrante with the nanny,
well where do you go from there?
We have to find a way to deescalate with each other as Americans. I find myself repeatedly
smiling blankly in conversations with family, friends, and strangers who will all equally
complain vociferously about someone who is definitely destroying the planet/country/children.
But that only gets you so far. If you do not engage after a few minutes you are viewed with
great suspicion. And then only the strongest bonds of love can save you from being cast aside
or worse.
Deescalate now. I'm gonna put it on a tshirt.
By the way, reading a lot of Jung right now. Anyone else?
For the better part of the last 45 years I have traveled the world, worked with
individuals in different cultures, walked among and shared bread and stories with many people
in their living quarters and the news of today is not so much (occasionally) about the depth
of love that exists around the world but only about the evils we are told about in pages of
the WaPo, NYTimes and even the WST. So sad because there is so much good to view but good
rarely delivers headlines and headlines sell news and make journalists.
The news is slow because the liberal media just can't dig out that one great story or
smokin' gun that brings down Trump & Co. This whole story is stale and at the point of
"who cares" ..well, the liberals seem to be the only interested parties. I am not a
Republican or Conservative or aligned with any party but an American who looks for the best
talent of any party to represent us .citizens of the U.S.A. I laugh at the whole 'Russian
Thing' . like this is NEW news when it's as old as the Roman Empire. There are many of us
true Americans that if our democracy was every challenged, threatened or in trouble would
rise up against any threat–and more than likely not with guns but with our minds, our
knowledge and our ability to talk calmly and rationally rather than shout threats on
Twitter.
The media needs to get over itself and quit trying to be the type of police we all despise
.manipulated headlines are part of the problem with the 'stillness' today. If you can't dig
up any worthy headlines that will sell the news, then go home and close the cover of your
computer and find someone to hug ..God knows we can all use an extra level of love in today's
seemingly gloomy lack of news world.
a pretty good question in the face of all the noise.
i believe it is in response to the saturated level of cognitive dissonance. an inverse
reaction to the lack of transparency and unresponsiveness of both commercial and governmental
activities.
the sensitivity of untoward persuasion on social media an indication of the fallibility of
the centralized narrative?
I have felt an eery disquiet for the last several years, more or less since the year I
retired. I think retirement finally offered me the time I needed to see and think about the
world. For the last few years I have felt a strong need to move away to higher ground and a
smaller community further out from the cities. Churchill's book title "Gathering Storm" seems
apt, but war seems only one of the many possible storms gathering and I think one of the
least likely at present although the actions and qualities of those who rule us make even
nuclear war seem possible. And I take little comfort from learning how close we came to
nuclear war in the past and how the unstable mechanisms guiding us toward this brink remain
in place with new embellishments for greater instability.
The economy is ambling a drunkard's walk climbing a knife's edge. The Corporations remain
hard at work consolidating and building greater monopoly power, dismantling what remains of
our domestic jobs and industry, and building ever more fragile supply chains. The government
is busy dismantling the safety net, deconstructing health care, public education and science,
bolstering the wealth of the wealthy, and stoking foreign wars while a tiff between factions
within those who rule us fosters a new cold war and an arms build-up including building a new
nuclear arsenal. In another direction Climate Disruption shows signs of accelerating while
the new weather patterns already threaten random flooding and random destruction of cities.
It already destroyed entire islands in the Caribbean. The government has proven its inability
and unwillingness to do anything to prepare for the pending disasters or help the areas
struck down in the seasons past. The year of Peak Oil is already in our past and there is
nothing to fill its place. The world populations continue to grow exponentially. Climate
Disruption promises to reduce food production and move the sources for fresh water and the
worlds aquifers are drying up. It's as if a whole flock of black swans is looking for places
to land.
I quit watching tv, listening to the radio, and reading newspapers long ago. The news
desert isn't new or peculiar to this moment. I haven't seen much of interest in the news from
any source since the election. The noise of social media and celebrity news does seem turned
up higher recently, although I base this judgment on occasional peeks at magazines or
snatches of NPR. After the last election I gave up on the possibility that we still had a
democracy in this country. Over the last several years I've had some expensive and unpleasant
dealings with local government, the schools, law enforcement, the courts, and government
agencies in helping one and then the other of my children through difficulties which
confirmed in the particular all my worst beliefs about the decay of our government and legal
systems. In short my personal anxiety has been at a high level for some time now and I can't
say its peaked lately. I don't get out and around enough to get a good sense of how others
feel and certainly can't judge whether this moment is a moment of peaking anxiety. When I've
been in the City and nearby cities I've long had a feeling of passing through a valley
between mountains of very dry tender. I hold my head low and walk quickly to my destinations.
Every so often I warn my children to move out, but they don't listen.
This is an excellent post and valid observations. Things don't seem right. I blame old age
and being awaken by F-16s on combat patrols out of Andrews. For me the frame changed with the
restart of the Cold War. I remember "Duck and Cover, McCarthyism, John Birchers, and Who Lost
China". It has all come back. The Democrats are idiots for scapegoating Russia. President
Donald Trump is incompetent. Scott Pruitt must fly first class because he cannot sit next to
riff-raft like me who worked at his Agency for 37 years and hear that he has sold out the
earth for short term gain and profit. America is at war, inside and out, with no way of
winning.
I am going to try to see if I can make sense of what has been happening the past few years
but I could easily be as wrong as the next person but will try nonetheless. In reading the
comments I can see the tension seeping through so to try to come to terms with it I will use
the US as my focus though I could just as easily be talking about any other western country
like the UK, Germany, Australia, France, etc. The US though is at the forefront of these
changes so should be mentioned first.
The American people are now in what the military call a fire-sac and the door has been
slammed shut behind them. What is more, I think they realize it. A few threads need
mentioning here. A study that came out last year showed that what Americans wanted their
government to do never becomes a consideration unless it aligned what some upper echelon also
wanted. People want a military pull-back but are ignored and now find that American troops
are digging into Syria and are scattered in places like Africa with the military wanting to
go head-to-head with North Korea, Russia, China and a host of other nations. It has become
blatantly obvious too that their vaunted free media has become little more than Pravda on the
Potomac and in fact has aligning with the wealthy against the interests of the American
people. The media is even helping bring in censorship as they know that their position is
untenable. The entire political establishment is now recognized as a rigged deck with radical
neoliberal politicians in charge and at the last election the best candidates that they could
find out of 330 million Americans were Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The massive industry
that built America has been mostly disassembled and shipped overseas and without the wealth
and skills that it generated, infrastructure has been left to rack and ruin when it should be
a core government function. Climate change cannot be ignored anymore and is starting to bite.
Even the Pentagon is realising that some of its vaunted bases will be underwater in decades.
I am sure other commentators can list yet more trends here but you get the picture.
OK, so there are massive problems but they can be faced and taken on but here is the kicker.
The political establishment in your country does not want anything to change but to keep
doing what is generated these problems. There is too much money at stake to change for them.
In fact, one of the two presidential candidates in 2016 was specifically chosen to keep
things going they way that they are. So where does that leave the American people? British
officers have always been taught that when their men were complaining and bitching, that that
was how it was but when the men were very quiet, that was the time to watch them carefully. I
think something similar is at work here. It has not yet coalesced but what I think we are
seeing is the beginnings of a phase shift in America. The unexpected election of Trump was a
precursor but as nothing changed after he was elected the pressure is still building.
Now here is the part where I kick over everybody's tea wagon. In looking for a root cause to
how all these challenges are being pushed down the road to an even worse conclusion, I am
going to have to say that the problem lies in the fact that representative democracy no
longer works. In fact, the representatives in the form of Senators, Reps, Judges and even the
President have been almost totally dislocated from the will of the people. The connection is
mostly not there anymore. It is this disconnection that is frustrating change and is thus
building up pressure. I am all for democracy but the democracy we have is not the only form
there is of democracy. There are others.
What this means is that somehow this is going to have to be changed and if not done
peacefully, then I suspect that it will be done in some other way. That lull in the news may
represent a general milling around if you will until some unknown catalyst appears to give
the beginnings of a push in another direction. How it will work out in practice I do not know
but if a mass of independents were elected in your mid-terms then that may be a good sign of
change coming. If both parties clamp down and continue to keep all others out and continue
with neoliberal policies, well, game on.
We have for the last generation or two, (maybe three?) been relentlessly conditioned (name
your puppet-master of choice) to equate happiness and contentment with the never ending
pursuit of keeping up with the Joneses. The competitive underpinnings encouraging our
participation in this futile contest fit well with our innate drives for "success". The race
was over-subscribed by throngs of enthusiastic participants yearning for glory.
For decades many of us did well. We ran strong and felt rewarded with the material
enhancements to our lives, which encouraged many of us to run faster, even if that motivation
was rooted more in the fear of being passed by Ron and Nancy Jones than it was for improving
our chances of ending up on the podium.
Even though we never seemed to catch or pass Ron or Nancy, surely they must have been out
there ahead in the haze somewhere? After all, this was the race that we so eagerly had
trained for. Plus, life was going well while we chased, so we figured it was a fruitful one
to be a part of. All the effort and toil would be worth it in the end.
The slow arc of realization and barely perceptible sense over time (coupled with the self
delusion that comes with resisting acceptance) that we have been duped that this Jones
Marathon has actually been taking place on a treadmill which gradually (hardly
noticeable, but cumulatively significant) has been ratcheted up in both speed and incline,
has now hit home. We have been running for years, but going nowhere. We can't find the stop
button, and don't even want to think what will happen to us if we were to slow down or stop
running! Problem is not only are we are growing physically weary, we are dejected and
defeated in spirit knowing that all our efforts have yielded little other than illusionary
gains.
"... The concern of the American ruling class is not Russian or Chinese "subversion," but the growth of social opposition within the United States. The narrative of "Russian meddling" has been used to justify a systematic campaign to censor the Internet and suppress free speech. ..."
The concern of the American ruling class is not Russian or Chinese "subversion," but the
growth of social opposition within the United States. The narrative of "Russian meddling" has
been used to justify a systematic campaign to censor the Internet and suppress free
speech.
Senator Mark Warner
The performance of Senator Mark Warner , the ranking Democrat on the committee, was
particularly obscene. Warner, whose net worth is estimated at $257 million, appeared to be
doing his best impersonation of Senator Joe McCarthy . He declared that foreign subversion
works together with, and is largely indistinguishable from, "threats to our institutions from
right here at home."
Alluding to the publication of the so-called Nunes memo, which documented the fraudulent
character of the Democratic-led investigation of White House "collusion" with Russia, Warner
noted,
"There have been some, aided and abetted by Russian Internet bots and trolls, who have
attacked the basic integrity of the FBI and the Justice Department."
Responding to questioning from Warner, FBI Director Christopher Wray praised the US
intelligence agencies' greater "engagement" and "partnership" with the private sector,
concluding,
"We can't fully police social media, so we have to work with them so that they can police
themselves."
Wray was referring to the sweeping measures taken by social media companies, working
directly with the US intelligence agencies, to implement a regime of censorship, including
through the hiring of tens of thousands of "content reviewers," many with intelligence
backgrounds, to flag, report and delete content.
The assault on democratic rights is increasingly connected to preparations for a major war,
which will further exacerbate social tensions within the United States. Coats prefaced his
remarks by declaring that "the risk of inter-state conflict, including among great powers, is
higher than at any time since the end of the Cold War."
As the hearing was taking place, multiple news outlets were reporting that potentially
hundreds of Russian military contractors had been killed in a recent US air strike in Syria.
This came just weeks after the publication of the Pentagon's National Defense Strategy, which
declared,
"Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US
national security."
However, the implications of this great-power conflict are not simply external to the US
"homeland." The document argues that "the homeland is no longer a sanctuary," and that "America
is a target," for "political and information subversion" on the part of "revisionist powers"
such as Russia and China.
Since "America's military has no preordained right to victory on the battlefield," the only
way the US can prevail in this conflict is through the "seamless integration of multiple
elements of national power," including "information, economics, finance, intelligence, law
enforcement and military."
In other words, America's supremacy in the new world of great-power conflict requires the
subordination of every aspect of life to the requirements of war. In this totalitarian
nightmare, already far advanced, the police, the military and the intelligence agencies unite
with media and technology companies to form a single seamless unit, whose combined power is
marshaled to manipulate public opinion and suppress political dissent.
The dictatorial character of the measures being prepared was underscored by an exchange
between Wray and Republican Senator Marco Rubio , who asked whether Chinese students were
serving as spies for Beijing.
"What is the counterintelligence risk posed to US national security from Chinese students,
particularly those in advanced programs in the sciences and mathematics?" asked Rubio.
Wray responded that
"the use of nontraditional collectors, especially in the academic setting, whether it's
professors, scientists, students, we see in almost every field office that the FBI has around
the country, not just in major cities, small ones as well, basically every discipline."
This campaign, with racist overtones, recalls the official rationale -- defense of "national
security" -- used to justify the internment of some 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry during
the Second World War.
In its open letter calling for a
coalition of socialist, antiwar and progressive websites against Internet censorship, the
World Socialist Web Site noted that
"the ruling class has identified the Internet as a mortal threat to its monopolization of
information and its ability to promote propaganda to wage war and legitimize the obscene
concentration of wealth and extreme social inequality."
It is this mortal threat -- and fear of the growth of class conflict -- that motivate the
lies and hypocrisy on display at the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.
"... Paul Brian is a freelance journalist. He has reported for BBC, Reuters, and Foreign Policy, and contributed to the Week, The Federalist, and others. He covered the fledgling U.S. alt-right at a 2014 conference in Hungary as well as the 2015 New Hampshire primary, and also made a documentary about his time living in the Republic of Georgia in 2012. You can follow him on Twitter @paulrbrian or visit his website www.paulrbrian.com . ..."
The hawks and internationalists who set our house on fire don't now deserve the contract to rebuild it.
While it may have significant popular support, much of the anti-Trump "Resistance" suffers from a severe weakness of message.
Part of the problem is with who the Resistance's leading messengers are: discredited neoconservative poltroons like former president
George W. Bush, unwatchable alleged celebrities like Chelsea Handler, and establishment Republicans who routinely
slash and burn the middle class like Senator Jeff Flake. Furthermore, what exactly is the Resistance's overriding message? Invariably
their sermonizing revolves around vague bromides about "tolerance," diversity, unrestricted free trade, and multilateralism. They
routinely push a supposed former status quo that was in fact anything but a status quo. The leaders of the Resistance have in their
arsenal nothing but buzzwords and a desire to feel self-satisfied and turn back to imagined pre-Trump normality. A president like
Donald Trump is only possible in a country with opposition voices of such subterranean caliber.
Remember when Trump steamrolled a crowded field of Republicans in one of the greatest electoral upsets in American history? Surely
many of us also recall the troupes of smug celebrities and Bushes and Obamas who lined up to take potshots at Trump over his unacceptably
cruel utterances that upset their noble moral sensibilities? How did that work out for them? They lost. The more that opposition
to Trump in office takes the same form as opposition to him on the campaign trail, the more hypocritical and counterproductive it
becomes. Further, the resistance to Trump's policies is coming just at the moment when principled opposition most needs to up its
game and help turn back the hands of the Doomsday Clock. It's social conservatives who are also opposed to war and exploitation of
the working class who have the best moral bona fides to effectively oppose Trump, which is why morally phrased attacks on Trump from
the corporate and socially liberal wings of the left, as well as the free market and interventionist conservative establishment,
have failed and will continue to fail. Any real alternative is going to have to come from regular folks with hearts and morals who
aren't stained by decades of failure and hypocrisy.
A majority of Democrats now have
favorable views
of George W. Bush, and that's no coincidence. Like the supposedly reasonable anti-Trump voices on their side, Bush pops up like a
dutiful marionette to condemn white supremacy and
"nativism," and to
reminisce about the good old days when he was in charge. Bush also lectures about how Russia is ruining everything by meddling in
elections and destabilizing the world. But how convincing is it really to hear about multilateralism and respect for human rights
from Bush, who launched an unnecessary war on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and left thousands of American
servicemen and women dead and wounded? How convincing is it when former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who famously remarked
that an estimated half a million Iraqis dead from our 1990s sanctions was "worth it," haughtily claims that she's
"offended" by Trump's travel ban ? "Offended" -- is that so, Madame Secretary? I have a feeling millions of Muslims in the Middle
East may have also been "offended" when people like you helped inflame their region and turned it into an endless back-and-forth
firestorm of conflict between U.S.-backed dictators and brutal jihadists, with everyone else caught in between.
Maybe instead of being offended that not everyone can come to America, people like Albright, Kerry, and Bush shouldn't have contributed
to the conditions that wrecked those people's homes in the first place? Maybe the U.S. government should think more closely about
providing military aid to 73 percent of the world's dictatorships? Sorry, do excuse the crazy talk. Clearly all the ruthless
maneuvering by the U.S. and NATO is just being done out of a selfless desire to spread democratic values by raining down LGBT-friendly
munitions on beleaguered populations worldwide. Another congressman just gave a speech about brave democratic principles so we can
all relax.
Generally, U.S. leaders like to team up with dictators before turning on them when they become inconvenient or start to upset
full-spectrum dominance. Nobody have should been surprised to see John Kerry fraternizing in a friendly manner with Syrian butcher
Bashar al-Assad and then moralistically threatening him with war several years later, or Donald Rumsfeld grinning with Saddam Hussein
as they cooperated militarily before Rumsfeld did an about-face on the naïve dictator based on false premises after 9/11. Here's
former president Barack Obama
shaking Moammar Gaddafi's hand in 2009 . I wonder what became of Mr. Gaddafi?
It's beyond parody to hear someone like Bush sternly opine that there's
"pretty clear evidence" Russia meddled in the 2016 election. Even if that were deeply significant in the way some argue, Bush
should be the last person anyone is hearing from about it. It's all good, though: remember when Bush
laughed about how there hadn't been weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2004? It's all just a joke; don't you get it? (Maybe Saddam Hussein had already
used all the chemical weapons
the U.S. helped him get during the 1980s on Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, which killed over one million people by the time the coalition
of the willing came knocking in 2003). That's the kind of thing people like Bush like to indirectly joke about in the company of
self-satisfied press ghouls at celebratory dinners. However, when the mean man Mr. Trump pals around with Russian baddie Vladimir
Putin, mistreats women, or spews out unkind rhetoric about "shitholes," it's far from a joke: it's time to get out your two-eared
pink hat and hit the streets chanting in righteous outrage.
To be fair, Trump is worthy of opposition. An ignorant, reactive egotist who needs to have his unfounded suppositions and inaccuracies
constantly validated by a sycophantic staff of people who'd be rejected even for a reality show version of the White House, he really
is an unstable excuse for a leader and an inveterate misogynist and all the other things. Trump isn't exactly Bible Belt material
despite his stamp of approval from Jerry Falwell Jr. and crew; in fact he hasn't even succeeded in
getting rid of the Johnson Amendment and allowing churches to get more involved in politics, one of his few concrete promises
to Christian conservatives. He's also a big red button of a disaster in almost every other area as commander-in-chief.
Trump's first military action as president reportedly killed numerous innocent women and children (some unnamed U.S. officials
claim some of the women were militants) as well as a Navy SEAL. Helicopter gunships strafed a Yemeni village for over an hour in
what Trump called a
"highly successful" operation against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). A senior military official felt differently,
saying that
"almost
everything went wrong." The raid even killed eight-year-old American girl Nawar al-Awlaki, daughter of previously killed extremist
leader Anwar al-Awlaki, whose other innocent child, 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was also droned while eating outdoors at a
restaurant in 2010 (with several friends and his 17-year-old cousin). The Obama administration dismissed Abdulrahman's death at the
time as
no big deal .
The list goes on with the Trump administration, a hollow outfit of Goldman Sachs operatives and detached industry and financier
billionaires helping out their hedge fund friends and throwing a small table scrap to the peasants every now and then. As
deformed babies are born in Flint, Michigan , Ivanka grandstands about
paid parental leave
. Meanwhile, Trump and Co. work to
expand the war in Afghanistan
and Syria. It's a sad state of affairs.
So who are the right voices to oppose the mango man-child and his cadre of doddering dullards? Not degenerate celebrities, dirty
politicians of the past, or special interest groups that try to fit everyone into a narrow electoral box so mainline Democrats can
pass their own version of corporate welfare and run wars with more sensitive rhetoric and politically correct messaging. Instead,
the effective dissidents of the future will be people of various beliefs, but especially the pro-family and faith-driven, who are
just as opposed to what came before Trump as they are to him. The future of a meaningful political alternative to the underlying
liberalism, materialism, and me-first individualism on the left and right will revolve around traditionalists and pro-family conservative
individuals who define their own destinies instead of letting themselves be engineered into destinies manufactured by multinational
corporations and boardroom gremlins with diversity outreach strategies. It's possible, for example, to be socially conservative,
pro-worker, pro-environment, and anti-war. In fact, that is the norm in most countries that exist outside the false political
paradigm pushed in America.
If enough suburbanite centrists who take a break from Dancing With The Stars are convinced that Trump is bad because
George W. Bush and Madeleine Albright say so, it shows that these people have learned absolutely nothing from Trump or the process
that led to him. These kind of resistors are the people nodding their heads emphatically as they read Eliot Cohen talk about why
he and his friends
can't stomach the evil stench of Trump or
Robert Kagan whine about fascism in The Washington Post. Here's a warning to good people who may not have been following
politics closely prior to Trump: don't get taken in by these charlatans. Don't listen to those who burned your town down as they
pitch you the contract to rebuild it. You can oppose both the leaders of the "Resistance" and Trump. In fact, it is your moral duty
to do so. This is the End of the End of History As We Know It, but there isn't going to be an REM song or Will Smith punching an
alien in the face to help everyone through it.
Here's a thought for those finding themselves enthusiastic about the Resistance and horrified by Trump: maybe, just maybe
, the water was already starting to boil before you cried out in pain and alarm.
Paul Brian is a freelance journalist. He has reported for BBC, Reuters, and Foreign Policy, and contributed to the Week, The
Federalist, and others. He covered the fledgling U.S. alt-right at a 2014 conference in Hungary as well as the 2015 New Hampshire
primary, and also made a documentary about his time living in the Republic of Georgia in 2012. You can follow him on Twitter @paulrbrian
or visit his website www.paulrbrian.com .
"The future of a meaningful political alternative to the underlying liberalism, materialism, and me-first individualism on the
left and right will revolve around traditionalists and pro-family conservative individuals who define their own destinies instead
of letting themselves be engineered into destinies manufactured by multinational corporations and boardroom gremlins with diversity
outreach strategies."
They will have to lose their faith in "Free Market God" first. I don't believe that will happen.
I enjoyed the heat. The comments made are on point, and this is pretty much what my standard response to reactionary trump dissidents
are. Trump is terrible, but so is what came before him, he is just easier to dislike.
Even with inadequate opposition, Trump has managed to be the most unpopular president after one year, ever. I'm guessing this
speaks to his unique talent of messing things up.
Wow! Paul! Babylon burning. Preach it, brother! Takes me back to my teenage years, Ramparts 1968, as another corrupt infrastructure
caught fire and burned down. TAC is amazing, the only place to find this in true form.
Either we are history remembering fossils soon gone, or the next financial crash – now inevitable with passage of tax reform
(redo of 2001- the rich got their money out, now full speed off the cliff), will bring down this whole mass of absolute corruption.
What do you think will happen when Trump is faced with a true crisis? They're selling off the floorboards. What can remain standing?
And elsewhere in the world, who, in their right mind, would help us? Good riddance to truly dangerous pathology. The world
would truly become safer with the USA decommissioned, and then restored, through honest travail, to humility, and humanity.
You are right. Be with small town, front porch, family and neighborhood goodness, and dodge the crashing embers.
The Flying Burrito Brothers: 'On the thirty-first floor a gold plated door
Won't keep out the Lord's burning rain '
The depressing thing to me is how hard it is to get people to see this. You have people who still think Trump is doing a great
job and on the other side people who admire the warmongering Resistance and think Hillary's vast experience in foreign policy
was one of her strengths, rather than one of the main reasons to be disgusted by her. Between the two categories I think you have
the majority of American voters.
One year later we can say with confidence, yes he morphed into a neocon in foreign policy.
What is especially bad is that Trump executed "bait and switch" maneuver as smoothly as Obama. Devastating.
Notable quotes:
"... So now it gets me thinking like this: Who are Mr. Bandow's clients today? ..."
"... Some say that the reason for Trump's total reversal of his campaign-position on Russia is the American Deep State (the U.S. aristocracy and its agents). I agree with that view. ..."
"... I believe the American people are beginning to realize the CIA has the obsession for multiple, unending wars all for the benefit of Wall Street. ..."
"... It appears "military-industrial complex" or "deep state" refuses to take step back and insists on sucking more money from taxpayers. On first glance all is great for them, bombing of Middle East will continue, and so will military expansion at cost of civilian programs. However, ramifications to rest of the world should not be dismissed. EU countries are divided on following Washington hard line against Russia or diverge with USA. Currently, EU is cracking and might fall apart. Some in USA would cheer it but in long run it will mean loss of strongest US supporter against China. Regarding Middle East, Trump punished victims of AlQaeda and did nothing against financiers of AlQaeda, which will only increase local tensions. So indeed, not a great start... ..."
"... While I basically agree that Trump is not following through on his campaign, we must keep in mind that the campaign of his opponent was for MUCH more of the same, new wars, vastly increased fighting in current wars. So more of the same is in fact a big step down from the alternative. ..."
"... Stop those wars. They don't serve us. ..."
"... Trump's a liar, and his whole campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. We're the victims of a "bait-and-switch" scam. ..."
"... Because he lied. Just like he lied about draining the swamp and just restocked it with new varmints from Goldman Sachs and even an ex-Soros employee. Nothing new for me. Been watching elections for about 60 years and this is same ole. America can't take much more of this before it collapses and splits apart. The world isn't going to take much more from dc either. God help us. We are in a pickle! ..."
Candidate Donald Trump offered a sharp break from his predecessors. He was particularly critical of neoconservatives, who
seemed to back war at every turn.
Indeed, he promised not to include in his administration "those who have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except
responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war." And he's generally kept that commitment, for
instance rejecting as deputy secretary of state Elliot Abrams, who said Trump was unfit to be president.
Substantively candidate Trump appeared to offer not so much a philosophy as an inclination. Practical if not exactly realist, he
cared more for consequences than his three immediate predecessors, who had treated wars as moral crusades in Somalia, the
Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. In contrast, Trump promised: "unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and
aggression will not be my first instinct."
Yet so far the Trump administration is shaping up as a disappointment for those who hoped for a break from the liberal
interventionist/neoconservative synthesis.
The first problem is staffing. In Washington people are policy. The president can speak and tweet, but he needs others to turn
ideas into reality and implement his directives. It doesn't appear that he has any foreign policy realists around him, or anyone
with a restrained view of America's international responsibilities.
Rex Tillerson, James Mattis and H. R. McMaster are all serious and talented, and none are neocons. But all seem inclined toward
traditional foreign policy approaches and committed to moderating their boss's unconventional thoughts. Most of the names
mentioned for deputy secretary of state have been reliably hawkish, or some combination of hawk and centrist-Abrams, John Bolton,
the rewired Jon Huntsman.
Trump appears to be most concerned with issues that have direct domestic impacts, and especially with economic nostrums about
which he is most obviously wrong. He's long been a protectionist (his anti-immigration opinions are of more recent vintage). Yet
his views have not changed even as circumstances have. The Chinese once artificially limited the value of the renminbi, but
recently have taken the opposite approach. The United States is not alone in losing manufacturing jobs, which are disappearing
around the world and won't be coming back. Multilateral trade agreements are rarely perfect, but they are not zero sum games.
They usually offer political as well as economic benefits. Trump does not seem prepared to acknowledge this, at least
rhetorically. Indeed he has brought on board virulent opponents of free trade such as Peter Navarro.
The administration's repudiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership was particularly damaging. Trump's decision embarrassed
Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, who had offered important economic concessions to join. More important, Trump has abandoned
the economic field to the People's Republic of China, which is pushing two different accords. Australia, among other U.S. allies,
has indicated that it now will deal with Beijing, which gets to set the Pacific trade agenda. In this instance, what's good for
China is bad for the United States.
In contrast, on more abstract foreign policy issues President Trump seems ready to treat minor concessions as major victories and
move on. For years he criticized America's Asian and European allies for taking advantage of U.S. defense generosity. In his
March foreign policy speech, he complained that "our allies are not paying their fair share." During the campaign he suggested
refusing to honor NATO's Article 5 commitment and leave countries failing to make sufficient financial contributions to their
fate.
Yet Secretaries Mattis and Tillerson have insisted that Washington remains committed to the very same alliances incorporating
dependence on America. Worse, in his speech to Congress the president took credit for the small uptick in military outlays by
European NATO members which actually began in 2015: "based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning" to "meet
their financial obligations." Although he declared with predictable exaggeration that "the money is pouring in," no one believes
that Germany, which will go from 1.19 to 1.22 percent of GDP this year, will nearly double its outlays to hit even the NATO
standard of two percent.
Trump's signature policy initiative, rapprochement with Russia, appears dead in the water. Unfortunately, the president's strange
personal enthusiasm for Vladimir Putin undercut his desire to accommodate a great power which has no fundamental, irresolvable
conflicts with the America. Contrary to neocon history, Russia and America have often cooperated in the past. Moreover, President
Trump's attempt to improve relations faces strong ideological opposition from neoconservatives determined to have a new enemy and
partisan resistance from liberal Democrats committed to undermining the new administration.
President Trump also appears to have no appointees who share his commitment on this issue. At least Trump's first National
Security Adviser, Mike Flynn, wanted better relations with Russia, amid other, more dubious beliefs, but now the president seems
alone. In fact, Secretary Tillerson sounded like he was representing the Obama administration when he demanded Moscow's
withdrawal from Crimea, a policy nonstarter. Ambassador-designate Huntsman's views are unclear, but he will be constrained by the
State Department bureaucracy, which is at best unimaginative and at worst actively obstructionist.
"Unfortunately, the president's strange personal enthusiasm for Vladimir Putin undercut his desire to accommodate a great power
which has no fundamental, irresolvable conflicts with the America."
I did my due diligence on the writer after this absolutely baffling argument that has no basis on certain fundamental laws
of geopolitics. Referring to this:
https://www.bloomberg.com/n...
So now it gets me thinking like this: Who are Mr. Bandow's clients today? Figures...
Some say that the reason for Trump's total reversal of his campaign-position on Russia is the American Deep State (the U.S.
aristocracy and its agents). I agree with that view.
And other say you're a sap for believing a bunch of half-baked one-liners that Trump often contradicted in the same sentence...
He never had a coherent policy on anything, no less foreign policy... so don't complain now that he's showing his true colors
The USA should FORCE other nations to use DIPLOMACY as a means to preventing wars. If they don't, they lose all support, financial
and otherwise, from the USA. This would include Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The only thing Trump should take a look at in all this
is the INHUMANE policies that previous administrations have used to placate the military/industrial clique's appetite for money
and blood! If it's going to be "America First" for Trump's administration, it better start diverting this blood money to shore
up America's people and infrastructures!
Most of these issues come down to the fact that President Trump doesn't have anything resembling a "grand strategy", or even
a coherent foreign policy. His views are often at odds with each other (his desire to counter China economically and his opposition
to the TPP, for example), and I suspect that most were motivated by a desire to get votes more than any kind of deep understanding
of global affairs.
Most of his supporters, at least from what I can tell, are actually quite resolutely against entering a new war, and are strongly
condemnatory of the neo-conservatism that involved the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In fact, according to the polls taken at the time, more Democrats favored military intervention in Syria than Republicans did.
It appears "military-industrial complex" or "deep state" refuses to take step back and insists on sucking more money from taxpayers.
On first glance all is great for them, bombing of Middle East will continue, and so will military expansion at cost of civilian
programs. However, ramifications to rest of the world should not be dismissed. EU countries are divided on following Washington
hard line against Russia or diverge with USA. Currently, EU is cracking and might fall apart. Some in USA would cheer it but in
long run it will mean loss of strongest US supporter against China. Regarding Middle East, Trump punished victims of AlQaeda and
did nothing against financiers of AlQaeda, which will only increase local tensions. So indeed, not a great start...
While I basically agree that Trump is not following through on his campaign, we must keep in mind that the campaign of his
opponent was for MUCH more of the same, new wars, vastly increased fighting in current wars. So more of the same is in fact a
big step down from the alternative.
That does not excuse doing more of the same, but just asserts that we did get some of what we voted for/against.
We should get the rest of it. Stop those wars. They don't serve us.
There are similarities between Trump and Putin . The GOP and its rich corporate members have decided to use Trump as the oligarchs
in Russia used Yeltsin. The oligarchs used a drunken Yeltsin to pry the natural resources out of the public commons for the grabbing
by the oligarchs. Likewise, our rich are going to use an unwitting Trump to lower their taxes to nothing while delivering austerity
to the 99%.
To the oligarchs' surprise and dismay, Yeltsin's incompetence led to Putin and his scourge of the oligarchs. So will Trump's incompetence
lead to the end of our system of crony capitalism and the rebirth of socialism such as the New Deal, and higher taxes.
The crooked bastards can never be satisfied even with 3/4 ths of the whole pie, so no-one should pity them for being hoisted on
their own petard.
I'm sorry --- Trump had a foreign policy? As near as I can tell, he just said whatever the crowd in front of him wanted to
hear. Or do you have evidence to the contrary? Remember that this is a man who can be shown, in his own words, to have been on
all sides of almost every issue, depending on the day of the week, and the phase of the moon.
He, they, the US, that is, must obey Israel. Israel wants Assad gone in the end for their territorial expansion. It also helps
the oil companies and isolates Russia further into a geostrategic corner.
This headline is way over the top. The first and foremost foreign policy statement which brought numerous voters to Trump was
the US-Mexico wall and at least some of that wall will be constructed. Hence it is the only promise which has not (yet) changed
except for who will pay for it.
Why must we give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume that his campaign presentations were made in good faith? That is
a very generous assumption.
There's a simple and more logical explanation for what's going on with "foreign policy" in the "Trump" administration:
Trump's
a liar, and his whole campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. We're the victims of a "bait-and-switch" scam.
Because he lied. Just like he lied about draining the swamp and just restocked it with new varmints from Goldman Sachs and
even an ex-Soros employee. Nothing new for me. Been watching elections for about 60 years and this is same ole. America can't
take much more of this before it collapses and splits apart. The world isn't going to take much more from dc either. God help
us. We are in a pickle!
The fundamental problem of exonerating Trump and blaming this non-reversal on the non-existing "deep state" is believing that
anything a candidate said on the campaign trail can be executed when that candidate becomes president. Such reversal has happened
so frequently in our history that it is truly amazing that " he does not do what he promised" still has adherents.
There is no reversal. I see reality clashing with words. I do not blame Trump for reversals. I see some shift from unrealistic
to more realistic. It is called learning on the job.
Every political position on the planet is stuck in the 80s. There is no one with a will to change what is happening, mostly
because no one wants to get tarred and feathered once the:
a) economy implodes upon itself in the most glorious Depression to
ever happen, and;
b) world war 3 erupts but engaging such a variety of opponents, from Islam to China and Russia and even minor
trivial players such as North Korea, and;
c) civil disobedience in the western world rivals that of even third world revolutions
as people revolt against a failure to protect them from Islamic violence, to preserve their standard of living and their perceived
futures. Lots of change coming, but nothing that any politician is promising.
Politicians are dinosaurs. We are entering a world
where large numbers of people will make things happen. It's called Democracy.
Trump will remain close to Putin ideologically and he might continue to admire the man as a strong leader BUT there is one
thing that neither Putin nor Trump can change and it is that Russia and America are natural rivals. Geopolitics. Land vs Sea.
Eurasia vs Atlantic. Heartland vs Outer Rim.
Trump is hawk, don't be mislead. You cannot have a great country if you're not willing
to kill and die for it. Russia knows that. Which is why Putin made Russia great again after the horror of the Yeltsin years. Now
America knows that too.
"... What kind of a moron would believe the Steele dossier on Trump and Russia? Lots of Democrat and hollywood elite morons and lots of morons at MSNBC and CNN. It's so transparently partisan, outrageous and full of fictitious claims, the dossier reads like a parody of a badly written spy novel. ..."
"... It is funny to watch how they are divided (republicans and democrats) on domestic issues but they are as one on aggressive and militaristic foreign policies. Bomb, invade, bomb... rinse and repeat. No objection from either side. ..."
"... Watch Jerome Corsi and James Kalstrom great video's about all the felony crimes Barry's DNC/DOJ/FBI were involved in including the dossier. ..."
"... to deflect the Seth Rich /WikiLeaks affair...and the Keystone Kops have been tripping all over as well as tripping up themselves ever since trying to "make it happen"...and if it was not for almost the "entire" mainstream media 'covering' for them many more people would actually realize that they are the biggest 'comedy' in town... ..."
What kind of a moron would believe the Steele dossier on Trump and Russia? Lots of Democrat
and hollywood elite morons and lots of morons at MSNBC and CNN. It's so transparently partisan, outrageous and full of fictitious claims, the dossier reads
like a parody of a badly written spy novel.
Amazingly, the dossier is what the FBI used to justify spying on American citizens.
Tucker Carlson easily debunks the many claims that Democrats in Congress repeatedly cited as
reason to stop the normal functioning of government, so that millions of tax payer dollars can
be spent trying to figure out if Trump has been a Russian spy for the last 10 years.
It is funny to watch how they are divided (republicans and democrats) on domestic issues
but they are as one on aggressive and militaristic foreign policies. Bomb, invade, bomb...
rinse and repeat. No objection from either side.
No need to convince me Tucker...have been calling them morons with regards to "Putin did
it" since the ex "moron in chief"...who by the way is now a certified fifth columnist with
the blessing of the treasonous mainstream media...insinuated as much after the "loser"
lost....to deflect the Seth Rich /WikiLeaks affair...and the Keystone Kops have been tripping
all over as well as tripping up themselves ever since trying to "make it happen"...and if it
was not for almost the "entire" mainstream media 'covering' for them many more people would
actually realize that they are the biggest 'comedy' in town...
That was always one of the things that most unnerved me about Trump from the start: what,
exactly, motivated him to run? (The other thing about him that bothered me was his
overweening Zionism.) The idea that he was some kind of plant certainly did occur to me, but
the MSM didn't treat him the way they usually treat 'The Chosen One'. Compare him with the
treatment the MSM gave that other 'outside, nontradional' candidate, Emmanuel Macron.
So what did motivate Trump? Ego? Vainglory? Some burning conviction somewhere? I
still don't know. One way or the other, though, I'm pretty sure that MAGA is dead.
"So what did motivate Trump? Ego? Vainglory? Some burning conviction somewhere? I still
don't know."
Several lines of reasoning point me to the conclusion that Orange Clown is a "deep cover"
or "sleeper" agent that's been "waiting in the wings" for his Zionist masters' call.
I believe that the political ascendancy of Orange Clown should be seen as a sign of
Zionist desperation.
Anyway, one valid line of reasoning, IMO, is to rule out anything else. At 70 years old,
Orange Clown is no spring chicken. So why would he run run NOW?
If he had actually followed through on his campaign rhetoric, or at least some of it, he'd
be considered a true American hero, IMO. He's going to finally get us out of NATO? He's going
to pull out of the hopeless war in Afghanistan and cut out the costly and self-destructive
nation building crap? He's going to collaborate with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
and finally investigate the worst crime in U.S. history?
If so he'd go down in history as a modern American revolutionary. The guy that
single-handedly saved America from the "beast". And he's going to begin this herculean task
at the age 70 years old? Seriously? How many historical examples are there where a 70 year
old all of a sudden became a political visionary and led a revolution?
He's at the age where most people suffer cognitive decline, prostate problems, etc., but
he's going to square off against "the powers that be", put himself at risk of assassination
and lead a revolution in American politics? I just can't accept that.
Okay, but what about if he wanted to be president "just for a taste of power"? And that's
a fair question, IMO.
That may explain why he wouldn't necessarily give a damn about following through on his
campaign promises, but it doesn't explain why he would reverse himself on everything of
major
"... In my experience as a journalist, the public have always been ahead of the media. And yet, in many news outlets there has always been a kind of veiled contempt for the public. You find young journalists affecting a false cynicism that they think ordains them as journalists. The cynicism is not about the people at the top, it's about the people at the bottom, the people that Hillary Clinton dismissed as "irredeemable." ..."
"... CNN and NBC and the rest of the networks have been the voices of power and have been the source of distorted news for such a long time. They are not circling the wagons because the wagons are on the wrong side. These people in the mainstream have been an extension of the power that has corrupted so much of our body politic. They have been the sources of so many myths. ..."
"... Media in the West is now an extension of imperial power. It is no longer a loose extension, it is a direct extension. Whether or not it has fallen out with Donald Trump is completely irrelevant. It is lined up with all the forces that want to get rid of Donald Trump. He is not the one they want in the White House, they wanted Hillary Clinton, who is safer and more reliable. ..."
"... I have found that those who voted for Clinton are very quick to swallow what mainstream media has to say, and those that voted for Trump, at this moment, hold the media in contempt, however they also very willingly accept Trump's policies and his lies ..."
"... I would like to add, that In the US most of Americans are usually ignorant of politics and government. Many believe that their votes are unlikely to change the outcome of an election and don't see the point in learning much about the subject. So we have a country of people with little political knowledge and little ability to objectively evaluate what they do know. ..."
Randy Credico: A lot of mainstream journalists complain when Trump refers to them as the enemy of the people, but they
have shown themselves to be very unwilling to circle the wagons around Assange. What is the upshot for journalists of Assange being
taken down?
John Pilger: Trump knows which nerves to touch. His campaign against the mainstream media may even help to get him re-elected,
because most people don't trust the mainstream media anymore.
In my experience as a journalist, the public have always been ahead of the media. And yet, in many news outlets there has
always been a kind of veiled contempt for the public. You find young journalists affecting a false cynicism that they think ordains
them as journalists. The cynicism is not about the people at the top, it's about the people at the bottom, the people that Hillary
Clinton dismissed as "irredeemable."
CNN and NBC and the rest of the networks have been the voices of power and have been the source of distorted news for such
a long time. They are not circling the wagons because the wagons are on the wrong side. These people in the mainstream have been
an extension of the power that has corrupted so much of our body politic. They have been the sources of so many myths.
This latest film about The Post neglects to mention that The Washington Post was a passionate supporter of the Vietnam
War before it decided to have a moral crisis about whether to publish the Pentagon Papers. Today, TheWashington Post
has a $600 million deal with the CIA to supply them with information.
Media in the West is now an extension of imperial power. It is no longer a loose extension, it is a direct extension. Whether
or not it has fallen out with Donald Trump is completely irrelevant. It is lined up with all the forces that want to get rid of Donald
Trump. He is not the one they want in the White House, they wanted Hillary Clinton, who is safer and more reliable.
I've always liked Mr. Pilger, and Mr. Parry, of course, and Hedges and so on However in this statement made by Mr. Pilger,
"Trump knows which nerves to touch. His campaign against the mainstream media may even help to get him re-elected, because most
people don't trust the mainstream media anymore." I would really disagree based on my own personal experiences. I have found
that those who voted for Clinton are very quick to swallow what mainstream media has to say, and those that voted for Trump, at
this moment, hold the media in contempt, however they also very willingly accept Trump's policies and his lies, like his
climate change denial and his position on Iran. It's more about taking sides then it is in being interested in the truth.
Annie , January 24, 2018 at 4:33 pm
I would like to add, that In the US most of Americans are usually ignorant of politics and government. Many believe that
their votes are unlikely to change the outcome of an election and don't see the point in learning much about the subject. So we
have a country of people with little political knowledge and little ability to objectively evaluate what they do know.
Joe Tedesky , January 24, 2018 at 6:28 pm
You got that right Annie. In fact I know people who voted for Hillary, and they wake up every morning to turn on MSNBC or CNN
only to hear what Trump tweeted, because they like getting pissed off at Trump, and get even more self induced angry when they
don't hear his impeachment being shouted out on the screen.
I forgive a lot of these types who don't get into the news, because it just isn't their thing I guess, but I get even madder
that we don't have a diversified media enough to give people the complete story. I mean a brilliant media loud enough, and objective
enough, to reach the mass uncaring community. We have talked about this before, about the MSM's omission of the news, as to opposed
just lying they do that too, as you know Annie, and it's a crime against a free press society. In fact, I not being a lawyer,
would not be surprised that this defect in our news is not Constitutional.
Although, less and less people are watching the news, because they know it's phony, have you noticed how political our Late
Night Talk Show Host have become? Hmmm boy, sometimes you have to give it to the Deep State because they sure know how to cover
the market of dupes. To bad the CIA isn't selling solar panels, or something beneficial like that, which could help our ailing
world.
We are living in a Matrix of left vs right, liberal vs conservative, all of us are on the divide, and that's the way it suppose
to be. You know I don't mean that, but that's what the Deep State has done to us, for a lack of a better description of their
evil unleashed upon the planet.
I like reading your thoughts, because you go kind of deep, and you come up with angles not thought of, well at least not by
me so forgive me if I reply to often. Joe
Annie , January 24, 2018 at 10:18 pm
I know I keep referring to Facebook, but it really allows you to see how polarized people have become. Facebook posts political
non issues, but nonetheless they will elicit comments that are downright hateful. Divide and conquer is something I often think
when I view these comments. I rarely watch TV, but enough to see how TV Talk Show hosts have gotten into the act, and Trump supplies
them with an endless source of material, not that their discussing core issues either.
I don't remember whether I mentioned this before in a recent article on this site, but when a cousin posts a response to a
comment I made about our militarism and how many millions have died as a result that all countries do sneaky and underhanded things,
I can only think people don't want to hear the truth either, and that's why most are so vulnerable to our propaganda, which is
we are the exceptional nation that can do no wrong. Those who are affluent want to maintain the status quo, and those that live
pay check to pay check are vulnerable to Trump's lies, and the lies of the Republican party whose interest lie with the top 1
percent.
Kiza , January 25, 2018 at 12:36 am
Talking about lies you mention only Trump and the Republicans Annie. Is this because the Democrats are such party of criminals
that you consider them worth mentioning only in the crime chronic not in the context of lies?
About that "Climate Change" religion of yours: how much does it make sense that people around US are freezing but TPTB still
want to tax fossil fuels, the only one thing which can keep people warm? Does that not look to your left-wing mind as taking
from the poor to give to the Green & Connected ? Will a wind-turbine or a solar-panel keep you warm on a -50 degree day? I
am yet to live to see one green-scheme which is not for the benefit of the Green & Connected, whilst this constant braying about
global warming renamed into climate change is simply as annoying as the crimes of the Israelis hidden by the media (Did you see
that photo of a 3-year old Palestinian child whose brain was splattered out by an Israeli sniper's bullet? She must have been
throwing stones or slapping Israeli soldiers, right?).
I am not a US voter and I do not care either way which color gang is running your horrible country, because it always turns
out the same. But the blatant criminality of your Demoncrats is only surpassed by their humanitarian sleaze – they always bomb,
kill and rape for the good of humanity or for the greenery or for some other touchy-feelly bull like that, which the left-wing
stupidos can swallow.
Annie , January 25, 2018 at 2:15 am
Oh, Kiza, are you one of those people that patrol the internet for people who dare mention climate change? I have no intentions
of changing your mind on the subject, even though my background is in environmental science with a Masters degree in the subject.
I am not a registered democrat, but an independent and didn't vote for Clinton, or Trump. I'm too much of a liberal. I'm very
aware of the many faults of the democratic party, and you're right about them. They abandoned their working class base decades
ago and they pretty much shun liberals within their own party, and pander to the top 10 percent in this country. Yes, both parties
proclaim their allegiance to their voting base, but both parties are lying, since in my opinion their base is the corporate world
and that world pretty much controls their agenda, and both parties have embraced the neocons that push for war.
P. S. However being fair, the Republican base is the top 1 percent in this country.
Kiza , January 25, 2018 at 6:46 am
Hello again Annie, thank you for your response. I must admit that your mention of climate change triggered an unhappy reaction
in me, otherwise I do think that our views are not far from each other. Thank you for not trying to change my mind on climate
change because you would not have succeeded no matter what your qualifications are. My life experience simply says – always follow
the money and when I do I see a climate mafia similar to the MIC mafia. I did think that the very cold weather that gripped US
would reduce the climate propaganda, but nothing can keep the climate mafia down any more – the high ranked need to pay for their
yachts and private jets and the low ranks have to pay of their house mortgages. But I will never understand why the US lefties
are so dumb – to be so easily taken to imperial wars and so easily convinced to tax the 99% for the benefit of 1% yet again. Where
do you think the nasty fossil fuel producers will find the money to pay for the taxes to be or already imposed? Will they sacrifice
their profits or pay the green taxes from higher prices?
Other than this, I honestly cannot see any difference between the so called Democrats and the so called Republicans (you say
that the Republicans are for the 1%). Both have been scrapping the bottom of the same barrel for their candidates, thus the elections
are always a contest between two disasters.
Sam F , January 25, 2018 at 7:02 am
Good that you both see the bipartisan corruption and can table background issues.
Joe Tedesky , January 25, 2018 at 9:09 am
Yeah Sam I was impressed by their conversation as well. Joe
Bob Van Noy , January 25, 2018 at 11:05 am
I agree, an excellent thread plus a civil disagreement. In my experience, only at CN. Thanks to all of you.
Realist , January 25, 2018 at 1:04 pm
I am with you, Annie, when you state that "They [the Democrats] abandoned their working class base decades ago and they pretty
much shun liberals within their own party, and pander to the top 10 percent in this country." And yet they are so glibly characterised
as "liberal" by nearly everyone in the media (and, of course, by the Republicans). Even the Nate Silver group, whom I used to
think was objective is propagating the drivel that Democrats have become inexorably more liberal–and to the extreme–in their latest
soireé analysing the two parties:
In reality, the Dems are only "liberal" in contrast to the hard right shift of the Republicans over the past 50-60 years. And
what was "extreme" for both parties is being sold to the public as moderate and conventional by the corporate media. It's almost
funny seeing so much public policy being knee-jerk condemned as "leftist" when the American left became extinct decades ago.
Virginia , January 25, 2018 at 12:16 pm
Annie, it's not just the Democrats who are bought and paid for.
Annie , January 25, 2018 at 2:54 pm
Virginia, I didn't say that only the democrats were bought and paid for, but said, " yes, both parties proclaim their allegiance
to their voting base, but both parties are lying, since in my opinion their base is the corporate world and that world pretty
much controls their agenda, and both parties have embraced the neocons that push for war." I also mentioned that the republicans
pander to the top 1 percent in this country.
Virginia , January 25, 2018 at 3:04 pm
And my reply was meant to say,
It's not just the Democrats who pander to the 1% who have bought and paid for them!
"... In my experience as a journalist, the public have always been ahead of the media. And yet, in many news outlets there has always been a kind of veiled contempt for the public. You find young journalists affecting a false cynicism that they think ordains them as journalists. The cynicism is not about the people at the top, it's about the people at the bottom, the people that Hillary Clinton dismissed as "irredeemable." ..."
"... CNN and NBC and the rest of the networks have been the voices of power and have been the source of distorted news for such a long time. They are not circling the wagons because the wagons are on the wrong side. These people in the mainstream have been an extension of the power that has corrupted so much of our body politic. They have been the sources of so many myths. ..."
"... Media in the West is now an extension of imperial power. It is no longer a loose extension, it is a direct extension. Whether or not it has fallen out with Donald Trump is completely irrelevant. It is lined up with all the forces that want to get rid of Donald Trump. He is not the one they want in the White House, they wanted Hillary Clinton, who is safer and more reliable. ..."
"... I have found that those who voted for Clinton are very quick to swallow what mainstream media has to say, and those that voted for Trump, at this moment, hold the media in contempt, however they also very willingly accept Trump's policies and his lies ..."
"... I would like to add, that In the US most of Americans are usually ignorant of politics and government. Many believe that their votes are unlikely to change the outcome of an election and don't see the point in learning much about the subject. So we have a country of people with little political knowledge and little ability to objectively evaluate what they do know. ..."
Randy Credico: A lot of mainstream journalists complain when Trump refers to them as the enemy of the people, but they
have shown themselves to be very unwilling to circle the wagons around Assange. What is the upshot for journalists of Assange being
taken down?
John Pilger: Trump knows which nerves to touch. His campaign against the mainstream media may even help to get him re-elected,
because most people don't trust the mainstream media anymore.
In my experience as a journalist, the public have always been ahead of the media. And yet, in many news outlets there has
always been a kind of veiled contempt for the public. You find young journalists affecting a false cynicism that they think ordains
them as journalists. The cynicism is not about the people at the top, it's about the people at the bottom, the people that Hillary
Clinton dismissed as "irredeemable."
CNN and NBC and the rest of the networks have been the voices of power and have been the source of distorted news for such
a long time. They are not circling the wagons because the wagons are on the wrong side. These people in the mainstream have been
an extension of the power that has corrupted so much of our body politic. They have been the sources of so many myths.
This latest film about The Post neglects to mention that The Washington Post was a passionate supporter of the Vietnam
War before it decided to have a moral crisis about whether to publish the Pentagon Papers. Today, TheWashington Post
has a $600 million deal with the CIA to supply them with information.
Media in the West is now an extension of imperial power. It is no longer a loose extension, it is a direct extension. Whether
or not it has fallen out with Donald Trump is completely irrelevant. It is lined up with all the forces that want to get rid of Donald
Trump. He is not the one they want in the White House, they wanted Hillary Clinton, who is safer and more reliable.
I've always liked Mr. Pilger, and Mr. Parry, of course, and Hedges and so on However in this statement made by Mr. Pilger,
"Trump knows which nerves to touch. His campaign against the mainstream media may even help to get him re-elected, because most
people don't trust the mainstream media anymore." I would really disagree based on my own personal experiences. I have found
that those who voted for Clinton are very quick to swallow what mainstream media has to say, and those that voted for Trump, at
this moment, hold the media in contempt, however they also very willingly accept Trump's policies and his lies, like his
climate change denial and his position on Iran. It's more about taking sides then it is in being interested in the truth.
Annie , January 24, 2018 at 4:33 pm
I would like to add, that In the US most of Americans are usually ignorant of politics and government. Many believe that
their votes are unlikely to change the outcome of an election and don't see the point in learning much about the subject. So we
have a country of people with little political knowledge and little ability to objectively evaluate what they do know.
Joe Tedesky , January 24, 2018 at 6:28 pm
You got that right Annie. In fact I know people who voted for Hillary, and they wake up every morning to turn on MSNBC or CNN
only to hear what Trump tweeted, because they like getting pissed off at Trump, and get even more self induced angry when they
don't hear his impeachment being shouted out on the screen.
I forgive a lot of these types who don't get into the news, because it just isn't their thing I guess, but I get even madder
that we don't have a diversified media enough to give people the complete story. I mean a brilliant media loud enough, and objective
enough, to reach the mass uncaring community. We have talked about this before, about the MSM's omission of the news, as to opposed
just lying they do that too, as you know Annie, and it's a crime against a free press society. In fact, I not being a lawyer,
would not be surprised that this defect in our news is not Constitutional.
Although, less and less people are watching the news, because they know it's phony, have you noticed how political our Late
Night Talk Show Host have become? Hmmm boy, sometimes you have to give it to the Deep State because they sure know how to cover
the market of dupes. To bad the CIA isn't selling solar panels, or something beneficial like that, which could help our ailing
world.
We are living in a Matrix of left vs right, liberal vs conservative, all of us are on the divide, and that's the way it suppose
to be. You know I don't mean that, but that's what the Deep State has done to us, for a lack of a better description of their
evil unleashed upon the planet.
I like reading your thoughts, because you go kind of deep, and you come up with angles not thought of, well at least not by
me so forgive me if I reply to often. Joe
Annie , January 24, 2018 at 10:18 pm
I know I keep referring to Facebook, but it really allows you to see how polarized people have become. Facebook posts political
non issues, but nonetheless they will elicit comments that are downright hateful. Divide and conquer is something I often think
when I view these comments. I rarely watch TV, but enough to see how TV Talk Show hosts have gotten into the act, and Trump supplies
them with an endless source of material, not that their discussing core issues either.
I don't remember whether I mentioned this before in a recent article on this site, but when a cousin posts a response to a
comment I made about our militarism and how many millions have died as a result that all countries do sneaky and underhanded things,
I can only think people don't want to hear the truth either, and that's why most are so vulnerable to our propaganda, which is
we are the exceptional nation that can do no wrong. Those who are affluent want to maintain the status quo, and those that live
pay check to pay check are vulnerable to Trump's lies, and the lies of the Republican party whose interest lie with the top 1
percent.
Kiza , January 25, 2018 at 12:36 am
Talking about lies you mention only Trump and the Republicans Annie. Is this because the Democrats are such party of criminals
that you consider them worth mentioning only in the crime chronic not in the context of lies?
About that "Climate Change" religion of yours: how much does it make sense that people around US are freezing but TPTB still
want to tax fossil fuels, the only one thing which can keep people warm? Does that not look to your left-wing mind as taking
from the poor to give to the Green & Connected ? Will a wind-turbine or a solar-panel keep you warm on a -50 degree day? I
am yet to live to see one green-scheme which is not for the benefit of the Green & Connected, whilst this constant braying about
global warming renamed into climate change is simply as annoying as the crimes of the Israelis hidden by the media (Did you see
that photo of a 3-year old Palestinian child whose brain was splattered out by an Israeli sniper's bullet? She must have been
throwing stones or slapping Israeli soldiers, right?).
I am not a US voter and I do not care either way which color gang is running your horrible country, because it always turns
out the same. But the blatant criminality of your Demoncrats is only surpassed by their humanitarian sleaze – they always bomb,
kill and rape for the good of humanity or for the greenery or for some other touchy-feelly bull like that, which the left-wing
stupidos can swallow.
Annie , January 25, 2018 at 2:15 am
Oh, Kiza, are you one of those people that patrol the internet for people who dare mention climate change? I have no intentions
of changing your mind on the subject, even though my background is in environmental science with a Masters degree in the subject.
I am not a registered democrat, but an independent and didn't vote for Clinton, or Trump. I'm too much of a liberal. I'm very
aware of the many faults of the democratic party, and you're right about them. They abandoned their working class base decades
ago and they pretty much shun liberals within their own party, and pander to the top 10 percent in this country. Yes, both parties
proclaim their allegiance to their voting base, but both parties are lying, since in my opinion their base is the corporate world
and that world pretty much controls their agenda, and both parties have embraced the neocons that push for war.
P. S. However being fair, the Republican base is the top 1 percent in this country.
Kiza , January 25, 2018 at 6:46 am
Hello again Annie, thank you for your response. I must admit that your mention of climate change triggered an unhappy reaction
in me, otherwise I do think that our views are not far from each other. Thank you for not trying to change my mind on climate
change because you would not have succeeded no matter what your qualifications are. My life experience simply says – always follow
the money and when I do I see a climate mafia similar to the MIC mafia. I did think that the very cold weather that gripped US
would reduce the climate propaganda, but nothing can keep the climate mafia down any more – the high ranked need to pay for their
yachts and private jets and the low ranks have to pay of their house mortgages. But I will never understand why the US lefties
are so dumb – to be so easily taken to imperial wars and so easily convinced to tax the 99% for the benefit of 1% yet again. Where
do you think the nasty fossil fuel producers will find the money to pay for the taxes to be or already imposed? Will they sacrifice
their profits or pay the green taxes from higher prices?
Other than this, I honestly cannot see any difference between the so called Democrats and the so called Republicans (you say
that the Republicans are for the 1%). Both have been scrapping the bottom of the same barrel for their candidates, thus the elections
are always a contest between two disasters.
Sam F , January 25, 2018 at 7:02 am
Good that you both see the bipartisan corruption and can table background issues.
Joe Tedesky , January 25, 2018 at 9:09 am
Yeah Sam I was impressed by their conversation as well. Joe
Bob Van Noy , January 25, 2018 at 11:05 am
I agree, an excellent thread plus a civil disagreement. In my experience, only at CN. Thanks to all of you.
Realist , January 25, 2018 at 1:04 pm
I am with you, Annie, when you state that "They [the Democrats] abandoned their working class base decades ago and they pretty
much shun liberals within their own party, and pander to the top 10 percent in this country." And yet they are so glibly characterised
as "liberal" by nearly everyone in the media (and, of course, by the Republicans). Even the Nate Silver group, whom I used to
think was objective is propagating the drivel that Democrats have become inexorably more liberal–and to the extreme–in their latest
soireé analysing the two parties:
In reality, the Dems are only "liberal" in contrast to the hard right shift of the Republicans over the past 50-60 years. And
what was "extreme" for both parties is being sold to the public as moderate and conventional by the corporate media. It's almost
funny seeing so much public policy being knee-jerk condemned as "leftist" when the American left became extinct decades ago.
Virginia , January 25, 2018 at 12:16 pm
Annie, it's not just the Democrats who are bought and paid for.
Annie , January 25, 2018 at 2:54 pm
Virginia, I didn't say that only the democrats were bought and paid for, but said, " yes, both parties proclaim their allegiance
to their voting base, but both parties are lying, since in my opinion their base is the corporate world and that world pretty
much controls their agenda, and both parties have embraced the neocons that push for war." I also mentioned that the republicans
pander to the top 1 percent in this country.
Virginia , January 25, 2018 at 3:04 pm
And my reply was meant to say,
It's not just the Democrats who pander to the 1% who have bought and paid for them!
"... If the FBI keeps losing stuff they need to hire a security guard to keep it safe. Come on! Start charging these people with treason and this will stop!! ..."
"... I wonder what their plan is when they really have to arrest someone? lol It ain't gonna happen. Theatric, scripted politics. It's like a bad reality show. Compare criminal politics to the sitcom Gilligan's Island. They never get rescued, and criminal politicians never see jail time. ..."
If the FBI keeps losing stuff they need to hire a security guard to keep it safe. Come on!
Start charging these people with treason and this will stop!!
THERE ARE NO TEXTS MISSING!
DETECTIVES GET SEARCH WARRANTS FOR TEXT MESSAGES ALL THE TIME! WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE ANY
DIFFERENT!
I wonder what their plan is when they really have to arrest someone? lol It ain't gonna
happen. Theatric, scripted politics. It's like a bad reality show. Compare criminal politics
to the sitcom Gilligan's Island. They never get rescued, and criminal politicians never see
jail time.
"Institutionally, the Democratic Party Is Not Democratic"
Very apt characterization "the Democratic Party is nothing more
than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the
campaigns they run;" ... " after all, the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play
in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in
warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly
nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class"
Notable quotes:
"... That said, the revivification of the DNC lawsuit serves as a story hook for me to try to advance the story on the nature of political parties as such, the Democratic Party as an institution, and the function that the Democratic Party serves. I will meander through those three topics, then, and conclude. ..."
"... What sort of legal entity is ..."
"... Political parties were purely private organizations from the 1790s until the Civil War. Thus, "it was no more illegal to commit fraud in the party caucus or primary than it would be to do so in the election of officers of a drinking club." However, due to the efforts of Robert La Follette and the Progressives, states began to treat political parties as "public agencies" during the early 1890s and 1900s; by the 1920s "most states had adopted a succession of mandatory statutes regulating every major aspect of the parties' structures and operations. ..."
"... While 1787 delegates disagreed on when corruption might occur, they brought a general shared understanding of what political corruption meant. To the delegates, political corruption referred to self-serving use of public power for private ends, including, without limitation, bribery, public decisions to serve private wealth made because of dependent relationships, public decisions to serve executive power made because of dependent relationships, and use by public officials of their positions of power to become wealthy. ..."
"... Two features of the definitional framework of corruption at the time deserve special attention, because they are not frequently articulated by all modern academics or judges. The first feature is that corruption was defined in terms of an attitude toward public service, not in relation to a set of criminal laws. The second feature is that citizenship was understood to be a public office. The delegates believed that non-elected citizens wielding or attempting to influence public power can be corrupt and that elite corruption is a serious threat to a polity. ..."
"... You can see how a political party -- a strange, amphibious creature, public one moment, private the next -- is virtually optimized to create a phishing equilibrium for corruption. However, I didn't really answer my question, did I? I still don't know what sort of legal entity the Democratic Party is. However, I can say what the Democratic Party is not ..."
"... So the purpose of superdelegates is to veto a popular choice, if they decide the popular choice "can't govern." But this is circular. Do you think for a moment that the Clintonites would have tried to make sure President Sanders couldn't have governed? You bet they would have, and from Day One. ..."
"... More importantly, you can bet that the number of superdelegates retained is enough for the superdelegates, as a class, to maintain their death grip on the party. ..."
"... could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. ..."
"... That's exactly ..."
"... Functionally, the Democratic Party Is a Money Trough for Self-Dealing Consultants. Here once again is Nomiki Konst's amazing video, before the DNC: https://www.youtube.com/embed/EAvblBnXV-w Those millions! That's real money! ..."
"... Today, it is openly acknowledged by many members that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were running an operation together. In fact, it doesn't take much research beyond FEC filings to see that six of the top major consulting firms had simultaneous contracts with the DNC and HRC -- collectively earning over $335 million since 2015 [this figure balloons in Konst's video because she got a look at the actual budget]. (This does not include SuperPACs.) ..."
"... One firm, GMMB earned $236.3 million from HFA and $5.3 from the DNC in 2016. Joel Benenson, a pollster and strategist who frequents cable news, collected $4.1m from HFA while simultaneously earning $3.3 million from the DNC. Perkins Coie law firm collected $3.8 million from the DNC, $481,979 from the Convention fund and $1.8 million from HFA in 2016. ..."
"... It gets worse. Not only do the DNC's favored consultants pick sides in the primaries, they serve on the DNC boards so they can give themselves donor money. ..."
"... These campaign consultants make a lot more money off of TV and mail than they do off of field efforts. Field efforts are long-term, labor-intensive, high overhead expenditures that do not have big margins from which the consultants can draw their payouts. They also don't allow the consultants to make money off of multiple campaigns all in the same cycle, while media and mail campaigns can be done from their DC office for dozens of clients all at the same time. They get paid whether campaigns win or lose, so effectiveness is irrelevant to them. ..."
"... the Democratic Party is nothing more than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the campaigns they run; ..."
"... the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. ..."
"... the bottom line is that if Democratic Party controls ballot access for the forseeable future, they have to be gone through ..."
"... In retrospect, despite Sanders evident appeal and the power of his list, I think it would have been best if their faction's pushback had been much stronger ..."
An alert reader who is a representative of the class that's suing the DNC Services
Corporation for fraud in the 2016 Democratic primary -- WILDING et al. v. DNC SERVICES
CORPORATION et al., a.k.a. the "DNC lawsuit" -- threw some interesting mail over the transom;
it's from Elizabeth Beck of Beck & Lee, the firm that brought the case on behalf of the
(putatively) defrauded class (and hence their lawyer). Beck's letter reads in relevant
part:
"Institutionally, the Democratic Party Is Not Democratic"
Very apt characterization "the Democratic Party is nothing more
than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the
campaigns they run;" ... " after all, the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play
in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in
warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly
nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class"
Notable quotes:
"... That said, the revivification of the DNC lawsuit serves as a story hook for me to try to advance the story on the nature of political parties as such, the Democratic Party as an institution, and the function that the Democratic Party serves. I will meander through those three topics, then, and conclude. ..."
"... What sort of legal entity is ..."
"... Political parties were purely private organizations from the 1790s until the Civil War. Thus, "it was no more illegal to commit fraud in the party caucus or primary than it would be to do so in the election of officers of a drinking club." However, due to the efforts of Robert La Follette and the Progressives, states began to treat political parties as "public agencies" during the early 1890s and 1900s; by the 1920s "most states had adopted a succession of mandatory statutes regulating every major aspect of the parties' structures and operations. ..."
"... While 1787 delegates disagreed on when corruption might occur, they brought a general shared understanding of what political corruption meant. To the delegates, political corruption referred to self-serving use of public power for private ends, including, without limitation, bribery, public decisions to serve private wealth made because of dependent relationships, public decisions to serve executive power made because of dependent relationships, and use by public officials of their positions of power to become wealthy. ..."
"... Two features of the definitional framework of corruption at the time deserve special attention, because they are not frequently articulated by all modern academics or judges. The first feature is that corruption was defined in terms of an attitude toward public service, not in relation to a set of criminal laws. The second feature is that citizenship was understood to be a public office. The delegates believed that non-elected citizens wielding or attempting to influence public power can be corrupt and that elite corruption is a serious threat to a polity. ..."
"... You can see how a political party -- a strange, amphibious creature, public one moment, private the next -- is virtually optimized to create a phishing equilibrium for corruption. However, I didn't really answer my question, did I? I still don't know what sort of legal entity the Democratic Party is. However, I can say what the Democratic Party is not ..."
"... So the purpose of superdelegates is to veto a popular choice, if they decide the popular choice "can't govern." But this is circular. Do you think for a moment that the Clintonites would have tried to make sure President Sanders couldn't have governed? You bet they would have, and from Day One. ..."
"... More importantly, you can bet that the number of superdelegates retained is enough for the superdelegates, as a class, to maintain their death grip on the party. ..."
"... could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. ..."
"... That's exactly ..."
"... Functionally, the Democratic Party Is a Money Trough for Self-Dealing Consultants. Here once again is Nomiki Konst's amazing video, before the DNC: https://www.youtube.com/embed/EAvblBnXV-w Those millions! That's real money! ..."
"... Today, it is openly acknowledged by many members that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were running an operation together. In fact, it doesn't take much research beyond FEC filings to see that six of the top major consulting firms had simultaneous contracts with the DNC and HRC -- collectively earning over $335 million since 2015 [this figure balloons in Konst's video because she got a look at the actual budget]. (This does not include SuperPACs.) ..."
"... One firm, GMMB earned $236.3 million from HFA and $5.3 from the DNC in 2016. Joel Benenson, a pollster and strategist who frequents cable news, collected $4.1m from HFA while simultaneously earning $3.3 million from the DNC. Perkins Coie law firm collected $3.8 million from the DNC, $481,979 from the Convention fund and $1.8 million from HFA in 2016. ..."
"... It gets worse. Not only do the DNC's favored consultants pick sides in the primaries, they serve on the DNC boards so they can give themselves donor money. ..."
"... These campaign consultants make a lot more money off of TV and mail than they do off of field efforts. Field efforts are long-term, labor-intensive, high overhead expenditures that do not have big margins from which the consultants can draw their payouts. They also don't allow the consultants to make money off of multiple campaigns all in the same cycle, while media and mail campaigns can be done from their DC office for dozens of clients all at the same time. They get paid whether campaigns win or lose, so effectiveness is irrelevant to them. ..."
"... the Democratic Party is nothing more than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the campaigns they run; ..."
"... the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. ..."
"... the bottom line is that if Democratic Party controls ballot access for the forseeable future, they have to be gone through ..."
"... In retrospect, despite Sanders evident appeal and the power of his list, I think it would have been best if their faction's pushback had been much stronger ..."
An alert reader who is a representative of the class that's suing the DNC Services
Corporation for fraud in the 2016 Democratic primary -- WILDING et al. v. DNC SERVICES
CORPORATION et al., a.k.a. the "DNC lawsuit" -- threw some interesting mail over the transom;
it's from Elizabeth Beck of Beck & Lee, the firm that brought the case on behalf of the
(putatively) defrauded class (and hence their lawyer). Beck's letter reads in relevant
part:
Social order crumbles then the elite became detached from common people and distrusted by
them, as the US neoliberal elite now is. Trump elections were mostly semi-conscious protest
against the neoliberal elite which was symbolized by Hillary candidacy.
The problem with the article is that the author mixed liberalism and neoliberalism:
Liberalism and neoliberalism are opposite. Neoliberalism has nothing to do with Christianity. It
is, in essence, a Satan-worshiping cult ("greed is good"). The fact that it is dominant in the
USA and Western Europe suggests that we can talk about persecution of Christians under
neoliberalism.
That's why neoliberal elite resorted to Russophobia -- to rally the nation against the flag
and to hash the distrust with anti-Russian hysteria.
Notable quotes:
"... It has been observed many times that liberalism is mostly a secularized version of Christianity; there's a lot of truth to that. ..."
I disagree. The problems in liberalism didn't show up until now because most people in
liberal democratic countries took the Judeo-Christian moral framework for granted. If the human
rights (for example) that liberalism enshrines are something real, then they have to be
grounded in something transcendent. It has been observed many times that liberalism is
mostly a secularized version of Christianity; there's a lot of truth to that.
As I read Why Liberalism Failed , I take Deneen as saying that liberalism had to fail
because at its core it stands for liberating the individual from an unchosen obligation.
Ultimately, it forms consumers, not citizens.
I don't see Deneen airbrushing the good parts
of liberalism from history, but rather honing his critique on what he believes are its
structural flaws that make it unsustainable. His critique is strong, certainly, and I think
dead-on, in that he sees that liberalism cannot generate within itself the virtues it needs to
survive.
Deneen's critique is also matter-of-fact. Free markets are a core part of the liberal
democratic model, but given the globalized nature of the economy, and rapid technological
changes, we have to face the possibility that liberalism as we have understood it is inadequate
to provide for the good of workers left behind by these changes.
If we have neglected the moral order embedded within liberalism itself, on what basis can we
regain it? I keep going back to Adams's line about our Constitution is only good for a "moral
and religious people," because self-government by the people can only work for people who
possess the virtues to govern their own passions. This says to me that to perceive and to
achieve the virtues embedded within liberalism, one has to be oriented towards a sense that
there really are moral and religious truths beyond ourselves that bind our conduct.
Liberalism has degenerated into Justice Anthony Kennedy's famous line:
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning,
of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
I think most Americans today would not get what the problem is with that definition. You
can't support a governing order based on something that weak. That, I believe, is Patrick
Deneen's overall point.
"If prudence and temperance are synonyms for modesty and self-restraint – the rising
generation of Americans has utterly abandoned these values."
They are not synonyms. Prudence is appropriate concern for the future. It has nothing to
so with modesty. Temperance has to do with appropriate self-restraint. It is not
temperate to constrain oneself in a way that causes oneself senseless suffering. That is what
some conservatives are asking people who don't fit into traditional gender categories to
do.
I believe Brooks is more correct than Deneen. Robert Heinlein always made the point that
liberty was not compatible with ignorance and ineptitude. Rather, liberty and self-ownership
requires a certain level of competence. Competent people are capable of self-rule.
Incompetent people are not. The problem with Deneen's ideas is that they force the competent
people to surrender a certain measure of liberty and self-ownership in order to "accommodate"
and "fit in" with the less competent, and that is a trade off that people like myself will
never accept in a million years. In other words, Deneen does not speak for competent
individuals such as myself. Hence, his ideas could never work for the likes of myself.
I believe the only solution, and a partial one at that (there is no such thing as a
perfect solution as perfection does not exist in nature) is radical decentralization on a
global scale. I call this the "thousand state sovereignty" model or the "21st century
Westphalis". Some might even call it the "Snow Crash" scenario. This is where conventional
nation-states and institutions fade away and new ones based more on networks of individual
with common interests, objectives, and character traits form. The more competent members of
the human race, who have no need to give up classical liberalism and individual
self-ownership are able to form their own societies politically and culturally autonomous
from the rest of the human species. Other factions of humanity can do the same thing. Call it
"GTOW" on a global scale. Hence, the nation-state will decline in relative importance and the
city-state will come back into vogue.
I believe this is the ONLY pathway forward to a better world for everyone. It does have
the advantage of being a "positive-sum" solution, as most everyone gets what they want.
Positive-sum solutions are always superior to zero-sum solutions, which are really
negative-sum solutions.
Even John Locke, who is basically the father of liberalism, said that the state "need not
tolerate" atheism because a state cannot rely on enforcement mechanisms alone to ensure
proper civic behavior. A citizen must have a healthy fear of some form of divine retribution
as guarantor of his behavior. It's possible, of course, to develop some form of morality
based in natural reason that can ensure proper behavior, but I think Locke was onto something
in his exhortation that the law alone is not enough.
Based on Brooks's summary, Deenen appears to believe that people in ancient Greece, ancient
Rome, and medieval times were more virtuous than people are in contemporary America.
That is not a reasonable thing to think. Maybe people in contemporary America have
different vices than people did in past societies. But vice is part of the human condition,
and people in America have not stopped caring for virtue. We value the cardinal virtues of
prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance as much as ever (though our understanding of
what these virtues require has changed in some ways).
We also continue to value kindness, though Catholic teaching regards kindness as a
theological virtue. True, as religious adherence has declined, some have joined the cult of
Ayn Rand. But a culture of charity flourishes among secular people. Witness the growth of the
effective altruism movement.
The only traditional Christian virtues that are now widely rejected are those specifically
concerning religious belief and those that concerned sexual morality. Even if you think that
sexual purity is a virtue (I don't), regarding it as among the most important virtues has
never been reasonable.
As another writer somewhere wrote on the topic of Deneen's book (or perhaps it was a quote
from the book itself, I don't remember), liberalism has until now been surviving by spending
down the store of accumulated moral norms and civic mindedness that it inherited from its
pre-modern progenitors. But since it cannot replenish those stores, it is essentially
starving itself of that which it needs to survive. Eventually we (the people) will forget
those things, and as norms break down and social trust diminishes toward the point of
anarchy, we will beg for the state to step in and protect us from our fellow citizens. And
that is when liberalism will give way to authoritarianism in what I'm sure will be an irony
appreciated by almost no one when it actually happens.
I'm afraid our gracious host has affirmed David Brooks in the substance of Rod's stated
disagreement. The Judeo-Christian moral order is as good as any moral order, and better than
most in significant aspects. Its probably not the only one that would work, but if liberalism
is a secular version of Christianity, then Brooks is right.
As a critic of liberalism from the left, but a sadder and wiser adherent of constitutional
liberty after flirting in theory with Bolshevism, I think the word "liberal" is overplayed
here. Liberalism is a political expression of laissez-faire capitalism. The concept of
individual liberty, and the concept of ordered liberty, are not the exclusive province of
liberalism.
Colonel Bogey provides a modest case in point. He is an advocate of the divine right of
kings and monarchical superiority to any parliament the king may deign to authorize although
he comfortably enjoys the privileges of living in a federal republic that prohibits any
hereditary nobility. Colonel Bogey is no liberal, yet he is an enemy of the most viable
alternatives to liberalism.
Embedded within liberalism the the emancipation of the self from constraint. How do you
maintain tradition in such a culture?
The murderer is unregulated capitalism a la Ronald Reagan, just as Reagan was the murderer
of the Savings and Loans, a true Mr. Potter. If the only virtue is getting rich at the
expense of the general community, and only a few make it, what do faith, family, and
tradition have to do with it? Now if the union hall was a center of social life, not only for
you but for your entire family, and solidarity was woven into the fabric of your life, things
might be different.
Only certain selves are liberated from restraint by liberalism. It also, historically
speaking, involves the subordination of the employee to the employer, and the consumer to the
purveyor of shoddy goods at exorbitant prices. Which has a morally degrading effect on both
the dominant and the oppressed classes. The faux-left dismissal of the "working class," or to
indulge a politically correct euphemism, the "white working class," is just another variant
on the traditional class distinctions in liberalism.
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of
meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Nothing wrong with that statement, per se. The problem is overlooking that "one's own
concept" is not binding on anyone else, nor does a law of general application have to bend
and twist to accommodate each and every "own concept" every individual may have. Which is why
Lawrence was valid, Windsor plausible and Obergefell a terribly sloppy
application of generally valid constitutional principles.
The problem with Brooks is that he fails to realize that the things he treasures -- personal
virtue, community, self-restraint, temperance and so on -- are not actually creations of
liberalism, nor are they necessary products of it. To a large degree these came from the
pre-existing culture(s) that came to the US before the founding from non-liberal societies.
Included among these was, of course, Christianity as a prominent influence on values,
virtues, community and so on. Liberalism was draped over this, but it doesn't create this,
and none of this is inherent in liberalism. The liberal system in America has "free ridden"
on these inherited aspects, which stem from non-liberal sources, for pretty much the entire
history of the country. But they didn't come from liberalism.
The very things that Brooks values the most do not themselves come from liberalism, and it
is far from clear, particularly as Western liberalism reaches its particularly
illiberal/hegemonic phase culturally, actively seeking to strictly limit the permitted
influence of these things which glued the society together for most of our history but did
not stem from liberalism itself, that liberalism is the best system in which to preserve or
even practice these things moving forward. I think a part of Brooks's brain senses this, but
he is so committed to liberalism -- or at least so fearful of potential alternatives -- that
although he sees the problem (much of his column writing bemoans the loss of these things,
really), he can't really bring himself to see that liberalism is fundamentally indifferent as
to whether the things that David Brooks so cherishes fade into the mists of history
completely, so long as the absolute prioritization of individual freedom of action remains
paramount.
It's unfortunate, really, because it makes a lot of what he writes rather painful to read,
sadly.
"... Come on dude. I mean, I really like your stuff, but get with the times -- the U.S. is "owned" whole and complete. At the risk of repeating thy self; They've got a giant segment of the population duped into believing they live in a democracy, and some of them are just dumb enough to waste their time voting. ..."
"... America is like a religion -- you are required to "believe", because the reality is absent of any kind of deity. ..."
"... If only, Americans could get the kind of understanding of how the owners think of them -- contemptuous at best -- needed for certain tasks, but expendable if required -- basically, not well liked. Akin to a dirty, smelly employee that keeps showing up as not to get fired. ..."
to finally restore the sovereignty of the US to the people of the US
Come on dude. I mean, I really like your stuff, but get with the times -- the U.S. is
"owned" whole and complete. At the risk of repeating thy self; They've got a giant segment of
the population duped into believing they live in a democracy, and some of them are just dumb
enough to waste their time voting.
The owners throw the elected(owned prostitutes) officials a bone now and then, but that's
all they get. If there ever was a corporate house negro, Obama, and the rest of them are it,
and Trump has had his dumb ass neoconed from day one.
America is like a religion -- you are required to "believe", because the reality is
absent of any kind of deity.
If only, Americans could get the kind of understanding of how the owners think of them --
contemptuous at best -- needed for certain tasks, but expendable if required -- basically,
not well liked. Akin to a dirty, smelly employee that keeps showing up as not to get
fired.
Democracy in crisis? What democracy? There has not been a democracy for quite
some time. Matter of fact it turned into a corporate oligarchy ruled by them, Wall Street and
the Pentagon and not to forget Israel.
If Trump is messing with this so called democracy so be it. He is the bull walking through
the delicate china closet the shadow rulers have set up for a long time. He smashes most of all
those delicate dishes who really did not help the regular people at all. They were just there
on display as teasers. Well Trump is smashing things left and right. "Racism" is being so
overdone that it is becoming ridiculous and that real racism is still being hidden. Don't know
about Bannon, never cared or paid much attention to him nor Breitbart news.
But believe me democracy is not in crisis because of Trump. There had to be a real democracy
to begin with in order to be in crisis. What's in crisis is the two party system, the
oligarchy, the false prophets, the media and the exceptionalism of the USA. All good things to
have a crisis over and change things towards a new awakening.
● Republicans are top 25% of society who own 75% of wealth. ● Democrats are educated middle-class who own 25% of wealth. ● Working-poor are uneducated bottom 50% who refuse to vote until they stop getting shit
upon. see more
That is true if the election really reflected the will of the American people. But do our
elections do that?
Although we have all been indoctrinated into believing that we have the best democracy in
the world, do our elections really reflect what the people want? Even if we believe
the counting of votes to be accurate , we know that
many citizens are denied their right to vote by manipulation of the voting rolls, voter
intimidation, or the engineering of long lines.
But even if these issues are ignored, there is
the two-party system that makes it so easy for big money and in particular big media to
ensure that we do not get to choose from candidates that we would really want. A good step in
moving toward a multi-party system would be to adopt
some voting system that would encourage a multi-party system.
Democracy in America? We should work to give it a try.
It's a good point. You figure that, at best, maybe 60 or 70 per cent of voters
actually participate in an election. Then, out of that, it takes only 50%+1 to win. That means
that a seat can be won with as little as perhaps 35% of all voters casting ballots.
However, first-past-the-post vote calculations are not an absolute impediment to winning
elections. In Seattle, there is a socialist on the city council. In Minneapolis, another
socialist came extremely close to a win there also. And the example of Canada's CCF/NDP cannot
be ignored. All of these examples are in the context of first-past-the-post.
Now, I am firmly in favor of RCV. But we will probably only get RCV once the American Left
gets itself to a position of power where it can make that kind of reform reality. The duopoly
powers will not concede this to us gleefully, unless they see an opportunity to benefit from it
somehow, such as gaming the system somehow (maybe setting off competition on the Left to ensure
a win for the Right during a prolonged period of Rightwing solidarity as sometimes happens...
like right now). I urge people to learn about the rise of the NDP even if they do not believe
it to be a legitimate Left party (and there is plenty to support the impression that it has
drifted to the center, sadly). I urge people to closely and carefully the Sawant win in
Seattle. We can learn from these historical lessons.
We could be winning far more often and deeply if we just had something like RCV, like
Proportional Representation (PR). But we don't. And the fact we don't have them should be that
much more fuel for ignition. We must start winning. I always suggest starting at the bottom,
not the top, where the Left could make inroads far more easily than attempting heroic battles
with the duopoly at the highest levels of government. Over time, our presence would strengthen
and our local efforts would weave a strong fabric of regional and maybe federal parties.
Getting depressed by the unfairness of the electoral college should move us in efforts to
abolish it (and that is happening, btw). But at the same time, it should not be discouraging us
from doing sensible things, like organizing local campaigns, taking over city halls, disrupting
city planning departments and planning committees, and beginning to build what will one day
become a national presence.
Yes, we should definitely give democracy a try. And we could be trying, mostly, at the local
level with an eye toward eventual coalescence into more regional bodies of power. It has
been done, and we would be wise to examine thoroughly how it was done and how we could improve
that process.
Bannon's "far right Leninism" does not read well the first time, or the
second time, or as many times as I read and re-read that phrase. I wish writers for the Left
press would take the time to carefully proofread their own work before posting.
Yeah, I think I get what the author meant , but maybe it would have read more easily
if it had been written something like "the Bannon version of authoritarianism" (or whatever it
is the author precisely meant). It would have been clearer and not have appeared to conflate a
rather Leftish ideology with some form of RW extremism.
"... The reception of God's mercy in dependent upon a person's acknowledgement of his sins, Pope Francis said Wednesday, because "the proud person is unable to receive forgiveness." ..."
"... "What can the Lord give to those whose hearts are full of themselves and their own success?" the Pope asked the thousands of pilgrims gathered in the Vatican for his General Audience . "Nothing, because the presumptuous person is unable to receive forgiveness, since he is full of his supposed justice." ..."
The reception of God's mercy in dependent upon a person's acknowledgement of his sins,
Pope Francis said Wednesday, because "the proud person is unable to receive
forgiveness."
"What can the Lord give to those whose hearts are full of themselves and their own success?"
the Pope asked the thousands of pilgrims gathered in the Vatican for his General
Audience . "Nothing, because the presumptuous person is unable to receive forgiveness,
since he is full of his supposed justice."
The Pope called to mind Jesus's parable of the Pharisee and the
publican, where only the publican, or tax collector, receives forgiveness for his sins and
returns home justified.
"Those who are aware of their own miseries and lower their eyes with humility, feel the
merciful gaze of God resting on them," Francis said. "We know from experience that only those
who can acknowledge their faults and ask forgiveness receive the understanding and pardon of
others."
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
"... Stop right there. Rather than the generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning? ..."
"... Not "paranoid" but "PNAC" as in PNAC manifesto for world domination and control ..."
"... "It is plainly obvious that the Neocons are now back in total control of the White House, Congress and the US corporate media. Okay, maybe things are still not quite as bad as if Hillary had been elected, but they are bad enough to ask whether a major war is now inevitable next year." ..."
"... "Rather than generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?" ..."
"... A point that cannot be made often enough, IMO. Trump is the Republican Bill Clinton. ..."
"... Maybe it's time for Americans to admit that their quadrennial Mr. America contest amounts to little more than a "suck Satan's c *** " audition for the deep state, and that the contestants have no qualms about getting on their knees. It is far more comforting to believe that "your" guy was subverted after the (s)election, but that's not how it actually works. ..."
"... I'm imagining a bumper sticker with Trump's laughing face and a sad-looking deplorable in a baseball cap, with the caption "Bait and Switch- the American Way." Someone also once suggested "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." ..."
"Not only has the swamp easily, quickly and totally drowned Trump "
Stop right there. Rather than the generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to
at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?
"Furthermore, the Trump Administration now has released a National Security Strategy which clearly show that the Empire
is in 'full paranoid' mode."
Not "paranoid" but "PNAC" as in PNAC manifesto for world domination and control.
"It is plainly obvious that the Neocons are now back in total control of the White House, Congress and the US corporate
media. Okay, maybe things are still not quite as bad as if Hillary had been elected, but they are bad enough to ask whether a
major war is now inevitable next year."
Maybe Trump was the "deep state" candidate of choice? Maybe that's why they ran Clinton against him rather than the more electable
Sanders? Maybe that's why Obama started ramping up tensions with Russia in the early fall of 2016 – so as to swing the election
to Trump (by giving the disgruntled anti-war Sanders voters a false choice between Trump or war with Russia?
"Rather than generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider
the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?"
A point that cannot be made often enough, IMO. Trump is the Republican Bill Clinton.
Maybe it's time for Americans to admit that their quadrennial Mr. America contest amounts to little more than a "suck Satan's
c *** " audition for the deep state, and that the contestants have no qualms about getting on their knees. It is far more comforting
to believe that "your" guy was subverted after the (s)election, but that's not how it actually works.
I'm imagining a bumper sticker with Trump's laughing face and a sad-looking deplorable in a baseball cap, with the caption
"Bait and Switch- the American Way." Someone also once suggested "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers."
"... ' Anti-populism' is the simple ruling class formula for covering-up their real agenda, which is pro-militarist, pro-imperialist (globalization), pro-'rebels' (i.e. mercenary terrorists working for regime change), pro crisis makers and pro-financial swindlers. ..."
"... The economic origins of ' anti-populism' are rooted in the deep and repeated crises of capitalism and the need to deflect and discredit mass discontent and demoralize the popular classes in struggle. By demonizing ' populism', the elites seek to undermine the rising tide of anger over the elite-imposed wage cuts, the rise of low-paid temporary jobs and the massive increase in the reserve army of cheap immigrant labor to compete with displaced native workers. ..."
"... Demonization of independent popular movements ignores the fundamental programmatic differences and class politics of genuine populist struggles compared with the contemporary right-wing capitalist political scarecrows and clowns. ..."
"... The anti-populist ideologues label President Trump a 'populist' when his policies and proposals are the exact opposite. Trump champions the repeal of all pro-labor and work safety regulation, as well as the slashing of public health insurance programs while reducing corporate taxes for the ultra-elite. ..."
"... The media's ' anti-populists' ideologues denounce pro-business rightwing racists as ' populists' . In Italy, Finland, Holland, Austria, Germany and France anti-working class parties are called ' populist' for attacking immigrants instead of bankers and militarists. ..."
"... In other words, the key to understanding contemporary ' anti-populism' is to see its role in preempting and undermining the emergence of authentic populist movements while convincing middle class voters to continue to vote for crisis-prone, austerity-imposing neo-liberal regimes. ' Anti-populism' has become the opium (or OxyContin) of frightened middle class voters. ..."
Throughout the US and European corporate and state media, right and left, we are told that ' populism' has become
the overarching threat to democracy, freedom and . . . free markets. The media's ' anti-populism' campaign has been
used and abused by ruling elites and their academic and intellectual camp followers as the principal weapon to distract,
discredit and destroy the rising tide of mass discontent with ruling class-imposed austerity programs, the accelerating
concentration of wealth and the deepening inequalities.
We will begin by examining the conceptual manipulation of ' populism' and its multiple usages. Then we will turn
to the historic economic origins of populism and anti-populism. Finally, we will critically analyze the contemporary movements
and parties dubbed ' populist' by the ideologues of ' anti-populism' .
Conceptual Manipulation
In order to understand the current ideological manipulation accompanying ' anti-populism ' it is necessary to
examine the historical roots of populism as a popular movement.
Populism emerged during the 19 th and 20 th century as an ideology, movement and government in
opposition to autocracy, feudalism, capitalism, imperialism and socialism. In the United States, populist leaders led agrarian
struggles backed by millions of small farmers in opposition to bankers, railroad magnates and land speculators. Opposing
monopolistic practices of the 'robber barons', the populist movement supported broad-based commercial agriculture, access
to low interest farm credit and reduced transport costs.
In 19 th century Russia, the populists opposed the Tsar, the moneylenders and the burgeoning commercial
elites.
In early 20 th century India and China, populism took the form of nationalist agrarian movements seeking
to overthrow the imperial powers and their comprador collaborators.
In Latin America, from the 1930s onward, especially with the crises of export regimes, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia
and Peru, embraced a variety of populist, anti-imperialist governments. In Brazil, President Getulio Vargas's term (1951-1954)
was notable for the establishment of a national industrial program promoting the interests of urban industrial workers
despite banning independent working class trade unions and Marxist parties. In Argentina, President Juan Peron's first
terms (1946-1954) promoted large-scale working class organization, advanced social welfare programs and embraced nationalist
capitalist development.
In Bolivia, a worker-peasant revolution brought to power a nationalist party, the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement
(MNR), which nationalized the tin mines, expropriated the latifundios and promoted national development during its rule
from 1952-1964.
In Peru, under President Velasco Alvarado (1968-1975), the government expropriated the coastal sugar plantations
and US oil fields and copper mines while promoting worker and agricultural cooperatives.
In all cases, the populist governments in Latin America were based on a coalition of nationalist capitalists, urban
workers and the rural poor. In some notable cases, nationalist military officers brought populist governments to power.
What they had in common was their opposition to foreign capital and its local supporters and exporters ('compradores'),
bankers and their elite military collaborators. Populists promoted 'third way' politics by opposing imperialism on the
right, and socialism and communism on the left. The populists supported the redistribution of wealth but not the expropriation
of property. They sought to reconcile national capitalists and urban workers. They opposed class struggle but supported
state intervention in the economy and import-substitution as a development strategy.
Imperialist powers were the leading anti-populists of that period. They defended property privileges and condemned nationalism
as 'authoritarian' and undemocratic. They demonized the mass support for populism as 'a threat to Western Christian civilization'.
Not infrequently, the anti-populists ideologues would label the national-populists as 'fascists' . . . even as they won
numerous elections at different times and in a variety of countries.
The historical experience of populism, in theory and practice, has nothing to do with what today's ' anti-populists'
in the media are calling ' populism' . In reality, current anti-populism is still a continuation of anti-communism
, a political weapon to disarm working class and popular movements. It advances the class interest of the ruling class.
Both 'anti's' have been orchestrated by ruling class ideologues seeking to blur the real nature of their 'pro-capitalist'
privileged agenda and practice. Presenting your program as 'pro-capitalist', pro-inequalities, pro-tax evasion and pro-state
subsidies for the elite is more difficult to defend at the ballot box than to claim to be ' anti-populist' .
' Anti-populism' is the simple ruling class formula for covering-up their real agenda, which is pro-militarist,
pro-imperialist (globalization), pro-'rebels' (i.e. mercenary terrorists working for regime change), pro crisis makers
and pro-financial swindlers.
The economic origins of ' anti-populism' are rooted in the deep and repeated crises of capitalism and the
need to deflect and discredit mass discontent and demoralize the popular classes in struggle. By demonizing ' populism',
the elites seek to undermine the rising tide of anger over the elite-imposed wage cuts, the rise of low-paid temporary
jobs and the massive increase in the reserve army of cheap immigrant labor to compete with displaced native workers.
Historic 'anti-populism' has its roots in the inability of capitalism to secure popular consent via elections. It reflects
their anger and frustration at their failure to grow the economy, to conquer and exploit independent countries and to finance
growing fiscal deficits.
The Amalgamation of Historical Populism with the Contemporary Fabricated Populism
What the current anti-populists ideologues label ' populism' has little to do with the historical movements.
Unlike all of the past populist governments, which sought to nationalize strategic industries, none of the current movements
and parties, denounced as 'populist' by the media, are anti-imperialists. In fact, the current ' populists' attack
the lowest classes and defend the imperialist-allied capitalist elites. The so-called current ' populists' support
imperialist wars and bank swindlers, unlike the historical populists who were anti-war and anti-bankers.
Ruling class ideologues simplistically conflate a motley collection of rightwing capitalist parties and organizations
with the pro-welfare state, pro-worker and pro-farmer parties of the past in order to discredit and undermine the burgeoning
popular multi-class movements and regimes.
Demonization of independent popular movements ignores the fundamental programmatic differences and class politics
of genuine populist struggles compared with the contemporary right-wing capitalist political scarecrows and clowns.
One has only to compare the currently demonized ' populist' Donald Trump with the truly populist US President
Franklin Roosevelt, who promoted social welfare, unionization, labor rights, increased taxes on the rich, income redistribution,
and genuine health and workplace safety legislation within a multi-class coalition to see how absurd the current media
campaign has become.
The anti-populist ideologues label President Trump a 'populist' when his policies and proposals are the exact
opposite. Trump champions the repeal of all pro-labor and work safety regulation, as well as the slashing of public health
insurance programs while reducing corporate taxes for the ultra-elite.
The media's ' anti-populists' ideologues denounce pro-business rightwing racists as ' populists' . In Italy, Finland,
Holland, Austria, Germany and France anti-working class parties are called ' populist' for attacking immigrants instead
of bankers and militarists.
In other words, the key to understanding contemporary ' anti-populism' is to see its role in preempting and undermining
the emergence of authentic populist movements while convincing middle class voters to continue to vote for crisis-prone,
austerity-imposing neo-liberal regimes. ' Anti-populism' has become the opium (or OxyContin) of frightened middle class
voters.
The anti-populism of the ruling class serves to confuse the 'right' with the 'left'; to sidelight the latter and promote
the former; to amalgamate rightwing 'rallies' with working class strikes; and to conflate rightwing demagogues with popular
mass leaders.
Unfortunately, too many leftist academics and pundits are loudly chanting in the 'anti-populist' chorus. They have failed
to see themselves among the shock troops of the right. The left ideologues join the ruling class in condemning the corporate
populists in the name of 'anti-fascism'. Leftwing writers, claiming to 'combat the far-right enemies of the people'
, overlook the fact that they are 'fellow-travelling' with an anti-populist ruling class, which has imposed savage cuts
in living standards, spread imperial wars of aggression resulting in millions of desperate refugees- not immigrants
–and concentrated immense wealth.
The bankruptcy of today's ' anti-populist' left will leave them sitting in their coffee shops, scratching at
fleas, as the mass popular movements take to the streets!
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
"... Stop right there. Rather than the generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning? ..."
"... Not "paranoid" but "PNAC" as in PNAC manifesto for world domination and control ..."
"... "It is plainly obvious that the Neocons are now back in total control of the White House, Congress and the US corporate media. Okay, maybe things are still not quite as bad as if Hillary had been elected, but they are bad enough to ask whether a major war is now inevitable next year." ..."
"... "Rather than generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?" ..."
"... A point that cannot be made often enough, IMO. Trump is the Republican Bill Clinton. ..."
"... Maybe it's time for Americans to admit that their quadrennial Mr. America contest amounts to little more than a "suck Satan's c *** " audition for the deep state, and that the contestants have no qualms about getting on their knees. It is far more comforting to believe that "your" guy was subverted after the (s)election, but that's not how it actually works. ..."
"... I'm imagining a bumper sticker with Trump's laughing face and a sad-looking deplorable in a baseball cap, with the caption "Bait and Switch- the American Way." Someone also once suggested "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." ..."
"Not only has the swamp easily, quickly and totally drowned Trump "
Stop right there. Rather than the generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to
at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?
"Furthermore, the Trump Administration now has released a National Security Strategy which clearly show that the Empire
is in 'full paranoid' mode."
Not "paranoid" but "PNAC" as in PNAC manifesto for world domination and control.
"It is plainly obvious that the Neocons are now back in total control of the White House, Congress and the US corporate
media. Okay, maybe things are still not quite as bad as if Hillary had been elected, but they are bad enough to ask whether a
major war is now inevitable next year."
Maybe Trump was the "deep state" candidate of choice? Maybe that's why they ran Clinton against him rather than the more electable
Sanders? Maybe that's why Obama started ramping up tensions with Russia in the early fall of 2016 – so as to swing the election
to Trump (by giving the disgruntled anti-war Sanders voters a false choice between Trump or war with Russia?
"Rather than generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider
the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?"
A point that cannot be made often enough, IMO. Trump is the Republican Bill Clinton.
Maybe it's time for Americans to admit that their quadrennial Mr. America contest amounts to little more than a "suck Satan's
c *** " audition for the deep state, and that the contestants have no qualms about getting on their knees. It is far more comforting
to believe that "your" guy was subverted after the (s)election, but that's not how it actually works.
I'm imagining a bumper sticker with Trump's laughing face and a sad-looking deplorable in a baseball cap, with the caption
"Bait and Switch- the American Way." Someone also once suggested "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers."
"... 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]
"... 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]
"... Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common good ..."
"... Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare. ..."
Gessen felt
that the Russiagate gambit would flop, given a lack of smoking-gun evidence and sufficient
public interest, particularly among Republicans.
Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that
ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common
good : racism, voter suppression (which may well have
elected Trump , by the way), health care, plutocracy, police- and prison-state-ism,
immigrant rights, economic exploitation and inequality, sexism and environmental ruination --
you know, stuff like that.
Some of the politically engaged populace noticed the problem early on. According to the
Washington political journal The Hill , last
summer ,
Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding
message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the
Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried
about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and
healthcare.
Here we are now, half a year later, careening into a dystopian holiday season. With his
epically low approval rating of 32 percent
, the orange-tinted bad grandpa in the Oval Office has won a viciously regressive tax bill that
is widely rejected by the populace. The bill was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress
whose current
approval rating stands at 13 percent. It is a major legislative victory for the
Republicans, a party whose approval rating fell to an all-time
low of 29 percent at the end of September -- a party that tried to send a child molester to
the U.S. Senate.
"... Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common good ..."
"... Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare. ..."
Gessen felt
that the Russiagate gambit would flop, given a lack of smoking-gun evidence and sufficient
public interest, particularly among Republicans.
Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that
ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common
good : racism, voter suppression (which may well have
elected Trump , by the way), health care, plutocracy, police- and prison-state-ism,
immigrant rights, economic exploitation and inequality, sexism and environmental ruination --
you know, stuff like that.
Some of the politically engaged populace noticed the problem early on. According to the
Washington political journal The Hill , last
summer ,
Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding
message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the
Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried
about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and
healthcare.
Here we are now, half a year later, careening into a dystopian holiday season. With his
epically low approval rating of 32 percent
, the orange-tinted bad grandpa in the Oval Office has won a viciously regressive tax bill that
is widely rejected by the populace. The bill was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress
whose current
approval rating stands at 13 percent. It is a major legislative victory for the
Republicans, a party whose approval rating fell to an all-time
low of 29 percent at the end of September -- a party that tried to send a child molester to
the U.S. Senate.
"... The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most successful public relations campaign in modern history. ..."
"... Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of uneducated mob rule. For the so-called "founding fathers," the masses were not only incapable of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the "subordination" so necessary for politics. ..."
"... When the eminent members of the landowning class met in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than "the filth of the common sewers" by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new constitution provided for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves -- meaning the overwhelming majority of the population -- were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators, and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President. ..."
"... It is in this context that Patrick Henry flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: "it is not a democracy." George Mason further clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as "a despotic aristocracy." ..."
"... When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a "democracy," there were no significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this is the third point, the use of the term "democracy" to refer to an oligarchic republic simply meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. ..."
"... Slowly but surely, the term "democracy" came to be used as a public relations term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the people or demos . Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare. ..."
"... In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its contemporary "democratic" publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly insist that a structural aristocracy is a "democracy" because the latter is defined by the guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections (procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained power over the governing of their lives. ..."
"... To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been, a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power. Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically elected. ..."
"... It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in America's Deadliest Export: Democracy , grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries, attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries, and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. ..."
One of the most steadfast beliefs regarding the United States is that it is a democracy.
Whenever this conviction waivers slightly, it is almost always to point out detrimental
exceptions to core American values or foundational principles. For instance, aspiring critics
frequently bemoan a "loss of democracy" due to the election of clownish autocrats, draconian
measures on the part of the state, the revelation of extraordinary malfeasance or corruption,
deadly foreign interventions, or other such activities that are considered undemocratic
exceptions . The same is true for those whose critical framework consists in always juxtaposing
the actions of the U.S. government to its founding principles, highlighting the contradiction
between the two and clearly placing hope in its potential resolution.
The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy
because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to
confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous
rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for
themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most
successful public relations campaign in modern history.
What will be seen, however, if this record is soberly and methodically inspected, is that a
country founded on elite, colonial rule based on the power of wealth -- a plutocratic colonial
oligarchy, in short -- has succeeded not only in buying the label of "democracy" to market
itself to the masses, but in having its citizenry, and many others, so socially and
psychologically invested in its nationalist origin myth that they refuse to hear lucid and
well-documented arguments to the contrary.
To begin to peel the scales from our eyes, let us outline in the restricted space of this
article, five patent reasons why the United States has never been a democracy (a more sustained
and developed argument is available in my book, Counter-History of the Present
).
To begin with, British colonial expansion into the Americas did not occur in the name of the
freedom and equality of the general population, or the conferral of power to the people. Those
who settled on the shores of the "new world," with few exceptions, did not respect the fact
that it was a very old world indeed, and that a vast indigenous population had been living
there for centuries. As soon as Columbus set foot, Europeans began robbing, enslaving and
killing the native inhabitants. The trans-Atlantic slave trade commenced almost immediately
thereafter, adding a countless number of Africans to the ongoing genocidal assault against the
indigenous population. Moreover, it is estimated that over half of the colonists who came to
North America from Europe during the colonial period were poor indentured servants, and women
were generally trapped in roles of domestic servitude. Rather than the land of the free and
equal, then, European colonial expansion to the Americas imposed a land of the colonizer and
the colonized, the master and the slave, the rich and the poor, the free and the un-free. The
former constituted, moreover, an infinitesimally small minority of the population, whereas the
overwhelming majority, meaning "the people," was subjected to death, slavery, servitude, and
unremitting socio-economic oppression.
Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and
establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the
contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of
European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of
uneducated mob rule. For the so-called "founding fathers," the masses were not only incapable
of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly
necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if
the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the
"subordination" so necessary for politics.
When the eminent members of the landowning class met
in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to
establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than "the filth of
the common sewers" by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new constitution provided
for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to
vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves -- meaning the
overwhelming majority of the population -- were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators
were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators,
and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President.
It is in this context that Patrick Henry
flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: "it is not a democracy." George Mason further
clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as "a despotic
aristocracy."
When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a "democracy," there were no
significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this
is the third point, the use of the term "democracy" to refer to an oligarchic republic simply
meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. This began
around the time of "Indian killer" Andrew Jackson's presidential campaign in the 1830s.
Presenting himself as a 'democrat,' he put forth an image of himself as an average man of the
people who was going to put a halt to the long reign of patricians from Virginia and
Massachusetts. Slowly but surely, the term "democracy" came to be used as a public relations
term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the
people or demos . Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel
slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare.
In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its
oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its
contemporary "democratic" publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly
insist that a structural aristocracy is a "democracy" because the latter is defined by the
guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections
(procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative
understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained
power over the governing of their lives.
However, even this hollow definition dissimulates the
extent to which, to begin with, the supposed equality before the law in the United States
presupposes an inequality before the law by excluding major sectors of the population: those
judged not to have the right to rights, and those considered to have lost their right to rights
(Native Americans, African-Americans and women for most of the country's history, and still
today in certain aspects, as well as immigrants, "criminals," minors, the "clinically insane,"
political dissidents, and so forth). Regarding elections, they are run in the United States as
long, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in which the candidates and issues are
pre-selected by the corporate and party elite. The general population, the majority of whom do
not have the right to vote or decide not to exercise it, are given the "choice" -- overseen by
an undemocratic electoral college and embedded in a non-proportional representation scheme --
regarding which member of the aristocratic elite they would like to have rule over and oppress
them for the next four years. "Multivariate analysis indicates," according to
an important recent study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, "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 [ ], but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy."
To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been,
a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power.
Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were
democratically elected.
It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in
America's
Deadliest Export: Democracy , grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries,
attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries,
and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. The record on the home front is
just as brutal. To take but one significant parallel example, there is ample evidence that the
FBI has been invested in a covert war against democracy. Beginning at least in the 1960s, and
likely continuing up to the present, the Bureau "extended its earlier clandestine operations
against the Communist party, committing its resources to undermining the Puerto Rico
independence movement, the Socialist Workers party, the civil rights movement, Black
nationalist movements, the Ku Klux Klan, segments of the peace movement, the student movement,
and the 'New Left' in general" ( Cointelpro: The FBI's Secret War on
Political Freedom , p. 22-23).
Consider, for instance, Judi Bari's summary of its assault
on the Socialist Workers Party: "From 1943-63, the federal civil rights case Socialist Workers
Party v. Attorney General documents decades of illegal FBI break-ins and 10 million pages of
surveillance records. The FBI paid an estimated 1,600 informants $1,680,592 and used 20,000
days of wiretaps to undermine legitimate political organizing."
"... The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most successful public relations campaign in modern history. ..."
"... Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of uneducated mob rule. For the so-called "founding fathers," the masses were not only incapable of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the "subordination" so necessary for politics. ..."
"... When the eminent members of the landowning class met in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than "the filth of the common sewers" by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new constitution provided for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves -- meaning the overwhelming majority of the population -- were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators, and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President. ..."
"... It is in this context that Patrick Henry flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: "it is not a democracy." George Mason further clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as "a despotic aristocracy." ..."
"... When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a "democracy," there were no significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this is the third point, the use of the term "democracy" to refer to an oligarchic republic simply meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. ..."
"... Slowly but surely, the term "democracy" came to be used as a public relations term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the people or demos . Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare. ..."
"... In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its contemporary "democratic" publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly insist that a structural aristocracy is a "democracy" because the latter is defined by the guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections (procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained power over the governing of their lives. ..."
"... To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been, a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power. Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically elected. ..."
"... It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in America's Deadliest Export: Democracy , grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries, attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries, and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. ..."
One of the most steadfast beliefs regarding the United States is that it is a democracy.
Whenever this conviction waivers slightly, it is almost always to point out detrimental
exceptions to core American values or foundational principles. For instance, aspiring critics
frequently bemoan a "loss of democracy" due to the election of clownish autocrats, draconian
measures on the part of the state, the revelation of extraordinary malfeasance or corruption,
deadly foreign interventions, or other such activities that are considered undemocratic
exceptions . The same is true for those whose critical framework consists in always juxtaposing
the actions of the U.S. government to its founding principles, highlighting the contradiction
between the two and clearly placing hope in its potential resolution.
The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy
because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to
confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous
rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for
themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most
successful public relations campaign in modern history.
What will be seen, however, if this record is soberly and methodically inspected, is that a
country founded on elite, colonial rule based on the power of wealth -- a plutocratic colonial
oligarchy, in short -- has succeeded not only in buying the label of "democracy" to market
itself to the masses, but in having its citizenry, and many others, so socially and
psychologically invested in its nationalist origin myth that they refuse to hear lucid and
well-documented arguments to the contrary.
To begin to peel the scales from our eyes, let us outline in the restricted space of this
article, five patent reasons why the United States has never been a democracy (a more sustained
and developed argument is available in my book, Counter-History of the Present
).
To begin with, British colonial expansion into the Americas did not occur in the name of the
freedom and equality of the general population, or the conferral of power to the people. Those
who settled on the shores of the "new world," with few exceptions, did not respect the fact
that it was a very old world indeed, and that a vast indigenous population had been living
there for centuries. As soon as Columbus set foot, Europeans began robbing, enslaving and
killing the native inhabitants. The trans-Atlantic slave trade commenced almost immediately
thereafter, adding a countless number of Africans to the ongoing genocidal assault against the
indigenous population. Moreover, it is estimated that over half of the colonists who came to
North America from Europe during the colonial period were poor indentured servants, and women
were generally trapped in roles of domestic servitude. Rather than the land of the free and
equal, then, European colonial expansion to the Americas imposed a land of the colonizer and
the colonized, the master and the slave, the rich and the poor, the free and the un-free. The
former constituted, moreover, an infinitesimally small minority of the population, whereas the
overwhelming majority, meaning "the people," was subjected to death, slavery, servitude, and
unremitting socio-economic oppression.
Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and
establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the
contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of
European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of
uneducated mob rule. For the so-called "founding fathers," the masses were not only incapable
of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly
necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if
the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the
"subordination" so necessary for politics.
When the eminent members of the landowning class met
in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to
establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than "the filth of
the common sewers" by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new constitution provided
for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to
vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves -- meaning the
overwhelming majority of the population -- were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators
were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators,
and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President.
It is in this context that Patrick Henry
flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: "it is not a democracy." George Mason further
clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as "a despotic
aristocracy."
When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a "democracy," there were no
significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this
is the third point, the use of the term "democracy" to refer to an oligarchic republic simply
meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. This began
around the time of "Indian killer" Andrew Jackson's presidential campaign in the 1830s.
Presenting himself as a 'democrat,' he put forth an image of himself as an average man of the
people who was going to put a halt to the long reign of patricians from Virginia and
Massachusetts. Slowly but surely, the term "democracy" came to be used as a public relations
term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the
people or demos . Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel
slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare.
In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its
oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its
contemporary "democratic" publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly
insist that a structural aristocracy is a "democracy" because the latter is defined by the
guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections
(procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative
understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained
power over the governing of their lives.
However, even this hollow definition dissimulates the
extent to which, to begin with, the supposed equality before the law in the United States
presupposes an inequality before the law by excluding major sectors of the population: those
judged not to have the right to rights, and those considered to have lost their right to rights
(Native Americans, African-Americans and women for most of the country's history, and still
today in certain aspects, as well as immigrants, "criminals," minors, the "clinically insane,"
political dissidents, and so forth). Regarding elections, they are run in the United States as
long, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in which the candidates and issues are
pre-selected by the corporate and party elite. The general population, the majority of whom do
not have the right to vote or decide not to exercise it, are given the "choice" -- overseen by
an undemocratic electoral college and embedded in a non-proportional representation scheme --
regarding which member of the aristocratic elite they would like to have rule over and oppress
them for the next four years. "Multivariate analysis indicates," according to
an important recent study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, "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 [ ], but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy."
To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been,
a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power.
Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were
democratically elected.
It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in
America's
Deadliest Export: Democracy , grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries,
attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries,
and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. The record on the home front is
just as brutal. To take but one significant parallel example, there is ample evidence that the
FBI has been invested in a covert war against democracy. Beginning at least in the 1960s, and
likely continuing up to the present, the Bureau "extended its earlier clandestine operations
against the Communist party, committing its resources to undermining the Puerto Rico
independence movement, the Socialist Workers party, the civil rights movement, Black
nationalist movements, the Ku Klux Klan, segments of the peace movement, the student movement,
and the 'New Left' in general" ( Cointelpro: The FBI's Secret War on
Political Freedom , p. 22-23).
Consider, for instance, Judi Bari's summary of its assault
on the Socialist Workers Party: "From 1943-63, the federal civil rights case Socialist Workers
Party v. Attorney General documents decades of illegal FBI break-ins and 10 million pages of
surveillance records. The FBI paid an estimated 1,600 informants $1,680,592 and used 20,000
days of wiretaps to undermine legitimate political organizing."
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.
"... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
"... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
"... Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles. ..."
"... This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency ..."
"... But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong. ..."
"... Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences. ..."
"... Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely. ..."
Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens
to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled
The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program ,
which should be read with the current book.)
The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix
Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has
been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the
only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible
the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.
Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place
by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama
administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step
to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald
Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the
same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to
remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at
his unreviewable discretion.
Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as
their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided.
After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert
constitutional order.
As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June
2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions
within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such
as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."
Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels
of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a
revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally."
Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book
of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.
Hating the US
There also must be the realization that our "national security" apparatchiks - principally but
not solely the CIA - have served to exponentially increase the numbers of those people who hate the
US.
Some of these people turn to terrorism as an expression of that hostility. Anyone who is at all
familiar with the CIA and Al Qaeda knows that the CIA has been Al Qaeda's most important "combat
multiplier" since 9/11, and the CIA can be said to have birthed ISIS as well with the mistreatment
of incarcerated Iraqi men in US prisons in Iraq.
Indeed, by following the model of the Phoenix Program, the CIA must be seen in the Twenty-first
Century as a combination of the ultimate "Murder, Inc.," when judged by the CIA's methods such as
drone warfare and its victims; and the Keystone Kops, when the multiple failures of CIA policies
are considered. This is not to make light of what the CIA does, but the CIA's misguided policies
and practices have served to generate wrath, hatred and violence against Americans, which we see
manifested in cities such as San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and Boston.
Pointing out the harm to Americans is not to dismiss the havoc that Americans under the influence
of the CIA have perpetrated on foreign populations. But "morality" seems a lost virtue today in the
US, which is under the influence of so much militaristic war propaganda that morality no longer enters
into the equation in determining foreign policy.
In addition to the harm the CIA has caused to people around the world, the CIA works tirelessly
at subverting its own government at home, as was most visible in the spying on and subversion of
the torture investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The subversion of democracy
also includes the role the CIA plays in developing and disseminating war propaganda as "information
warfare," upon the American people. This is what the Rand Corporation under the editorship of Zalmay
Khalilzad has described as "conditioning the battlefield," which begins with the minds of the American
population.
Douglas Valentine discusses and documents the role of the CIA in disseminating pro-war propaganda
and disinformation as complementary to the violent tactics of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Valentine
explains that "before Phoenix was adopted as the model for policing the American empire, many US
military commanders in Vietnam resisted the Phoenix strategy of targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style
'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police."
Military Commanders considered that type of program a flagrant violation of the Law of War. "Their
main job is to zap the in-betweeners – you know, the people who aren't all the way with the government
and aren't all the way with the Viet Cong either. They figure if you zap enough in-betweeners, people
will begin to get the idea," according to one quote from The Phoenix Program referring to
the unit tasked with much of the Phoenix operations.
Nazi Influences
Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to "Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and
Gestapo-style secret police" is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each. Both programs
were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form
of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the "enemy." Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the
Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German "Security Warfare" as practiced in
World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is
defined as anyone who is "potentially" a threat, deemed either "partizans" or terrorists.
That the Germans included entire racial categories in that does not change the underlying logic,
which was, anyone deemed an internal enemy in a territory in which their military operated had to
be "neutralized" by any means necessary. The US military and the South Vietnamese military governments
operated under the same principles but not based on race, rather the perception that certain areas
and villages were loyal to the Viet Cong.
This repressive doctrine was also not unique to the Nazis in Europe and the US military in Vietnam.
Similar though less sophisticated strategies were used against the American Indians and by the imperial
powers of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, including by the US in its newly acquired
territories of the Philippines and in the Caribbean. This "imperial policing," i.e., counterinsurgency,
simply moved to more manipulative and, in ways, more violent levels.
That the US drew upon German counterinsurgency doctrine, as brutal as it was, is well documented.
This is shown explicitly in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
entitled German Counterinsurgency Revisited by Charles D. Melson. He wrote that in 1942, Nazi commander
Heinrich Himmler named a deputy for "anti-bandit warfare," (Bevollmachtigter fur die Bandenkampfung
im Osten), SS-General von dem Bach, whose responsibilities expanded in 1943 to head all SS and police
anti-bandit units and operations. He was one of the architects of the Einsatzguppen "concept of anti-partisan
warfare," a German predecessor to the "Phoenix Program."
'Anti-Partisan' Lessons
It wasn't a coincidence that this "anti-partisan" warfare concept should be adopted by US forces
in Vietnam and retained to the present day. Melson pointed out that a "post-war German special forces
officer described hunter or ranger units as 'men who knew every possible ruse and tactic of guerrilla
warfare. They had gone through the hell of combat against the crafty partisans in the endless swamps
and forests of Russia.'"
Consequently, "The German special forces and reconnaissance school was a sought after posting
for North Atlantic Treaty Organization special operations personnel," who presumably included members
of the newly created US Army Special Forces soldiers, which was in part headquartered at Bad Tolz
in Germany, as well as CIA paramilitary officers.
Just as with the later Phoenix Program to the present-day US global counterinsurgency, Melson
wrote that the "attitude of the [local] population and the amount of assistance it was willing to
give guerilla units was of great concern to the Germans. Different treatment was supposed to be accorded
to affected populations, bandit supporters, and bandits, while so-called population and resource
control measures for each were noted (but were in practice, treated apparently one and the same).
'Action against enemy agitation' was the psychological or information operations of the
Nazi
period. The Nazis believed that, 'Because of the close relationship of guerilla warfare
and politics, actions against enemy agitation are a task that is just as important as interdiction
and combat actions. All means must be used to ward off enemy influence and waken and maintain a clear
political will.'"
This is typical of any totalitarian system – a movement or a government – whether the process
is characterized as counterinsurgency or internal security. The idea of any civilian collaboration
with the "enemy" is the basis for what the US government charges as "conspiracy" in the Guantanamo
Military Commissions.
Valentine explains the Phoenix program as having been developed by the CIA in 1967 to combine
"existing counterinsurgency programs in a concerted effort to 'neutralize' the Vietcong infrastructure
(VCI)." He explained further that "neutralize" meant "to kill, capture, or make to defect." "Infrastructure"
meant civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Central to the Phoenix
program was that its targets were civilians, making the operation a violation of the Geneva Conventions
which guaranteed protection to civilians in time of war.
"The Vietnam's War's Silver Lining: A Bureaucratic Model for Population Control Emerges" is the
title of Chapter 3. Valentine writes that the "CIA's Phoenix program changed how America fights its
wars and how the public views this new type of political and psychological warfare, in which civilian
casualties are an explicit objective." The intent of the Phoenix program evolved from "neutralizing"
enemy leaders into "a program of systematic repression for the political control of the South Vietnamese
people. It sought to accomplish this through a highly bureaucratized system of disposing of people
who could not be ideologically assimilated." The CIA claimed a legal basis for the program in "emergency
decrees" and orders for "administrative detention."
Lauding Petraeus
Valentine refers to a paper by David Kilcullen entitled Countering Global Insurgency. Kilcullen
is one of the so-called "counterinsurgency experts" whom General David Petraeus gathered together
in a cell to promote and refine "counterinsurgency," or COIN, for the modern era. Fred Kaplan, who
is considered a "liberal author and journalist" at Slate, wrote a panegyric to these cultists entitled,
The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. The purpose of this
cell was to change the practices of the US military into that of "imperial policing," or COIN, as
they preferred to call it.
But Kilcullen argued in his paper that "The 'War on Terrorism'" is actually a campaign to counter
a global insurgency. Therefore, Kilcullen argued, "we need a new paradigm, capable of addressing
globalised insurgency." His "disaggregation strategy" called for "actions to target the insurgent
infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix
program."
He went on, "Contrary to popular mythology, this was largely a civilian aid and development program,
supported by targeted military pacification operations and intelligence activity to disrupt the Viet
Cong Infrastructure. A global Phoenix program (including the other key elements that formed part
of the successful Vietnam CORDS system) would provide a useful start point to consider how Disaggregation
would develop in practice."
It is readily apparent that, in fact, a Phoenix-type program is now US global policy and - just
like in Vietnam - it is applying "death squad" strategies that eliminate not only active combatants
but also civilians who simply find themselves in the same vicinity, thus creating antagonisms that
expand the number of fighters.
Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's
own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they
are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news
articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions
of the articles.
The Bloody Reality
One "sanitized" article - approved for release in 2011 - is a partially redacted New Times article
of Aug. 22, 1975, by Michael Drosnin. The article recounts a story of a US Army counterintelligence
officer "who directed a small part of a secret war aimed not at the enemy's soldiers but at its civilian
leaders." He describes how a CIA-directed Phoenix operative dumped a bag of "eleven bloody ears"
as proof of six people killed.
The officer, who recalled this incident in 1971, said, "It made me sick. I couldn't go on with
what I was doing in Vietnam. . . . It was an assassination campaign . . . my job was to identify
and eliminate VCI, the Viet Cong 'infrastructure' – the communist's shadow government. I worked directly
with two Vietnamese units, very tough guys who didn't wear uniforms . . . In the beginning they brought
back about 10 percent alive. By the end they had stopped taking prisoners.
"How many VC they got I don't know. I saw a hell of a lot of dead bodies. We'd put a tag on saying
VCI, but no one really knew – it was just some native in black pajamas with 16 bullet holes."
This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters,"
and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded
that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever
sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000
were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution,
with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI.
Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that
Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, as Mr. Valentine
writes.
A second article archived by the CIA was by the Christian Science Monitor, dated Jan. 5, 1971,
describing how the Saigon government was "taking steps that could help eliminate one of the most
glaring abuses of its controversial Phoenix program, which is aimed against the Viet Cong political
and administrative apparatus." Note how the Monitor shifted blame away from the CIA and onto the
South Vietnamese government.
But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted
"in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist
offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging
trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed
to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong.
Yet "security committees" throughout South Vietnam, under the direction of the CIA, sentenced
at least 10,000 "Class C civilians" to prison each year, far more than Class A and B combined. The
article stated, "Thousands of these prisoners are never brought to court trial, and thousands of
other have never been sentenced." The latter statement would mean they were just held in "indefinite
detention," like the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other US detention centers with high levels
of CIA involvement.
Not surprisingly to someone not affiliated with the CIA, the article found as well that "Individual
case histories indicate that many who have gone to prison as active supporters of neither the government
nor the Viet Cong come out as active backers of the Viet Cong and with an implacable hatred of the
government." In other words, the CIA and the COIN enthusiasts are achieving the same results today
with the prisons they set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
CIA Crimes
Valentine broadly covers the illegalities of the CIA over the years, including its well-documented
role in facilitating the drug trade over the years. But, in this reviewer's opinion, his most valuable
contribution is his description of the CIA's participation going back at least to the Vietnam War
in the treatment of what the US government today calls "unlawful combatants."
"Unlawful combatants" is a descriptive term made up by the Bush administration to remove people
whom US officials alleged were "terrorists" from the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions
and Human Rights Law and thus to justify their capture or killing in the so-called "Global War on
Terror." Since the US government deems them "unlawful" – because they do not belong to an organized
military structure and do not wear insignia – they are denied the "privilege" of belligerency that
applies to traditional soldiers. But – unless they take a "direct part in hostilities" – they would
still maintain their civilian status under the law of war and thus not lose the legal protection
due to civilians even if they exhibit sympathy or support to one side in a conflict.
Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers
and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving
of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals.
But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality
of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences.
This is not to condemn all CIA officers, some of whom acted in good faith that they were actually
defending the United States by acquiring information on a professed enemy in the tradition of Nathan
Hale. But it is to harshly condemn those CIA officials and officers who betrayed the United States
by subverting its Constitution, including waging secret wars against foreign countries without a
declaration of war by Congress. And it decidedly condemns the CIA war criminals who acted as a law
unto themselves in the torture and murder of foreign nationals, as Valentine's book describes.
Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly,
that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language:
Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has
been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership
entirely.
Douglas Valentine's book is a thorough documentation of that fact and it is essential reading
for all Americans if we are to have any hope for salvaging a remnant of representative government.
Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November
2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office
of Military Commissions. This originally appeared at
ConsortiumNews.com .
"... 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
"... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
"... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
A good friend passed along an
article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely
Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible
- even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that
America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends
roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.
Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the
Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing
an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from
the sales of weaponry to the army.
As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said:
War is a racket
. Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity.
In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile,
the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.
But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North
Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia?
North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:
#1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler
all learned that lesson the hard way).
#2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract
the people from their parlous existence.
#3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America,
at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would
be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria
Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore
needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers
their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.
We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or
artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated
versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion
on the shiny new and
under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting
vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy,
yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.
The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much
more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.
Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are
ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and
moral) bankruptcy.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years
at military and civilian schools and blogs at
Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected]. Reprinted
from Bracing Views with the author's permission.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
